Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

To fully understand the issue at hand, one must understand the various forms of euthanasia. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals…in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient is relieved of medical treatment and is allowed to die naturally. Active euthanasia occurs when either a physician or a family member actively takes the life of the patient, perhaps through lethal injection, and eliminates a natural death process. Many people commonly use the word “euthanasia” to refer to assisted suicide. Essentially, assisted suicide is a form of active euthanasia in that a person, usually a physician, aids in the suicide of a patient.

Euthanasia, as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is considered to be, “the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering” (2015).Within this can be found different methods of euthanasia including passive or indirect euthanasia which requires withholding of basic life-saving measures such as oxygen, nutrition, hydration, or resuscitation. Another form is direct euthanasia which can be caused by administered drugs, injections, or suffocation. In its entirety, euthanasia has been debated as an ethical issue through its many forms and reasoning (Methods of euthanasia, 2011).

Physician-assisted suicide appears to be the best form of euthanasia. When passive euthanasia is used, the patient may suffer for days before their body shuts down, which defeats the purpose of a pain free death. With active euthanasia, the doctor is essentially responsible for killing the patient, which is not necessarily morally correct.

There are three widely known types or methods of euthanasia, these are active voluntary euthanasia (AVE), physician-assisted suicide (PAS), and passive euthanasia, which is also known as withdrawal. These three acts, though all resulting in the same things, are quite different. Active euthanasia is a premeditated deed that results in death. Passive euthanasia is also a premeditated deed, however in this scenario, the death happens in order to evade an extended life in pain. In physician assisted suicide the doctor does not execute the patient, he simply provides the measure for which the death requires in which the patient ends their life. This is necessary and due to the fact that many doctors were being convicted and imprisoned for murdering

Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an

Assisted suicide must not be confused with euthanasia. There are two forms of euthanasia, passive and active. Active euthanasia is similar to assisted suicide in that it requires lethal substances to cause death in a patient. But, euthanasia differs from assisted suicide through passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia entails the death of a person from the withdrawal of treatments necessary for the continuance of life. In the United States, passive euthanasia is legal.

It’s important to start by understanding the different types of euthanasia. Allowing someone to die is, “Forgoing or withdrawing medical treatment that offers no hope of benefit to the total well-being of the patient, or that imposes

Active euthanasia is commonly confused with physician assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is performed “when a physician, at a rational request of an adequately informed, competent patient who plans to commit suicide, knowingly provides that patient with the medical means…and the patient uses those means to commit suicide” (Gert). Through this method, a physician does not “actively” kill the person, but simply provides the person with the means to end their own life. For example, a doctor gives a patient an injection of a morphine that is sufficient to cause their death, but does not administer it. In the other hand, a physician “actively” kills a patient to end his or her suffering in active euthanasia. For instance, a physician either overdoses the patient with pain-killers or sleeping pills. Although they are done differently, they both have the same purpose of ending a person’s suffering and pain.

First of all, what is euthanasia? It is something that not many people think about until they or a friend or family member is put in a position where they might actually have to consider it. Euthanasia, in the dictionary, simply is: the action of ending someone’s life in a painless way. It seems pretty simple but in reality it is a lot more complicated, not only for the people involved but for the society in general as well.

Assisted suicide and active euthanasia is not natural and is extremely unethical. Often times, the effects of painful diseases or severe depression are the cause of suicidal thoughts that result in euthanasia. Jonathan Gould and Lord Craigmyle, authors of Your Death Warrant?, put the suffering of pain in perspective. They say, "Pain and suffering are inescapable at times in life, and sometimes attend its end" but "Pain, it is to be remembered. . . Generally pain can be considered natural and wholesome although unpleasant." There are ways to take away the pain that accompanies deaths. There are so many more choices than poisoning the body unto death. In fact, "medical killing of sick persons would create far more distress, suffering and pain, directly and indirectly, than it would relieve." (Gould and Craigmyle, 71) The number one rule of medicine is that "doctors shall not kill". This regimen has been a priority since the teachings of the well know physician, Hippocrates. (Shapiro and Bowermaster, 94) Some doctors often let their murders slide behind the name of euthanasia. Kevorkian did that very thing. He

1]Euthanasia, derived from Greek literally means good death. It is the act or practice of killing someone who is terminally ill or injured in order to prevent any more suffering. Some people could call it mercy killing. But is killing someone prematurely right? Why haven't more countries legalized euthanasia? Ask someone involved in caring of the terminally ill; they would simply argue that it is a slippery slope to assisted murder.

Looking at the criteria to be able to be presented euthanasia, only the terminally ill are able to complete this action. One inspects the positives and negatives of this. People argue that other illnesses, yet are not terminally ill, are still experiencing the amount of pain and low quality of life of someone who is terminally ill is experiencing. Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are examples of the illness that can ruin all meaning of life, but are not diagnosed terminally ill. People with these problems state that their illnesses are just as horrible and miserable as those of a terminally ill patient. Therefore, some people disagree that it is not fair to give this option only to the terminally ill. On the other hand, if anyone said to have a problem is allowed to choose assisted suicide, this will lead to a slippery slope (Goodman 1). People will begin to think it is okay to end a life just for the sake of someone not living the regular life they are used to living. Suicide should never be an option for a way out of this precious life (ProCon 1). The only reason for assisted suicide is to end the pain and suffering that is unbearable for these terminally ill patients. They experience pain in which no one else has to deal with, which is why the criteria for assisted suicide should stay as strict as it is to prevent others from taking this path considering they want a way out. Human life is to precious to take it for a non-terminal illness.

    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.