Euthanasia Should Be Legal Essay

Euthanasia is the act of administering a medication that intentionally kills patients, in a painless way, who are in a battle against terminal illness. It gives those who are both mentally and physically weak the option to end their sufferings, which can lead to abusive behavior of this medication. The act of administering euthanasia forces doctors to put a value on someone’s life in order to use this medication which makes their job immensely stressful. Also, the act of euthanasia gives off negative energy to those suffering by making a society devalue their lives to the point where euthanasia seems like the best option rather than living. Societies, professionals,

The exact definitions of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide are often not clear because of the multiple different interpretations of the words. According to Dr. Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist, Euthanasia is the killing of a patient, by the doctor, who is unable to communicate without the patient 's consent(Health and Wellness). His definition of Assisted Suicide is “when you are not terminally ill, but you request help in dying” (Health and Wellness). A more commonly accepted and known interpretation for Euthanasia is “the

Patients suffering from terminal illnesses, battle feeling worthless and hopeless on a daily basis. This is due to our jurisdiction forcing them to live. The number of people suffering continues to increase. Although a doctor’s position is to prolong life, euthanasia should be considered in certain cases. Because of the advances in technology euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are now an option for terminally ill patients who are going to suffer from an incurable and painful disease or are in an irreversible coma. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalized because the public supports it, it would only be used for patients who are terminally ill, and it alleviates unnecessary suffering. The word euthanasia originates

Physician assisted suicide is the process of ending one’s life with the administration of lethal injection with the assistance of a physician. Throughout the years, euthanasia has become a controversial topic, determining whether not it is ethical for a doctor to end a patient’s life. On one side of the argument, the negative term suicide creates this illusion of sin and many citizens believe that the task of ending one’s life should not be placed in the hands of a doctor. Doctors have a code that they must follow, promising to do as much as possible to save a life. But when there is nothing more a doctor could do, is physician assisted suicide wrong? Those who support euthanasia often state that this is a form of regaining control of a horrific situation, and with the assistance of their trusted doctor, they are able to die with dignity. Physician Assisted suicide should be the choice of the patient and not the state.

Euthanasia has been a moral issue since around the 5th century B.C. in Ancient Greece. However, it has only recently become a much more controversial and widespread issue. Euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Today, many people disagree with euthanasia; however, even some who disagree with it still support an alternate form, called physician-assisted suicide or dying. Physician-assisted death is the voluntary administration of lethal drugs varying from pills, to injections, to breathing in toxic gas, all of which is painless. So, what’s the problem? Do we, or do we not have the right to die?

To discuss and analyze the issues related to the ethical dilemmas of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, a clear understanding of the difference in the definitions and the concepts of the involved terms is necessary. Euthanasia comes from the Greek word Thanatos meaning “death” and the prefix eu-meaning “easy or good,” literally “an easy or good death”. It is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. It involves the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves him delivering a lethal substance. The physician

Euthanasia is meant for those with debilitating illnesses thus many of the approved patients include elders. However by allowing euthanasia, elders will be vulnerable to psychological abuse. Elders often feel like burdens to their family therefore it is hypothesized that they will feel obligated to be euthanized if it is permitted (Care Alliance, 2014). Others are susceptible to being pressured by family members who do not wish to be responsible for them any longer (Osgood, 1995). Consequently, euthanasia will be thought by elders to be an obligation instead of a choice of free will. On the contrary, there are many individuals who want to be euthanized but do not meet requirements. In order for a patient to request euthanasia, they must be deemed competent and they must be able to physically and verbally volunteer (Cohen-Almagor, 2003). Non voluntary euthanasia is illegal around the world thus those who are deemed incapable of requesting euthanasia are forced to bear with any psychological or physical pain they encounter. The legalization of euthanasia will not allow those who truly need it to request it, so the requirements should be carefully reviewed and changed in order to entirely suit all vulnerable patients without the concern of abuse. The inhumanity of euthanasia from the patient’s perspective is distinct however many fail to consider the physician’s

When presented with a short euthanasia scenario and asked for his belief and philosophy regarding this, he

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.

