Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

Physician assisted suicide is “the voluntary termination of one’s own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician” (“Medical Definition of Physician-Assisted…”). Throughout the years, assisted suicide has been a slippery slope for Americans to accept, therefore, making individuals believe this practice is murder while nations across the world have been carrying this out well before the United States planted their hands on the idea. On that account, euthanasia is only legal in six different states, while it is strictly illegal in the other 44 because of the racking up reasons individuals have implanted in their brains (“State-by-State…”). Every person has a specific outlook on mercy killing, although, physician assisted suicide is a patient's given right if they are terminally ill.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are never acceptable acts of mercy. They always gravely exploit the suffering and desperate, extinguishing life in the name of the ‘quality of life’ itself. - Pope john Paul

Euthanasia as one of the ongoing controversies emanating from its diverse definitions has been debated since the mankind came up with the idea of ending one’s life for different purposes. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary fully defines euthanasia as the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy (“Euthanasia”). Similar to euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide would be the act of taking one’s life purposely, with the aid of a physician (McDougall 1). Depending on the patient’s consent, euthanasia may be voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary. Patient’s consent qualifies the practice as voluntary; it may be non-voluntary

In 1997, Oregon passed The Oregon Death With Dignity Act, which became the first law to permit physician-assisted suicide. Since then, six other states in the U.S. have joined Oregon. The topic debates that assisted death goes against religion and that it devalues human life. Many churches will tell people that if anyone commits suicide, that person will be condemned to hell. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) stated, “The movement to legalize euthanasia does not enhance freedom or self-determination because many of those fighting to kill themselves are depressed and need treatment or may be unduly influenced by familial, societal, or institutional pressures to end their lives. Furthermore, one cannot enhance human freedom and dignity by devaluing human life, the bishops explain” (“Euthanasia Devalues Human”). However, that’s far from the truth, people that choose assisted death have one hundred percent control of the whole process. Because most of the country doesn’t fully agree with physician-assisted death, it continues to be very controversial.

The fact that physician aided death is not legal throughout the United States is a violation of our rights. Legalizing PAD would allow citizens to exercise their right to their own lives and own choices (Mercier 4). When assisted death is illegal, it is taking away the principle of self-determination, a right that everyone should be allowed to have. The illegalization of PAD is also unethical. In cases where assisted death is an option, the patients are terminal patients, usually in unbearable pain. For example, Paul Chamberlin, a man who lived in the UK, where assisted death is illegal. Paul had Motor Neuron Disease, and in his last weeks, could not walk, or be without a ventilator. Although Paul had mentioned wanting to die a peaceful death, this could only happen if he went to Switzerland where PAD is legal. Because of his condition, that was not a possibility. After weeks of living in pain Paul committed suicide. If assisted death would have been legal, the family of Paul Chamberlin never would have had to deal with the insane grief that they must have felt, and Paul

When a person commits an act of euthanasia he believes the present existence is so bad that the person would be better off dead or believes that until he intervenes and ends her life, it will progress to be so bad that she would feel better off dead. Euthanasia is the act of assisted

Euthanasia has been around for a long time. In 1990 every state had laws that made assisting suicide a felony. Assisted suicide been in the news since the 1990s. A supporter of euthanasia Dr. Jack Kevorkian played an important role in more than 100 suicides before he was charged with murder. In Oregon voters passed the death with dignity act in 1994, but a lawsuit blocked its enforcement until 1997, when it went into effect. The consideration of potential harms is relevant because it’s deciding whether euthanasia should be legal or decriminalized. Some people are against euthanasia because they believe that taking one's life is immoral or against religion. Assisted suicide can be against because

Euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide is legal in only seven states in the United States. There are two types of euthanasia passive and active; active is the more controversial one. Active euthanasia is when a doctor prescribes a medication that will end the patient’s life whereas passive is the doctor withholding any further treatment to the patient (Nordqvist). Euthanasia is only an option to a patient who has a prognosis of six months or less to live. Active euthanasia should only be legal when multiple board certified doctors agree to the patient’s decision and it is absolutely necessary to be a choice in cases where there is no treatment. The reason euthanasia is illegal in majority of the United States is that many people believe that it should be illegal due to personal beliefs and values. However, everyone does not share the same beliefs and it should be based on the patient’s decision and their doctor’s approval. A sound-minded person with a prognosis of an inevitable death should not be forced to live out the rest of their life in pain and should have the right to die in peace.

