Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death.

Albert Camus once quoted, “But in the end, one needs more courage to live than to kill them self.” Today I will be discussing the topic of Euthanasia also known as “assisted suicide.” The word originated from the Greeks, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia refers to the ending of one’s life, primarily to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and generates many political and religious debates. Although euthanasia is illegal in Canada, in some jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, euthanasia is a legal and common practice.

Euthanasia, in today’s world, is a word with opposing meanings. Originally, it meant “a good death” (Leming & Dickinson, 2016). Since the legalization of euthanasia around the world in the early 1990’s, the meaning has changed. Several pro-euthanasia sites would call it a humane and peaceful way to end the dying process, by either stopping the course of treatment or the use of lethal doses of medications (Leming & Dickinson, 2016). Con-euthanasia activists are most concerned about the slippery slope idea, being euthanasia is only a half-way house to legalizing murder (Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org, 2016). When discussing a topic so sensitive as death, an invisible line appears between a right way and a wrong way to die. By the end of this paper, the hope is to have an educated discussion regarding some social and political inquiries surrounding euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide.

In a sense, euthanasia has been one of the most controversial and debated topics to ever arise in medicine. Euthanasia is defined as the intentional, painless killing by act or omission of a dependent human being suffering from an incurable disease or irreversible coma (King, 2016). Although the practice is still illegal in many areas, it is becoming more accepted, legal, and decriminalized in many parts of the United States. In majority of cases, the termination is carried out at the person's request, but there are times when they may be too ill or not in their right mind, and it is left to close relatives to make the decision. Euthanasia directly affects autonomy, which is a patient's right to make his own decision regarding his own life (Lachman, 2010). It is also important to be able to identify the different types of euthanasia, because it is not as simple as just "terminating a life." It is much more difficult that the previous definitions leads on. It can be done in several different ways, each with their own defining characteristics, and issues can arise from every one of them. Euthanasia, also known as patient assisted suicide or "mercy killing" has many pros, cons, morality concerns, and legal issues that directly impact the future of the practice.

Euthanasia, the medical term for assisted suicide or mercy killing, is an issue still being debated almost a hundred years after a proposal to legalize it in Ohio. The medical community was in turmoil even before its legal proposition, unable to decide amongst themselves how to deal with the issue. The same arguments still rage today, though the public is more aware of the issue thanks to high-profile court cases, like the trial of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Some claim that the terminally ill have a “right to die”, but no human life should end by unnatural means.

Euthanasia is largely contested and debated because many people in society deem it does not fit with their idea of how they should behave and believe (Botton, 2000). The main debate within the issue of euthanasia is that the individual is able to understand their own experiences (Mills, 1959) and they are capable to interpret the value of those experiences (Kymlicka, 2002) in a manner which constitutes them being able to make major decisions involving the future of their life. Unfortunately due to almost all of the individuals that wish to be euthanised having serious and terminal illnesses, they are not able to freely choose how they want to live their life, and are constantly being penalised by society (Kymlicka, 2002). Some people see the issue of euthanasia a public issue, in which the value of life is threatened for the community, many see it as a private trouble for the individual (Mills, 1959). Currently euthanasia is legal in only four countries while assisted suicide is legal in four more and five US states, while debate about the legalisation in other countries, such as Australia is non-existent. This gives a sense of marginalisation to those whose wish to practice euthanasia and their families, which in tern leads to a lack of involvement in society (Mills, 1959). The choice to end ones life

People who are proeuthanasia believe that it should be used if patients do not have control of their bodily functions, are not mentally competent and are experiencing severe pain (Ashcroft, 2003). They also believe that those who do not commit to the patient’s request are deceitful (Ashcroft, 2003). People who are anti-euthanasia believe that it is completely wrong under all circumstances (Ashcroft, 2003). According to Ashcroft (2003), some arguments used demonstrated that physicians are humans too and it is not right that they are dehumanizing their patients by providing them with an option such as euthanasia. Making euthanasia an option will make the concept of killing a norm and psychologically “salient” (Ashcroft, 2003). Ashcroft (2003) also stated that there would be an increase in involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia if voluntary euthanasia is allowed and authorized. Ashcroft’s (2003) last argument declared that it is inaccessible to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia as well as passive and active euthanasia. As the barrier between these processes become transparent and active voluntary euthanasia is legitimized, other forms of killing may become legalized as well (Ashcroft,

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.

Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as “intentional killing” ( Patelarou, Vardavas, Fioraki, Alegakis, Dafermou, & Ntzilepi, 2009). Euthanasia is a controversial topic which has raised a great deal of debate globally. Although euthanasia has received great exposure in the professional media, there are some sticky points that lack clarity and need to be addressed. Euthanasia is a divisive topic, and different interpretations of its meaning, depend on whether the person supports it or not. While a few societies have accepted euthanasia, there are

When imagining assisted suicide, people often envision blood, knives, overdosing, or depression. Nonetheless, suicide is not always expressed through goriness. In fact, it raises awareness towards one of the biggest debates of our generation, the legalism of euthanasia. Euthanasia, the Greek word for “good death,” is the permitting of suicide when experiencing physical suffering. As the definition indicates, this course of death is peaceful and by choice. If desired, affected patients should be able to use euthanasia, for it can relieve pain, prevent overcrowding in hospitals, and support religion and beliefs.

    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.