Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

To begin with, legalisation of euthanasia gives an option in people’s lives. According to a survey which was taken by Australians, 40 percent of Australian agree with euthanasia as it will lift their quality of life and dignity (Australian Doctor, 2011). In Chilli, 2015, there was a teenage Chilean girl who was suffering from cystic fibrosis. She uploaded a YouTube Clip saying, “I urgently request to speak to the president because I'm tired of living with this illness... I want her approval so I can get a shot that will make me sleep forever.” (Jay Akbar , 2015) Her dad also said, “...Now my daughter just wants to die in a dignified way,” (Jay Akbar , 2015).However, her request was rejected, so she had to die painfully after two months. If euthanasia was allowed to her, she could have ended her life as she asked for, ‘die in a dignified

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

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

Euthanasia is a very controversial and sensitive topic because of the ethical, legal, and moral issues of it. In the United States alone, it is illegal almost everywhere, however; it’s legal in Colorado, Vermont, Montana, Washington D.C., Oregon, Washington, and California. But, what exactly is euthanasia? Euthanasia can be categorized in three different ways; voluntary euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia, and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is when a patient agrees to receive assistance to end his or her own life, which is legal in some places around the globe. Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when the consent of the patient is not available. For example, if an individual is in a coma or vegetative state, they are physically incapable of giving consent. Involuntary euthanasia happens when an individual decides to end a patient's life without asking for consent, or doing it against the patient’s will. This can also be considered murder. Initiating euthanasia can be in the forms of, but not limited to, injections, drugs, Nitschke’s suicide pill, and dehydration, all of which vary in pain. In addition, it is estimated that we spend approximately 20-30% of insurance money to the terminally ill. Despite being seen as ethically wrong, the legalization of voluntary euthanasia can be beneficial and great around the world, because it prevents gory and horrific deaths, can be the key for terminally ill people to avoid agonizing and intense pain, and it can

Euthanasia describes the concept of voluntary suicide usually as an end to pain/suffering. It has been a common subject of debate in regards to moral, religious, philosophical, legal and human rights. The concept is viewed differently in different religions and is a controversial subject as it is so challenging to acknowledge both competing values: an individual’s desire to choose to end their suffering in dignity, and the need to uphold the lawful right of life for all people. Euthanasia is legal in seven countries around the world, and five individual states of the U.S. Different religions also have their opinions on Euthanasia, however, most are against the concept. The Christian beliefs are that birth and death are part of the life processes which God has created, so they should be respected. They believe that it is wrong to shorten a human life as they regard human life as sacred. Although, Jainism has slightly different views on voluntary death at the end of a person’s life.

Victoria is currently in the midst of debate whether Euthanasia/assisted suicide should be legal. This study investigates how Australian newspaper articles present their information on this topic to the public, with a focus on negative versus positive portrayal of the issue and how this may potentially sway its audiences opinions.

Euthanasia is a controversial contemporary issue discussed in philosophy and bioethics. The debate has encapsulated regions of the United States and Europe. An array of research has established evidence of euthanasia, in light of ‘treatment’ for terminally ill patients and any individual who wishes to have the right to die. Generally, euthanasia is regarded as, a criminal homicide at the request of a suffering patient. Individuals who are in favor of euthanasia have expressed reasons for their passionate support of euthanasia. Researchers have conducted research mainly in the state of Oregon in which euthanasia has been legalized since 1997, for the past 20-years. Reference is also made of Washington, Montana, Vermont and Mexico. On the international scale regions in Europe such as the Netherlands, Belgium and the UK has legalized Physician-assisted suicide. These countries have become models for others who have shown interest in Euthanasia and want to legalize Physician-assisted suicide. Research has shed light on the nature of medicine from the perspective the family members and physicians.

All of us sadly will have to face death one day which can be a painful and suffering

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.

The constitution is the most influential document that has affected our everyday life. With the constitution comes protected natural rights that is the framework that guides and limits the power obtained by our government. In the constitution, there have been 27 amendments. In amendment 9, it issues the right of people, but how much if it do we actually have?

When people hear the words euthanasia, mercy killing or physician-assisted suicide, they immediately start to think that it will open doors to countless deaths of depressed, suicidal individuals or people who are think life would be better off if they died. They feel like there will be a switch where it starts off as a voluntary procedure, but soon becomes something one can be forced to do. However, critics look over the fact that euthanasia is voluntary, and it’s a person’s right to decide what happens with their body. As stated by Sue Rodriguez, a Canadian advocate for PAS, “If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?” (Sue Rodriguez AZ Quotes).

    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.

One of the most controversial matters in today’s society is whether or not a terminally ill patient who is in insufferable pain should have the right to choose life or death. As harsh as that sounds, death is imminent for us all. When a dying person's quality of life is so poor, they should have the legal right to choose to die peacefully and with dignity. According to Gerrit Kimsma, an Associate Professor in Medical Philosophy, “Assisting death in so way precludes giving the best palliative care possible but rather integrates compassionate care and respect for the patient’s autonomy and ultimately makes death with dignity a real option” (Kimsma n.pag.). Prolonging the inevitable causes unnecessary false hope and extensive emotional suffering for both the patient and their loved ones. Euthanasia offers a patient the right to openly and honestly choose their fate. This removes the families constant wonder of whether or not they made the “right” medical decision on behalf of their loved one. A frequent misconception with Euthanasia is that it is simply just suicide but according to Penney Lewis with BBC News, “Euthanasia is an intervention undertaken with the intention of ending a life to relieve suffering, for example a lethal injection administered by a doctor and assisted suicide is any act that intentionally helps another person kill themselves” (Lewis n.pag.). In no way are Euthanasia and assisted suicide performed for the same reasons. They may both

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.