Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized Essay

A. Restatement of Thesis: Overall with current situations happening around the world Euthanasia and Assisted suicide has become a very controversial topic, however there are many interpretations that should be looked upon before deciding that huge decision.

Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.

The process of assisted suicide, or physician-assisted death, is a hotly debated topic that still remains at the forefront of many national discussions today. Assisted suicide can be described as the suicide of patient by a physician-prescribed dose of legal drugs. The reason that this topic is so widely debated is that it infringes on several moral and religious values that many people in the United States have. But, regardless of the way that people feel, a person’s right to live is guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution, and this should extend to the right to end their own life as well. The reasons that assisted suicide should be legalized in all states is because it can ease not only the suffering of the individual, but the financial burden on the family that is supporting him/her. Regardless of opposing claims, assisted suicide should be an option for all terminally ill patients.

Assisted suicide brings a debate that involves professional, legal and ethical issues about the value of the liberty versus the value of life. However, before conceive an opinion about this topic is necessary know deeply its concept. Assisted suicide is known as the act of ending with the life of a terminal illness patients for end with their insupportable pain. Unlike euthanasia, the decision is not made by the doctor and their families, but by the patient. Therefore, doctors should be able to assist the suicide of their patients without being accused of committing a criminal offense. This conception is supported by three points of view. The first point defenses the autonomy of people, which covers the right of people to make decision

Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.

In a 2014 article done by Health Research Funding they stated that, “According to research, some 66% of U.S. adults believe that a doctor or nurse should allow a patient to die in certain circumstances” (25 Surprising Physician Assisted Suicide Statistics, 2014). Physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia should not just be a matter of law but as well as free will. In this essay, I am using a virtue approach to contend that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal. Is it moral to allow people to end their lives suffering? It helps people, saves money and useless drugs and treatment that does not work it being wasted. It ends suffering without the stigma of suicide and it allows the person to make peace and go on their own terms when they want to, so there is not a shock or surprise. You can say goodbye and end it when you are ready.

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

Active euthanasia is a subject that is raising a lot of concern in today’s society on whether or not it should be legalized and under what circumstances should it be allowed. This is a very tricky subject due to its ability to be misused and abused. There are a wide variety of things that need to be considered when it comes to who should be allowed to request active euthanasia such as, is it an autonomous choice, do they have a terminal illness, is their quality of life dramatically decreased, and are they in pain and suffering. Both James Rachel and Daniel Callahan have very different opinions on active euthanasia and whether or not it should be allowed. However both authors manage to provide a substantial argument on where they stand regarding active euthanasia.

     Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics discussed among people every day. Everyone has his or her own opinion on this topic. This is a socially debated topic that above all else involves someone making a choice, whether it be to continue with life or give up hope and die. This should be a choice that they make themselves. However, In the United States, The land of the free, only one state has legalized assisted suicide. I am for assisted suicide and euthanasia. This paper will support my many feelings on this subject.

This essay will aim to focus on the arguments that author, James Rachel’s presents in his article, Active and Passive Euthanasia,” In his article Rachel’s argues that both passive and active euthanasia are morally permissible and the doctors that is supported by the American Medical Association(AMA) is believed to be unsound. In this paper I will offer a thorough analysis of Rachel’s essay then so offer a critique in opposition of his arguments. In conclusion I will refute these oppositions claims by defending Rachel’s argument, and showing why I believe his claims that both active and passive euthanasia are morally permissible, to be effective.

“Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but one of them is extremely important: euthanasia is not forbidden by law in their case; animals have the right to a merciful death.”

Active euthanasia is the act of giving the means to a terminally ill patient to cause their death. Whereas, passive euthanasia is the withdrawal of treatment, or the failure to treat with the intention of causing the patient’s death. I believe that there is no moral difference between assisting someone to die on their own terms, and not allowing for interventions to take place in order to sustain the life of a person. In both of these cases the patient in question made the autonomous decision to not continue with their life in this way. The outcome is the same in both scenarios. In each of these a person is relieved of their suffering, through a means of death. The person assisting in reaching this outcome had the pure intention of respecting the patient’s wishes in both cases. The result of death for these patients is a more favorable outcome than any form of prolonged life.

"Whose life is it, anyway?" A Plea stated by the late Sue Rodrigues. Rogrigues, a high-profile, terminally-ill resident of British Columbia, Canada, suffered from a terminally ill disease (Robinson, 2001). She was helped to commit suicide by a physician in violation of Canadian law. Many people, like Rodrigues, want to be in control of their final days. Terminally ill patients have a terminal disease and do not want to diminish their assets by incurring large medical costs as their death approaches (Robinson, 2001). As an act of generosity, they would rather die sooner, and pass on their assets to their beneficiaries. A serious disorder or disease has adversely affected their quality of life to the point

In cases where an individual's quality of life is irreparably diminished by terminal illness, one may seek to end their life with the help of a doctor. This has been a solution for patient suffering in neighboring countries, but there are ethical and legal issues that make it an impractical solution for American healthcare. Considering the results of negative potential of euthanasia practices exposes its flaws, and sheds light on better alternatives. Therefore active euthanasia, not to be confused with physician assisted suicide, should not be legalized in the United States.

On the other hand, passive euthanasia is where the death of the patient is due to the withdrawal of treatment by medical professionals (“Forms of Euthanasia”). For instance, taking the person of the ventilator system and allowing the occurrence of death. Although both these types are different, some may actually think it the same. Others may think passive euthanasia is much better than active euthanasia and vice versa. In countries, like India and Ireland only passive euthanasia is permitted. But, people should focus on the main purpose of the act, which is to relieve the patient of suffering.