Essay Euthanasia is Morally Wrong

One of the Ten Commandments put forward by God to Moses at the top of Mount Sinai. The killing of another human being is morally wrong and unacceptable. No one has the right to take away another persons life, whether it be through hatred and disgust, or compassion and love. Murder is murder. So why should those select few who work in the clinics of Switzerland, whose occupation is to assist in a person’s suicide, become immune from this law against murder. It is them who provide the patient with, and administer, the method of how they are going to die. To me, that sounds like murder.

In the debate over euthanasia, the opponent concludes that euthanasia should be illegal because it is goes against nature, dignity, personal-interests and has a practical effect. On the other side of the debate, the supporter concludes that euthanasia should be legal because moral principles, what it really mean to kill, end suffering, the difference between injury and not injury. In this essay I will conclude that euthanasia should be legal.

When someone is inevitably dying and in inexplicable pain is it really a crime to grant their wishes and end their suffering? As of right now euthanasia is illegal in many countries and is a very controversial topic. Is it compassion for the patient helping them in ending their life or murder? The doctor is not giving death as an option, it is the patients choice and even where it is legal there are many rules. Euthanasia should not be considered a crime because the patient is not being murdered; they are having their suffering end in a painless, humane way out of compassion for the patient and their family.

Moreover, euthanasia is restricted by the church. This is another important point that we should consider, especially for religious people. According to “Death and Dignity” it is emphasized that “Life is a gift from God and it is only God who can take it back”. Christian’s point of view considers euthanasia as a crime against church, religion and God. Christians consider this as an immoral act. When considering the religious factor as well, we can conclude that no one has the right to take control over our lives, especially when we are unconscious.

The author states that “it is never justified to intentionally bring an end to human life in order to relieve one of a burdensome existence” (Doug). A human life should be sacred. To take away someone’s life breaks that sacred bond that a human has with another. Life should not be consider something that a person can take away. Euthanasia disregards the value of a human life, and it is a treatment that can act a double-edge sword.

The topic of euthanasia has caused much controversy, It has been a subject of debate due to its seeming infringement of a person’s fundamental right to live. As a law, Euthanasia is legal in some countries, even in some parts of the United States. The topic of Euthanasia is a huge debate and a very researched subject in bioethics to this day. It is the right of any living human being to see the many benefits that the use of euthanasia provides. Euthanasia should be legally allowed in the United States because it interferes with the concept of ordered liberty, and ultimately makes death with dignity a real option.

“Death is quite often better than what we do to patients” (Pavlish, Brown-Saltzman, Hersh, Shirk, & Rounkle, 2011, p. 390). This quote comes from a palliative care nurse who witnesses the suffering and extreme pain her patients endure on the daily. In this paper we will discuss the ethical dilemma of euthanasia and how it affects the nursing profession, along with the moral issues pertaining to the dilemma.

There are several arguments that favor active euthanasia. One argument is that it’s appropriate for healthcare professionals create a peaceful environment for death of an individual. A second argument is that people have the right to make their own decisions. Lastly, the remaining arguments consist of laws requiring certain safeguards to regulate the use of active euthanasia. There are several arguments that oppose this practice. The first argument in opposition is that doctor’s primary responsibility is to sustain life and to not cause death. The second argument in opposition is that patients that ill to consider this treatment are not’t mental stable enough to fully give consent. Lastly, the remaining arguments in opposition consist of how deeply this practice will affect the culture of medicine.

Euthanasia has been a well discussed issue in the arena of biomedical ethics. Many are against it; as well as many also favor it. This is evident with the fact that some countries and states have already legalized it or had made laws with regards to its practice. Ever since I can remember, euthanasia has been a very delicate issue since it really involves the one thing which we regard as the most important in this world: life. But we must also be aware that the issue of euthanasia really involves so many layers than just the taking away of a life. In this paper, I would aim to answer the question of whether or not euthanasia should be legalized and be introduced as an option for patients who really need them the most.

It is necessary to explore the different types of euthanasia first in order to fully understand what is involved in determining the moral worth of such acts. The two forms of euthanasia, active and passive, involve the actions of either ‘killing’ or ‘letting die’. An active form of euthanasia refers to the act of purposely taking positive measures, such as lethal injection, to bring about a person’s death. Thus, it is referred to as ‘killing’ many standards. On the other hand, a ‘passive’ form of euthanasia involves the action of either discontinuing medical treatment, or not giving treatment at all. James Rachels and Philippa Foot, both philosophers, have explored the realm of euthanasia from different moral points of view. In James Rachels’ essay, “Euthanasia and Suicide: Active and Passive Euthanasia”, he states that neither active nor passive euthanasia are morally different from each other because the intent is the same for both types: to benefit the one who is to

Euthanasia is a subject shrouded in controversy. Euthanasia plays on many human emotions and values because the human race holds life as sacred. People in every society have rules governing the termination of their fellow humans. Sadly, there are times when people are faced with the difficult decision concerning what should be done for a loved one who is terminally ill, and no longer has hope of a good quality of life? The controversy lies within the human comprehension of right and wrong. Most humans believe it is wrong to kill unless the law justifies the action as in declared war or the death penalty. Life transpires around every individual, yet life is not perfect. Life can be grimy, unpleasant, and unfortunate. The grisly

Many people argue that euthanasia is morally incorrect because it denies someone the right to their life. However, this argument can easily be refuted in many different ways. One of the ways to disprove this argument is to point out the fact that the people who request euthanasia most commonly have illnesses that cannot be treated. This shows that euthanasia isn’t denying them life, but it is relieving their suffering.

Death by choice or euthanasia is a very controversial subject that is typically one-sided. The very concept of death alone is somewhat a taboo, but controlling death itself is another monster. Death by choice or “euthanasia” should not be legalized because it promotes defeatism, may lead to the strict procedures to become more accessible to people with non-fatal illnesses, could legitimize murder, or pressure the elderly.

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.

The word Euthanasia means “Good Death” and is also the name of one of the greatest controversities alongside abortion. Over the years people have been swayed between the ideas of what Euthanasia entails, yet in the end we are all going to die. When arguing for Euthanasia people would bring up such points as to the benefits of saving a loved one from future suffering or allowing the patient to decide how they die on their own. The opposing argument would argue that once Euthanasia is wrong because not only does it go against moral and ethical codes, but once it is legalized what is to stop people who want to commit suicide to do so. The main arguments for Euthanasia consist of whether it should be legalized, the morality questions, and the ethicality of it all. The common ground between both authors is to give the patient as least suffering as possible while taking care of them in a way they consider is best.