Advantages And Disadvantages Of Euthanasia

More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their

Firstly, people who choose to end their life due to a terminal illness are freeing hospital beds and resources for other patients who have a chance of getting better, or wish to continue living. Such resources can be used to research the disease which the terminally ill patient was suffering from, which can be to the benefit of future patients with that disease. Most importantly, euthanasia relieves the patient from a slow, painful death, depending on their illness. Although pain medications can be used to ease the pain the patients are experiencing, most of these medications have unpleasant side effects. Someone who wishes to be relieved of their life due to a life crippling illness should be granted their wish and should not have to suffer further. With this in mind, euthanasia is a procedure which should be offered to

As Gerrit Kimsma, Associate Professor in Medical Philosophy claims, “Assisting death in no way precludes giving the best palliative care possible but rather integrates compassionate care and respect for the patient’s autonomy and ultimately makes death with dignity a real option.” This explains how euthanasia doesn't prevent terminally ill patients from receiving the best palliative care and rather shows compassionate care and allows the patients to die with dignity. As Merrill Matthews, Director, Council for Affordable Health Insurance says, “Even though the various elements that make up the American healthcare system are becoming more circumspect in ensuring that money is not wasted, the cap that marks a zero-sum healthcare system is largely absent in the United States… Considering the way we finance healthcare in the United States, it would be hard to make a case that there is a financial imperative compelling us to adopt physician-assisted suicide in an effort to save money so that others could benefit…” This explains the financial benefits that euthanasia would have on the American healthcare system, allowing money to be spent on those that are desperately in

Euthanasia should be legalized because doing so would have positive economic impacts particularly on patients. According to Saaty and Vargas, the costs associated with terminal care and those that result from hospitalization would reduce if patients get the chance to opt for euthanasia (252). It is stated that “approximately 80% of a patient’s lifetime

Pereira). Euthanasia is also beneficial for our economy. Back to the palliative care option, it is in fact very expensive to pay for the funding for this type of care. Life.org states that “Healthcare funding allocations, shortages of beds and nursing staff, as well as an increasing elderly population in the future, will undoubtedly influence policy makers and doctors to look at euthanasia as a means of cost containment.” The fear of becoming a financial burden on loved ones is just one of the reasons why “right to die” advocates believe euthanasia should be legal. And I agree, the pros of physician assisted suicide outweigh the cons. Economic cutbacks in health spending pose a major threat to those who are medically disadvantaged. If assisted suicide or euthanasia became legal, once the public had been de-sensitised to the whole idea, it would then increasingly become a method of cutting costs for health care providers. Besides the economic benefits, this practice is beneficial to human sanity. The modern world is still full of sufferings and pain. Present diseases, very often incurable, make people’s life intolerable, steal the sense of life and create a strong will to die. Even with the rapid development of medicine, not everyone can have the possibility to save their life or to relieve their pain. Jack Kevorkian says that “dying is not a

If the treatment of a dying patient continues, the prices would keep going up and up. If the patient were allowed to die, it would save the family several thousand dollars. The patient would have to be tended to on a daily basis. It has been estimated that this care would cost about 2,000 to 10,000 dollars per month (LoneStar). In total, the cost for the treatment and care of the dying patient can reach up to $35,000 to $40,000 at least while the cost for the lethal drugs is only $35 (Life). Not only would Euthanasia save the family money, it would also make the taxpayer money be spent on better things than a dying person. According to Leeson, Medicare spends at least a quarter of their money on end-of-life care, which could be spent on other people (Live Action News). If the money is to be spent, why not spend it on organ transplants instead of a person who is going to inevitably die. If the dying person does euthanasia, there will be less money spent on their care and more money spent on other, more important things. For instance, in Oregon, Medicaid goes ahead and pays for the drugs for euthanasia instead of paying for the unnecessary care, thus saving taxpayer money (Live Action News). Basically, instead of the family having to pay for it, medicare can pay for it so that the family isn’t in debt because of treatment taking place that didn’t need

(Young, 1996) Euthanasia has been the subject of both moral, religious, philosophical, legal and human right’s arguments for a number of years. In the modern day usage, euthanasia has come to imply that someone’s life is ended for compassionate reasons by passive or active steps taken by another person.

