Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

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

The World Medical Association (WMA) defines euthanasia as “the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient, even at the patient’s own request or at the request of close relatives.” Euthanasia refers to physician-assisted suicide, mercy killing and withdrawal of unwanted medical treatment (Taqi 266). It is debatably one of the most controversial issues in the fields of theology and medicine. Euthanasia stems from the Greek word for “a good death”.

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.

How would you feel if you woke up to a nightmare, where governmental laws and regulations dictate that a fully autonomous and happy person should die? Of course, you would not want the nightmare again and you would stand up in protest and fight against such laws. Almost all human beings firmly believe that they have the right to live and whatever life may throw along our way, and that others cannot dictate it or impact that sense of right or belonging. It is the very nature of our survival or we would have gone extinct a long time ago. In a similar case, don’t we have a right to choose death instead of depending on others for basic functions like eating, dressing, going to the restroom or to bed? How does it make any sense for the government to deem euthanasia or Physician-Assisted-Suicide (herein known as PAS for the rest of this paper) as illegal even to people who cannot endure the loss of dignity and even worse watch as their rights being snatched by a government? Euthanasia and PAS has been controversial through the ages and people often reason that a person cannot take control of his or her own life and end it, citing various reasons for it. It is not rational when the person did not ask for this illness, and merely looking for a better solution to the effect. Opponents of euthanasia and PAS, the people who make up the core of anti-euthanasia views have various claims against it but often miss out on the reality, in places where it has been legalized. They

Every year, millions of people are diagnosed with terminal illnesses. Every day, millions suffer indescribable pain. The pain can get so bad that patients are put into medically induced comas. Others sign a DNR, or Do-Not-Resuscitate order, which forces medical professionals to not take any life saving actions when the time comes. Reaching that point is bad enough, but having to continue living after deciding to welcome death is a fate too terrible to imagine. There is a solution, though. Often described as a “mercy killing,” this is achieved when a physician uses medication to put the patient out of their misery-either in a hospital setting administered by the doctor through an IV, or prescribed and filled at a pharmacy to be taken by the patient in their own home. This medication is already being used on humans. Death row inmates are killed by lethal injection all over the country. Why is it that a serial killer gets to die peacefully, while infants and elderly with horrible diseases must suffer for weeks, months, or even years before finally being welcomed into the afterlife? Active euthanasia offers a way to end pain and suffering peacefully and safely when nothing else can.

Before I go into depth about James Rachels’ position on euthanasia I will discuss what is euthanasia. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, euthanasia is defined as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” and of which in most cases can only be done by a doctor. Euthanasia has been practiced and debated for its ethics since as early as the 15th century among ancient Greeks and Romans who had tended to support its practices but not always administered in the most ethical standards.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson was essentially stating that each individual show be able to decide what they do with their lives and these decisions shouldn’t shouldn’t be defined arbitrarily by other humans. If such a statement can be included within the United States Declaration of Independence, then would it not seem like there is some truth to it? Also known as assisted suicide, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma” (“Euthanasia”), a practice generally illegal in most countries. Talking about death is never easy, but when it comes down to the facts, it shouldn't be a topic to avoid. The divisive public controversy regarding the moral, legal, and ethical issues surrounding euthanasia tends to report on the subject based on the opinion of the masses instead of looking into each individual case. The ability to decide when an individual wants to cease their existence should be made by the individual and the individual alone. Once rights for a person's life is being limited, then they are unable to truly live their own life.

“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.

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

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.

The first strong objection to the implementation of a policy permitting euthanasia is that it will become too arduous to describe and effectively write. The conditions to grant euthanasia are understood to be that it is the autonomous choice of the

The legal status of the practice of euthanasia is very difficult and a highly debatable topic. Unfortunately in life, sometimes there comes a time when you or your loved one's body starts failing, mind starts suffering, and breathe starts halting. Without a choice medical treatment is placed and next thing you know weeks, months, and even years pass by and the person you once knew full of life is instead in the hospital with no purpose other than their tortured presence that is costing thousands of dollars. Many patients with no hopes of recovery turn to euthanasia to end the suffering and when the patients are too weak to make a choice on their own and their survival seems hopeless, family or friends make a very difficult decision to allow the process of euthanasia to take place to end their loved one’s life. At the same time, tons of people and organizations fight against the practice of euthanasia and believe every life is worth saving no matter the conditions. In the following passages below, using academic and scholarly sources, we touch up on a few of the topics that are frequently brought up in many arguments that revolve around euthanasia and explore a variety of views and perspectives.

The issue of euthanasia occupies an essential place among many legal, medical, religious and other problems. The phenomenon itself is a subject for reflection of public consciousness since human life today is the primary value for the world society. The issue has acquired another way of demand because, about all legal and moral realities, the right to life brings it to the level of universal and global challenges of our time. Advances in modern medicine have changed the attitude towards death as a one-stage phenomenon, doctors today can support the life of patients even in the gravest condition, not allowing him or her to die. For this reason, the previously used criteria for determining a person's death came into conflict with its new scientific understanding, and the role of euthanasia discusses the considerable controversy. At the same time, euthanasia is gaining momentum, as every year several thousand people go to another world with the voluntary consent and assistance of doctors and a real euthanasia applied to children and people with questionable testimonies for the termination of life. Therefore, the question of euthanasia today is acuter than ever, complicated not only for reasons of rationale and humanity but also from a religious point of view.

Death is classified many things by people. Some realize its unavoidable, while otherwise are fearful of death. What the people are fearful of is our finitude. Euthanasia is the process of a painless killing of someone suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in irreversible coma. (cite) This however is a controversial topic as it is illegal in most countries. There are two different types that will be discussed, that being euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide is a medically induced suicide for critically ill patients. Also known as euthanasia, it’s something that’s been around since the 500 B.C. back then it was legal and ethical to disregard of human life. In this current day and age the debate about whether or euthanasia is ethical or legal is heated. Most people will say that assisted suicide is basically enabling doctors to be murderers and in some courts they are tried as that. However assisted suicide isn’t an illegal murder, it’s a safe way to help someone who is suffering. While most view assisted suicide as a way of profiting off of diseased patients lives, more and more patients and their families are using euthanasia as a way to find the light at the end of the tunnel.