Euthanasia Argumentative Analysis

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.

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.

Euthanasia should be considered in all aspects of the medical field because people need to be in charge of their lives, statements from critics, and the serious evaluation process when chosen. Euthanasia can reserve all rights towards an individual’s choice towards death or not, because it is the person who has to endure and agonize through the incurable illness. An individual’s perspective on a situation is through their eyes and no one else, that is why euthanasia produces the choice of being alive or

According to Rachels (248), a proponent of euthanasia, states the act is justified if death is the only way out of one’s awful pain. On the other hand, Gay Williams (353), an opponent of euthanasia, views it as immoral to take someone’s life before his or her own natural death time reaches. Medically, euthanasia can be acceptable for those patients that are extremely suffering and their doctors have no idea on what to do to help a patient whose condition is only worsening. Often, it is administered on consultation with the family members of the patient in question. However, health practitioners are held within the bounds of professionalism where they are made to understand sanctity of life. Doctors are not supposed to decide the future of

“Should America adopt a universal healthcare system?” is a question that seems to be easy to answer. In reality, it is a dilemma for a first-world, democratic country like America. Universal healthcare recently becomes a heated issue as Obamacare, also known as the Affordable Care Act, was passed through Congress. Many people, who were uninsured previously, are now able to purchase insurance at an inexpensive cost. They are relieved. After many years of being denied to healthcare, some people finally gain access to the right care, the right treatment. However, the United States should not adopt a universal healthcare system, for there is a multitude of underlying problems associated with universal health care, outweighing its benefits.

The controversy of euthanasia and assisted suicide are moral issues, legal issues, and economical issues. People who are pro euthanasia believe that people should be able to die sooner rather than later to maintain their dignity. There are many aspects when determining when someone’s illness and suffering are prolonged. Pro euthanasians also believe that they should legally be able to determine time of death. Courts have varied opinions on the criteria for allowing euthanasia and assisted suicide, which can be relaxed with time. Medical professionals are also put in a circumstance to make a decision that is unwanted. Society argues that allowing people to determine time of death can affect someone’s financial obligation among other things.

The controversy of euthanasia is nothing new. Euthanasia can be voluntary, active, passive or involuntary; along with a combination of factors. Supporters of active euthanasia or when a person requests to end their life as a result of a terminal illness that is causing a terrible amount of pain advocate that those patients should have the right to choose their time of death. The opposers of active euthanasia argue that it is murder to remove life saving devices and one should

Euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or an irreversible coma. The two subcategories of euthanasia are active and passive. Active euthanasia is the act of directly causing a patient’s death, such as administering a lethal drug or medication. Passive euthanasia is the act of withdrawing treatment or care from a patient, ultimately causing their death as well. While there is a common belief that passive euthanasia is morally superior to active euthanasia, an analysis of James Rachels’ argument proves that these two acts are morally equal. I will begin by explaining Rachels’ argument on how killing and letting die are equal on moral grounds. Next, I will go on to identify the faults in Rachels’

Who would regulate the euthanasia in the NHS? Giving this type of power to doctors could lead to unlawful killings with families and possibly even the patient having no legal right in choosing to die. A recent Dutch government investigation found some

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.

Pro-life groups contend that if we allow any type of euthanasia, sooner or later, we would begin killing off not only the terminally ill, but also the handicapped, the poor, the elderly and anyone else who becomes troublesome. The view that we should not make a decision because it could lead to other less prudent decisions later is not a reasonable foundation for setting policies, unless later decisions are definite, and are absolutely wrong. I would hope that the virtue of society would lead us to know where to draw the line between going far enough and going too far. At the present time, it is not clear if where the line is drawn now is where it should be drawn. 5. Euthanasia is killing. Most people believe that there are circumstances when killing is allowed, such as self-defense. The only question is whether or not the killing is justified under the circumstances. In the case of self-defense, killing is justified. The same is true of euthanasia. 6. People who request euthanasia may be requesting it because they are depressed and they may change their minds. I believe that psychological evaluation will detect the mental condition of a patient, and depression, if it exists, can be treated. Patients can be given

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

    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.

Some believe that euthanasia should be ethically viewed similarly to suicide because of the idea of choosing to end one’s own life, which is considered unethical. However, some oppose this belief, and believe

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.