The first argument for legalising euthanasia indicates to autonomy and fundamental right. Life is extremely precious and must be protected but not at any circumstances, like, a patient who is suffering from physical pain cause of terminal ill and wishing to eradicate from the endless pain. It is a fundamental right to everyone to make decision about those things are momentous to us, like, how we die (Short, 2016). Therefore, many supporters of euthanasia perceive that everyone has the right to control their body and life, and should be free to decide at what time, and in which manner they will die (Brooks,

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, can legally help end terminally ill patients lives if they have no chance of getting better, so they are not forced to be in pain anymore. Not only is the patient suffering but the family is as well. Some people don’t have the money to keep giving their loved ones treatment to make them feel better. Not only this, but there is no point of giving the loved one treatment if they have no chance of getting better. In the United States there are only a few states that legalized euthanasia. Some of these states are Washington, Oregon, Colorado, California, Vermont, Montana, and DC. This is a really controversial topic still and the laws are so different country to country, like the Netherlands and Belgium.

In a sense, euthanasia has been one of the most controversial and debated topics to ever arise in medicine. Euthanasia is defined as the intentional, painless killing by act or omission of a dependent human being suffering from an incurable disease or irreversible coma (King, 2016). Although the practice is still illegal in many areas, it is becoming more accepted, legal, and decriminalized in many parts of the United States. In majority of cases, the termination is carried out at the person's request, but there are times when they may be too ill or not in their right mind, and it is left to close relatives to make the decision. Euthanasia directly affects autonomy, which is a patient's right to make his own decision regarding his own life (Lachman, 2010). It is also important to be able to identify the different types of euthanasia, because it is not as simple as just "terminating a life." It is much more difficult that the previous definitions leads on. It can be done in several different ways, each with their own defining characteristics, and issues can arise from every one of them. Euthanasia, also known as patient assisted suicide or "mercy killing" has many pros, cons, morality concerns, and legal issues that directly impact the future of the practice.

Euthanasia has been a moral issue since around the 5th century B.C. in Ancient Greece. However, it has only recently become a much more controversial and widespread issue. Euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Today, many people disagree with euthanasia; however, even some who disagree with it still support an alternate form, called physician-assisted suicide or dying. Physician-assisted death is the voluntary administration of lethal drugs varying from pills, to injections, to breathing in toxic gas, all of which is painless. So, what’s the problem? Do we, or do we not have the right to die?

Euthanasia is largely contested and debated because many people in society deem it does not fit with their idea of how they should behave and believe (Botton, 2000). The main debate within the issue of euthanasia is that the individual is able to understand their own experiences (Mills, 1959) and they are capable to interpret the value of those experiences (Kymlicka, 2002) in a manner which constitutes them being able to make major decisions involving the future of their life. Unfortunately due to almost all of the individuals that wish to be euthanised having serious and terminal illnesses, they are not able to freely choose how they want to live their life, and are constantly being penalised by society (Kymlicka, 2002). Some people see the issue of euthanasia a public issue, in which the value of life is threatened for the community, many see it as a private trouble for the individual (Mills, 1959). Currently euthanasia is legal in only four countries while assisted suicide is legal in four more and five US states, while debate about the legalisation in other countries, such as Australia is non-existent. This gives a sense of marginalisation to those whose wish to practice euthanasia and their families, which in tern leads to a lack of involvement in society (Mills, 1959). The choice to end ones life

The argument against the notion of human euthanasia suggests that life is sacred and endurance of suffering is part life. In the article “The Economist: The Right to Die” suggests that individuals have the right to death rather than suffering a painful journey to death. Religious biases and culture heavily influenced my argument against human euthanasia. Although, I have not been able to experience extreme forms of diseases and physical impairments such as terminal cancer, being quadriplegic, or even having third degree burns on 90% of my body. In most of the circumstances mentioned, individuals suggest that the quality of life is not worth living and death is a far better option. Although euthanasia can be perceived as a better option for certain individuals, there are concerns revolving around this notion. Medical assistance can get very costly, especially for lower income families. There exists the risk of sick patients from lower income families being susceptible to exploitation by “rogue doctors, grasping relatives, miserly insurers or cash strapped states” (The Right to Die 1). Another major concern to be taken into account is the idea that the sick and elderly have a duty to die. The notion that “the remaining goal in life is not to be a burden to their loved ones” (The Duty to Die versus The Duty to Stay Alive 1) and save family members from pain and economic constraints is tragic. It is this notion in particular that leaves patients vulnerable and in turn stain the pursuit of death. External factors such as economic, family and social constraints should not be deciding factors to choosing

Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.

Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, has been a controversial issue for many years. It usually involves ending a patient’s life early to relieve their illness. Most of the controversy stemmed from personal values like ethics or religion. The euthanasia debate puts a huge emphasis on what doctors should do for their patients and how much a person’s life is worth. Supporters of euthanasia primarily focus on cost and pain alleviation. Opponents of euthanasia tend to focus on morality. Whether euthanasia is legal or not could significantly affect future generations’ attitudes about death. Euthanasia should be legalized nationally because it helps patients that could be in unimaginable pain, offers more options for more people, and it is relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives.