Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

Note: For the purpose of this writing I will focus only on active euthanasia with regard to the terminally ill.

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.

Physician-Assisted Suicide has always been a topic of great debate among individuals. Not only a contemporary issue, assisted-suicide, or euthanasia, has been practiced since the time of ancient Greeks and Romans; physicians often participated in the suicide of their patients for merciful reasons (Kopelman and De Ville 1). Euthanasia, which means “good death”, had a broader meaning than what we use it for today. According to Manning, it was “essential that death be met in a psychologically balanced state of mind, under composed circumstances, in a condition of self-control” (6). In other words, it was the manner in which one died rather than the method death was delivered that was important to the Greeks and Romans. Euthanasia did not have the negative stigma that suicide had attached to it, rather, it was advocated for by the ancients, granted that it was done for the right reasons.

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.

Grey’s Anatomy fans may remember an episode in season six in which there was a patient that was grappling with terminal lung cancer, she then decided that she wanted to end her life. Not by jumping off a bridge or shooting herself, but by a lethal injection. She asked her doctor, Teddy if she would sign off, but the rule with physician aided suicide is that you need two signatures. This caused conflict in the hospital between moral values and ethics. Over the past few decades, assisted death has been a debate in the government. Is it murder? Is it ethically ok? In today’s world, the controversy of physician aided death (PAD) is a problem that should be decided on once and for all.

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

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

Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the stronger argument.

The term Euthanasia is quite a hot debate these days, even back in last century. People consider this as a process where people choose to end their lives with no physical pain by ingesting a pill, which also known mercy killing and assisted suicide. Due to the effect, many comments are about whether this way of killing should be legal or forbidden. Jack Kevorkian, an euthanasia proponent, was well known as “Doctor Death” who was a physician give patients the choice of mercy killing. Yet, he was arrested in 1999 for convicted second-degree murder, and was released in 2007. Differently, people who stand against euthanasia may see this as a ruthless and unwise action, while it may also cause serious issue in the society. Personally, the

Euthanasia is an issue frequently disregarded and overshadowed by other contradictory subjects such as abortion. This leads to many younger generations having less of an awareness about the more undervalued, unpopular problems that affect our world. Surprisingly, just like abortion, many have strong opinions towards the legalization of euthanasia. Some believe that people should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies while others believe that it breaks religion and therefore should not be practiced; however, this is only a miniscule portion of such an intricate topic. My goal for this argumentative essay is to promote the legalization of euthanasia and educate those who may not know much about it. I plan to do this by first providing the background behind the practice of euthanasia. Next, supplying opinions from a number of individuals that will include data collected by surveys. Then, to further support my claim, counter arguments will be deliberated on. Finally, it will conclude with my own thoughts on the practice and why I believe people should make euthanasia legal in the states.

    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.