Euthanasia Argumentative Analysis

People who have a terminal illness can be misinformed or mislead by their doctors. Doctors if euthanasia was legalised could suggest going through this process, giving the doctors a tremendous amount of power and authority. Doctors are very similar to police, they tell you what to do and what seems right. Doctors unlike policemen can be subjected to bias and therefore not give a medical opinion, but a personal one. Patients

In a Netherlands report it tells, “Many physicians who had practiced euthanasia [form of assisted suicide] mentioned that they would be most reluctant to do so again” (Stevens 189). Everyday these physicians are faced with decisions of how to best save their patient. Now they also, have to determine if they can come to terms with ending their lives. The impact on these physicians is tremendous. Kenneth R. Stevens the Vice President of Physicians for Compassionate Care concludes, “Doctors who have participated in euthanasia and/or PAS [Physician-Assisted Suicide] are adversely affected emotionally and psychologically by their experiences” (187). Physicians, who have made the decision to help, face the consequences of their actions. They have helped someone take a life, even if it their own. Death always leaves an impression. Imagine what it must be like to be directly involved with a death. Those men and women in time will have to come to terms with their participation in Physician-Assisted Suicide.

In an individual’s decision to apply for physician-assisted suicide, the reasons for which they provide are most likely related to diseases they have or are developing. In Maynard’s case, she had developed brain cancer and in researching cures, found that the effects would leave her “quality of life...gone” (Maynard, 2014). The treatment called for full brain radiation which would have left

Turning suicides and executions into medical procedures, no matter how humane the motives, is deplorable” (Brian Chapman, 2017). If euthanasia would be legalized for illnesses like depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and dementia; this would encourage patients to not try their hardest to get better in remission or treatment, and not allow healing to take place. Although I do not know the pain that comes along with mental

Negative notions surrounding Physician aid-in-dying are the devaluation of life, the appearance of room for potential abuse, the demise of professional medical integrity and the possibility of improper diagnosis (Starks et al., 2013, p.1). PAD is often viewed as “diminishing the sanctity of life” and is thus unethical (Starks et al., 2013, p.1). It is also crucial to note the difference between “passively "letting [a patient] die" and actively "killing" (Starks et al., 2013, p.1). Murder is unethical from all standpoints. Furthermore, as unfortunate as it may be to admit, “assisted death may become a cost-containment strategy” for the health care system, pressuring families and patients to choose this means of treatment if he or she lacks access to quality care and support (Starks et al., 2013, p.1). Moreover, PAD contradicts the very oath physicians swear to practice medicine by: "I will not administer poison to anyone where asked," and I will "be of benefit, or at least do no harm" (Starks et al., 2013, p.1). Thus, many prominent medical groups such as the American Medical Association strongly disagree with PAD legislation (Starks et al., 2013, p.1). Furthermore, a presented diagnosis or prognosis can be incorrect because physicians do make mistakes. Approximately twelve million adults in the United States alone are misdiagnosed “in outpatient clinics every year” (Medical News Today, 2014, p.1). One

  Doctors do err on cancer patients' survival times, so how can they say when the time is ripe for assisted suicide. A study in the July 1 issue of Cancer, the journal of the American Cancer Society, finds that doctors are often wrong in predicting how long terminally ill cancer patients will live. After studying the accuracy of doctors' predictions regarding 233 patients with end-of-life cancer, the researchers found most doctors had a tendency to overestimate survival time. But among patients who lived longer than six months, 40% had been expected to die sooner. The results are relevant to decisions to refer patients to hospice care -- and also to decisions for assisted suicide, which in Oregon can only be

Many people do not find the prospect of legal voluntary active euthanasia alarming. But two things should make us think.

Today, voluntary euthanasia is getting closer to being legalized in more than just one state in the United States. “‘Voluntary’ euthanasia means that the act of putting the person to death is the end result of the person’s own free will” (Bender 19). “ Voluntary euthanasia is an area worthy of our serious consideration, since it would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose death rather than continue suffering” (Bender 19). The question of whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be legalized is a major debate that has been around for years. Because the issue of whether people should have the right to choose how they want to live or die is so complex. With the advances in technology today we have made

Doctors are the people we turn to when we are sick, weak, and in pain. They are the people who we trust and look to for guidance and advice about our health. We regard them as someone who can cure and save our lives. After all, that’s their primary objective – to save, and do no harm. But what if you have an illness, and you found out that the doctor you trust your life to actually practice euthanasia? Would you still visit him and follow his recommendations? If you will ask me…

In his article published in 1975, James Rachels seeks to pose an unsound difference between passive and active euthanasia, and explains a strong case as to how these two are essentially the same thing when it comes to committing murder. One can argue both cases: according to the American Medical Association “The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another- mercy killing- Is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association” to which Rachels makes several strong arguments against this principle throughout his article. First, he explains to cases that seem very similar with one exception each: The first case is about Smith, who is seeking personal

It is argued that patients requesting help with hastening death come mostly from those who have not been treated or diagnosed properly (Asch). “There is a growing awareness that loss of dignity and of those attributes that we associate particularly with being human are the factors that most commonly reduce patients to a state of unrelieved misery and desperation,” (Rogatz). It would be to the doctor’s discretion and expertise to diagnose and treat the patient to the best of their ability, and the patient could seek assistance from another doctor if looking for more

Medical advancements and improved living conditions worldwide have increased the life span of our population (U.S. Department of State, 2015). As a result, many individuals are now living with degenerative or chronic ailments that require increased support (Vissers et al., 2013). Unfortunately, these illnesses often come with a “diminished quality of life” (Butler, Tiedemann, Nicol, & Valiquet, 2013). These issues have brought forth the euthanasia debate, which poses the question, “Should an individual have the right to choose to die?”

    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.