Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

It is a shared understanding that human life must be valued under any circumstance, and it should not be terminated for whatever reasons unless it is a natural occurrence. The value and respect for human life were behind the debate against “the death row” in many states and countries around the world. In addition, religion places high value in human life, basing on the claim that it is a sin to end one’s life. However, there have been instances where ending the life of another person is the best alternative, especially in medical cases. The idea brought the emergence of euthanasia, where Math and Chaturvedi (2012) explain it as a Greek word that means “good death.” The purpose of good death is to assist a patient who will

In this paper, I will be presenting the opposing arguments on Euthanasia, the controversial issue of terminally ill patients committing suicide with the assistance of a physician. One of the main arguments for euthanasia is that people have the right to die. Many people for euthanasia have the mindset that humans have the right to control his or her body and life and therefore have the freedom to choose how, where and when they will die. This belief stems from the idea of free will, which is a fundamental part of the human soul. Adding to this argument, supporters state that other human rights include the right to die such as the right to life, which is not the right to simply exist or to a life of minimum quality

According to Wisconsin Right to Life, Euthanasia is the direct killing of a person, usually by injecting a lethal substance. Society would think there is one step to this procedure, but it could be depending on if someone does it illegally or take the legal route. One way is by going through these steps which are, first a coma is induced by intravenous administration of barbiturates, followed by a muscle relaxant. The patient usually dies as the result of anoxemic caused by the muscle relaxant. When death is delayed, intravenous potassium chloride is also given to hasten cardiac arrest.

Derived from the Greek word ‘eu’, meaning ‘good’, and ‘thanatos’, meaning ‘death’, Euthanasia is known as the intentional killing or allowance of death of a hopelessly sick or injured individual in a merciless, painless fashion. The American Heritage Dictionary defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of ending the life of a person or animal having a terminal illness or a medical condition that causes suffering perceived as incompatible with an acceptable quality of life, as by lethal injection or the suspension of certain medical treatments.” To put it blatantly, it is a form of suicide. Often referred to in other terms such as “mercy killing” or “Physician-assisted suicide” or simply “assisted suicide”, euthanasia has two procedural classifications: passive and active. Passive euthanasia is when the life sustaining treatments being provided to the patient are withheld. In these cases, patients die because medical professionals either don’t perform any necessary actions to keep the patient alive or they stop doing performing any current actions that were keeping the patient alive. This would include scenarios such as removing the patient off of life support, disconnecting a feeding tube or discontinuing previously provided life-sustaining drugs. Active euthanasia occurs when a medical professional or someone of other authority intentionally performs an action that results in the patient’s death. Euthanasia is the conscious act of a physician or any other individual

Kathleen Carter was eighty-nine years old when she traveled to Switzerland in order to end her suffering. Kathleen suffered from spinal stenosis, a paralyzing disease that causes severe pain, weakness and numbness. Euthanasia is legal in Switzerland which is where she traveled with her family to stay in an apartment like room; she spent her final day saying goodbye them. She first was given a sedative to settle her nervousness then shortly after, while sitting on the couch with family, she drank a sodium pentobarbital solution, which ended her pain and suffering. Kathleen is a prime example as to why euthanasia should be legalized. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek for "the good death" and refers to ending one's life on compassionate grounds. The term today comes with its controversies such as people should have the right to choose their own death, but also throughout history it has been morally incorrect to kill, or assist in killing, another human being.

