An Argument for Euthanasia Essay

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

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

Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death.

Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

Upon providing the information related to the argument at hand, the author shares some insight as to how these views came about. Euthanasia

Euthanasia, in today’s world, is a word with opposing meanings. Originally, it meant “a good death” (Leming & Dickinson, 2016). Since the legalization of euthanasia around the world in the early 1990’s, the meaning has changed. Several pro-euthanasia sites would call it a humane and peaceful way to end the dying process, by either stopping the course of treatment or the use of lethal doses of medications (Leming & Dickinson, 2016). Con-euthanasia activists are most concerned about the slippery slope idea, being euthanasia is only a half-way house to legalizing murder (Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org, 2016). When discussing a topic so sensitive as death, an invisible line appears between a right way and a wrong way to die. By the end of this paper, the hope is to have an educated discussion regarding some social and political inquiries surrounding euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide.

There continues to be a lack of consensus in regards to the legalization and implication of euthanasia. The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938 to help educate people on why this process should be legalized (Wells 1284). Through the society, ordinary citizens could learn about all the advantages and disadvantages. The society tries to educate the ill on all of the options that they have in regards to the end of life treatment. Also when medicine can no longer help someone the person should have the right to end their life and alleviate their pain (Diaconescu 474). It should be up to the patient to decide if they are ready to die or if they want to put up a fight to survive. However, if the patient is in a coma or brain dead, family members and doctors should look at the advanced directives that the patient has given. In some cases, patients do not want to be kept alive if a machine is breathing for them (Meisel and Cerminara 2859). The patient should be able to have a choice in the quality of life that they want to live. Another argument is that people believe that church and state should be separate in hospitals as well. Patients do not want doctors being influenced by their religious beliefs when practicing medicine (Sharp, Carr, and Macdonald 275). The legalization of euthanasia shows to have many benefits for the families and patients that are suffering. Also with

One main argument for Euthanasia is a Utilitarian one. Utilitarians believe that any action should cause the

I support euthanasia from the perspective of both having personal autonomy and maximizing my personal happiness of having an element of control. I also want to state that I oppose the medical field and its acceptance of passive euthanasia. Through research for this paper I have come to believe that passive euthanasia creates unnecessary suffering and therefore I feel is not as morally permissible as active euthanasia. The belief of letting nature run its course is absurd to me when we have the means to minimize or even eliminate suffering all together. The fact that physicians and family members are fine with withholding food and water to hasten death through infection or the patient dies of mal-nutrition is cruel to me. The fact that active

Humans, like all animals, attempt to evade death. Though death is usually seen as an unwanted end, some see it as an alternative to suffering. Most people cringe at the thought of suicide, but is euthanasia the same thing? Do human beings have the right to choose death?

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.

    America’s founding fathers declared that every person had certain inalienable rights they are born with and cannot be separated from. They listed citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today's government must decide if a right to life equates to a right to death.

Most adults diagnosed with cancer undergo years of treatment in attempts to cure that cancer. However, sometimes these treatments may not work, or the cancer is found too late in a patient to be stopped, and a patient’s cancer can be determined terminal, which means that the cancer can not be cured and will lead to death. If cancer is determined terminal, end-of-life care can be administered patients to control lasting pains, including shortness of breath, nausea, and constipation. However, this treatment does not cure the cancer, and will not prevent death in a terminally ill cancer patient. In some cases, patients decide that receiving end-of-life treatment is not worth it if the treatment does not prevent death. Terminally ill cancer patients may also continue to experience unbearable suffering, despite end-of-life treatments, as it is not always effective. These factors may push some terminally ill cancer patients to request to be actively euthanized. Active euthanasia is the merciful ending of a patient’s life through a single act, such as an injection. Terminally ill cancer patients should have the right to determine if they are actively euthanized. However, only patients who consider their suffering unbearable should have the right to be euthanized.

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.