Should a person have the right to decide when to end their fate and suffering? The medical term is called Euthanasia, which is the decision of a patient to end their life by demanding doctors to cease life support in a hospital. Also known as Physician aid in dying or assisted suicide, Euthanasia is considered illegal in most states within the United States with an exception of Oregon, Vermont, California, Colorado, Washington, Montana (Court Ruling) and the District of Columbia, according to CNN. With opposing views from liberals and religious conservatives, euthanasia has certainly been a controversial topic. Optimistic people believe the patient has the right to decide when to die, terminally ill patients face excruciating pain and it isn’t morally correct to leave the world in pain. However, religious concerns have been a huge argument against PAD, traditionalists believe there is only God that can end one’s life. Each argument has it’s own benefits but in an evolving world, Should euthanasia be considered legal? A hospital consists of limited resources, therefore it makes us question if these resources should be utilized on a patient who is soon to die or has no desire to live. Who is the government or a facility to decide the fate of patient who is clearly suffering? With the right to die, limited resources within a hospital, religious concerns, government involvement in end-of-life decisions, and healthcare implications, Euthanasia or Physician Assisted Suicide should be made legal within all of the United States.

Is there a real moral difference between killing and letting die? It seems inevitable that killing someone is far worse than letting them die. We often let people die without truly realizing the impact we are having. For example, if you fail to give blood (due to moral reasons, medical reasons, or whatever it may be), you are potentially letting someone die that may be in dire need of blood. Now, it is your right to choose not to donate blood, I am not going to argue that, but say our duty to aid others is more vital than we naturally assume. If that is the case, then how do our views affect matters such as euthanasia and assisted suicide? Many people believe that euthanasia is permissible (since it allows a terminally ill patient control on when they die and it does not pointlessly prolong their suffering), but at the same time believe killing patients is impermissible. It is argued that in passive euthanasia, the cause of death is the underlying disease, but in active euthanasia it is the physician. That is why active euthanasia is said to be worse. Personally, I find killing far worse than letting die. ADD THESIS

Anthony Bland spent three years in a "persistent vegetative state" before the court finally granted his wish to die, 70-year-old Mrs. Boyes' was so ill that she "screamed like a dog" whenever someone touched her. Nancy Cruzan, lost control of her car one day and suffered serious injuries from which she would never recover, she was a spastic quadriplegic who suffered "permanent muscle and tendon damage." (Docker 3) All of these people had the same wish, they all wished to no longer experience pain and suffering, some people don’t believe in euthanasia and physicians suicide because of religious reasons, or because it can be considered "unethical." However, in most cases it is actually more humane, rather than making people suffer from an incurable disease that they are never going to recover from. Euthanasia and physicians assisted suicide should be legalized because it relieves suffering, it would prevent the patients from committing suicide themselves, it is less painful for not only the patient but also their loved ones both financially and emotionally, reassures people that there is another way out and they don’t have to die a painful death, and would prevent many court battels.

The issue of euthanasia is a very emotional subject for most people. When deciding on whether it should or should not be legalized, people must look at the correct definition of euthanasia which is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.” It is crucial to weigh each side of this issue to gain appropriate knowledge and understanding of what it truly means to use euthanasia. It is important to examine the problems and outcomes of this debatable issue. Although the subject of euthanasia has two sides, a compromise can be reached by putting safeguards in place to make sure these terminal patient’s rights are protected, and they are not abused by giving them complete power and knowledge to make this life changing decision.

    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.