At the beginning of your opening argument, you created a strawman fallacy by misrepresenting the definition of euthanasia. You said that euthanasia was a doctor killing a patient, but it is a painless death with the consent of the patient and most of the time the doctor is not even present. There is also a substantial difference between murder and euthanasia. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human by another and euthanasia is legal and has to be passed by the patient. The doctor usually prepares something for the patient to take as well. We are also not advocating involuntary euthanasia, which we believe is murder because it is without the consent of the patient. The patients also have to be in full consciousness and in the right state of mind to make that decision. You expressed that euthanasia is abominable because the Nazis did it involuntarily to anyone who was infirm, but nowadays euthanasia does not work that way. Euthanasia is for the people that are terminally ill and have no chance of survival. It saves them weeks or even months of suffering and instead gives them a chance to pass with their families and loved ones. If they are not given the opportunity of euthanasia, it is a possibility that they could commit suicide. There was a man named Maier-Clayton that committed suicide because euthanasia was not an option for him. In your speech you said that euthanasia was inhumane, but is it inhumane to end the pain and suffering in a peaceful way, where

The term “euthanasia," in the context of animals, reminds most of a traumatizing trip to the vet, to end the suffering of their beloved pet in the most “humane” way. But, euthanasia, within the connection of a human becomes a sin, taboo, and a one-way plummet to any quality physician's career, ill-intentions or not. The problem with all of this includes issues that most avoid, but politicians thrive on. The argument of the religions involved and human rights always seem to form a slippery slope that most promptly falls into a fight over ethicality. The people of the United States pride themselves on their freedom, and their rights to live. If they have the right to life, does that not also include the right to choose what they want to do with that life, and how they want to end it? If people are allowed to choose who they marry and whichever career they desire to follow, how can they not be obliged to additionally choose a peaceful death? A possible solution to this issue includes the legalization of PAS, to completely allow any patient- suffering from a terminal disease- to choose if they want to euthanize themselves as a pleasant alternative, versus the suffering of a slow, painful death. How can it be so obtuse to think that euthanizing a human- ending a person’s suffering mercifully- when it should be the patient's last respected request? Not only would legalizing physician-assisted suicide provide patients with a positive alternative to pain, but it

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.

Introduction: For my research project, I decided to explore the controversy of whether people should have the right to die under their own terms. Euthanasia has become a heated topic, and as of today, it is illegal to end a life through medical means except in Washington DC, California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Euthanasia entails a physician administering medication to end one's life. It is illegal in most of the United States and other countries around the world, but recently supporters and activists have been taking a stand. They have been preaching that it is only moral to respect the wishes of a patient who is terminally ill or suffering to have the right to end their life. When researching my topic, I will be including all sides to the argument. Though my prior experiences and research puts me on one side of the argument. I believe that a terminally ill individual has the right to end their life if they are mentally capable of making the decision.

When people are introduced to something new, they can become skeptical and dismissive. Especially, if the concept changes the status quo. This applies to the concept of physician assisted suicides. If the practice becomes common, it will diffuse to other parts of the

Life begins from the time we are born to the day we die. Life is believed to have “intrinsic value”, that to live is to better than not to live. This may be true for those leading happy and fulfilling lives, but that is a small fraction of the population. Another larger section of the population is diagnosed with diseases and illnesses every day, unable to move or breathe on their own. This severely impacts their perspective on life and what it means to be alive. While we are granted the right to life by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to die seems to be controversial.

“Primum non nocere”, a phrase that all doctors must recite, modernly translates to “first, do no harm”. When students graduate from medical school they must recite the Hippocratic Oath. Taking this oath is a historical tradition that requires the physician to swear to preserve certain ethical standards. Although the text states that a doctor must never take a life, it also states that a doctor must help a person to the fullest extent. A difficult ethical question arises when the only way to help a person is by ending their suffering. Is euthanasia then the ethical solution? The ability for doctors to perform assisted suicides for the terminally ill is very controversial. Many people oppose the idea on the belief that all life is sacred. In reality, however, the real question is whether a patient can make that determination for themselves and decide whether a life of constant and permanent suffering is worth living. Euthanasia allows a patient to die with dignity; it frees up funds and equipment that can be put towards other patients in dire need of attention; and it ends the suffering of patients and their families. If the goal is to reduce pain and suffering then we need to seriously consider legalising euthanasia.

    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.