Persuasive Essay On Euthanasia

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their

The reality is that today’s world is filled with anguish from untreatable diseases. Despite the rapid improvements of modern medicine, saving a person’s life or easing their pain is unlikely. The patients’ illnesses make their lives excruciating as they lose the hope of living a painless life. The act of painless killing to relieve another’s suffering is called euthanasia.

One of the highly controversial topics in today’s society is the idea that euthanasia has many effects on the world’s stance on whether someone should be allowed to die on their own terms. Euthanasia can end the suffering of those who need it, but may have long term effects on people outside of the patient. People do not have a right to euthanasia because it is viewed as unethical, may have negative emotional effects, and is currently illegal in the world.

In 1994, physician-assisted suicide became legal in Oregon which was the only state during that time. Physician-assisted suicide, also euthanasia, is when a physician provides a patient with the medical means or the medical knowledge to commit suicide. Particular words are so sensitive that individuals across the world are still, to this day, attempting to delete the Death with Dignity Act. The notion legalizing assisted suicide frightens citizens; however, they do not know how the patient feels. Laws like this should be used to open the minds of citizens who believe that physician-assisted dying is morally wrong and help patients in pain. Patients with a terminal illness should be allowed assisted suicide because their organs can be used freely to save another's life, they can pass knowing it was their choice, and it can decrease the hospital costs of the patients.

Assisted suicide is when the suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, affected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose. It’s a personal decision and no one should make that decision for them. It’s their life and they should be able to decide what to do with it.

In the past, a doctor was a friend who treated the diseases. Now a doctor is a stranger who combats diseases. Their job is not only to prevent death but also to improve the patient’s quality of life. Lots of times there is nothing a doctor can do to prevent a patient from dying if the patient has a terminal disease; all they can do is wait for death to arrive. This waiting time can be very painful for both the patients and the people who surround them. Not practicing euthanasia at the request of the dying person is violating a person’s rights, interfering with a doctor’s job, and increasing suffering.

Euthanasia is described as the practice of killing an individual who is suffering from an incurable illness or disease, which is commonly referred to as assisted suicide. In the past few years, various states have started to consider legislation regarding the legalization of active voluntary euthanasia. The proponents of this practice argue that patients can sometime undergo intolerable and unbelievable suffering and that euthanasia is a potential alternative for alleviating their suffering or ending their hopeless conditions. However, the present debate regarding legalizing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide has mainly focused on whether it's appropriate for certain individuals or whether passive euthanasia is similar to passive euthanasia. The main issue surrounding the debate revolves around the ethics of having a specific social policy or practice instead of the morality of a particular decision during the care of an individual patient. The major ethical concern about legalized euthanasia is whether legalizing it would promote or prevent a good death for many Americans who die annually from incurable illnesses.

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.

The term “euthanasia” is derived from Greek, and means “Good death.” It is a broad term for mercy killing, which is a plea to euthanasia. It represents a serious socio-legal debate. People do not always die well. Some afflictions cause people to suffer extreme physical pain in their last days, and euthanasia may seem a compassionate way to end the pain. The case of Karen Ann Quinlan set a precedent for patient’s right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. However, the credit of bringing euthanasia to the public goes to Jack Kevorkian.

The word euthanasia is defined as good death, but this meaning cannot be taken literally without analyzing its underlying implications (Vaughn 595). The primary issues that must be raised when discussing euthanasia are differentiating between active and passive forms, analyzing the values that people place on their life and realizing that euthanasia is beneficial. Euthanasia provides a means for patients who are in agony to be relieved of their condition while ensuring that doctors follow appropriate and lawful procedures. I will argue that just as passive euthanasia is legal in some jurisdictions, active euthanasia should be made legal as well.

“Euthanasia, also [known as] mercy killing, [is the] practice of ending another’s life with the aim of enabling the person to avoid severe suffering, typically from a terminal illness” (“Euthanasia”). Furthermore, a study conducted in Washington State revealed that most of the participants who requested euthanasia had the diagnosis of cancer, neurological disease, or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (Back et al. 919). This study also uncovered that “the patient concerns most often perceived by physicians were worries about loss of control, being a burden, being dependent on others for personal care, and loss of dignity” (Back et al. 919). Although some argue that euthanasia is the best way to die for terminally-ill

Euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma” (Merriam-Webster, 2014). The concept of euthanasia has led to a prolonged argument as to whether it should or should not be legalised. This essay explores some of the competing arguments before concluding that euthanasia should remain illegal. The first key finding found was for euthanasia as it ends suffering forever. The second was against euthanasia as it challenges the Hippocratic oath. The third was also against euthanasia due to there being no proper regulations for it. Finally, the fourth was again against euthanasia as there are two better alternatives, in which preserve life instead of ending it, being palliative and hospice care.

The debate over the use of euthanasia is ever growing. This is due to the fact of constant increases in medical advances. Medical advances are growing the number of medicines one can be given before palliative care is an option. The main concern of the debate is whether trying new treatments and medicines are necessary before palliative care is given. Two articles will be analyzed using the Aristotelian method. Both articles are valid, but the New York Times article written by Haider Javed Warraich offers a complete perspective using all three persuasive appeals compared to the article written by Terry Pratchett for The Guardian, which the majority is written on emotion.

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.