This argument concerns euthanasia going against the Hippocratic Oath. Some may make claims against using the Hippocratic Oath as evidence supporting euthanasia. They may argue that the Hippocratic Oath is a fifth-century idealistic oath that was developed in a time much different from ours. Certain concepts of the oath which are obsolete, such as doctors living their lives in partnership with those who taught them the “art” or denying financial gain when educating another practitioner, may be highlighted in an attempt to make arguments using the Hippocratic oath appear weak. On the other hand, others may contradict this view by stating that although it may have its limitations in the contemporary world, the Hippocratic Oath has been timeless in motivating physicians to provide better care to patients. Thus, it is incoherent for the fundamental aspect of the Hippocratic Oath, do not harm, to be eliminated. The Hippocratic Oath argument above highlights the controversy over euthanasia. It also suggests that arguing for the pros and cons may not be the best way to determine if euthanasia should be permitted since it is substantially opinionated. The most appropriate approach will be to determine the morality of euthanasia and this inspection will prove if physician-assisted euthanasia should be permitted or not.

The act of Euthanasia in humans today is one of the biggest and most controversial topics throughout society today. Euthanasia is defined as the act of taking a person’s life, which is wrong even if the person desires to die. Voluntary euthanasia is when the person who is killed has requested to be killed. It is a serious crime to take someone else’s life. Who has the right to take another person’s life? Who should be allowed to state whether the person should live or die? Euthanasia violates the teachings of Christ, greatly devalues human life, and also violates the fundamental principle of medical ethics. However, some people may see this whole controversy in a different way.

Generally people do not seem to realize the variety of problems that occurs when the abolition of Euthanasia is upheld. Terminally ill patients who request to die formally in ways like the painless lethal injection are practicing to the act of Euthanasia. When living with an intolerable condition each and every day the feeling of death will cross your mind numerous of times. When facing the fact that the incurable condition will only lead to one’s death is heartbreaking. Many patients are diagnosed in conditions where they only have a certain amount of time to life than the condition will overcome their life. That is when these victims revert to the most logical solution at hand by ending the suffering under their own terms. Avoiding the sudden and unpredictable outcome to their diagnosis since the end come occur at any point. Even the doctors of these patients dispise setting the reality in these diagnosis knowing they have no way out but to suffer. Euthanasia has become the saving grace for these patients who realize Euthanasia is best for themselves and their families in their conscious mindset. Under permission and consent from the patient and their families doctors should be allowed to prescribe painless pills that will take their lives at their own terms. The right-to-die, family matters, harmlessness  and financial deficiency is just some of the many reasons why Euthanasia should not be prohibited in the US.

Some might say euthanasia is wrong, it is murder, it is an inhumane act. But is it not inhumane to see another person’s unbearable suffering and not release them when they long to be released? Is it not cruel to watch a person in a vegetative state, with no brainwaves showing, fed by a machine, “breathing” with the help of a machine and not let them be liberated from their pain? Prolonging one’s suffering when an easier, more painless way out is possible is not “the right thing to do”.

In 1935, the sadistic Adolf Hitler legalized euthanasia and used the act as a weapon to commit mass scale genocide against the incurably sick and incurably insane. He targeted the mentally and physically unstable by injecting them with lethal substances or leading them to toxic gas showers, ending their premature lives in minutes (The Life Resources Charitable Trust 36). Yet, in the 21 century, euthanasia is still an inadequate solution to an enormous problem. Euthanasia has had a tumultuous history, full of controversy, and inquiry over whether or not the act should be legal. Although many believe the choice of euthanasia lies in their rights, euthanasia should not be legalized because it undermines medical excellence and not all cases of euthanasia are voiced or confirmed by the bedridden themselves.

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.