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.

Doctors are whom people delegate their lives to when there is something wrong with their health. Death is perhaps the most personal, intimate event of any time. One may believe suffering towards the end of death should be avoided with Euthanasia. Various sources disapprove of the legalization of euthanasia. I believe that all people deserve the right to die in natural timing.

Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.

Euthanasia is categorized in various forms. The first category deals with the patient’s consent. Voluntary euthanasia refers to a patient making the voluntary enduring demand to be assisted with the procedure of assisted suicide while involuntary euthanasia is ending the patient’s life without their consent or awareness. Euthanasia is also categorized in the approach the patient’s life was ended. Active euthanasia is ending a patient’s life by the use of drugs with or without the aid of a physician. Passive euthanasia is terminating a patient’s life by disregarding the necessary actions to maintain life such as withdrawing water, food, drugs, medical and surgical procedures. While passive euthanasia is legal in Canada, active euthanasia is considered murder and is illegal.

Euthanasia has been around for many generations. However it has often been questioned whether or not a patient whom has no hope of recovery has the right to decide when and how to end their life. Euthanasia is often defined as ‘the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering’ (NHS choices , 2014). Euthanasia is also described as Mercy killing, however Mercy killing is occasionally defined as allowing someone to die, by withholding extreme medical measures (Dictionary.com, 2015 ). Euthanasia is a very complex issue and has been a controversial issue for a long time, dating back to the time when ancient romans and Greeks supported euthanasia and its practice after the Hippocratic

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.

In the Oxford English Dictionary, “euthanasia” is defined as “the means of bringing a gentle and easy death” (“euthanasia” def. 2). Today, euthanasia is a method used in the medical field to put an end to a patient’s agony by taking their life for them, making it a very controversial topic. Many people argue that it is morally wrong to take a human life, and others may argue that it is even more wrong to make someone suffer more than they need to. I will argue that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is in fact morally permissible.

Envision one of your family members being diagnosed with end-stage cancer that has spread throughout their entire body. They are helplessly suffering from pain that cannot be controlled with any type of treatment or pain medications. Meanwhile your cousin has been watching her father slowly die and lose all quality of life. While some doctors believe that assisted suicide is morally wrong, it is the right way to end the pain and suffering of terminal illnesses in certain situations. If that family member could have been given the option of assisted suicide, they wouldn’t have to go through so much unnecessary suffering and they could die with dignity.

Euthanasia has been a hugely controversial topic over the past decade. Everyone in society has distinct opinions regarding this procedure. Euthanasia is the act of a physician ending a patient’s life by simply not giving them the proper treatment to survive, or injecting lethal substances in their body. Some believe this act is wrong in every way possible, while others believe this procedure can end the suffering of ill individuals who are dying slowly. Euthanasia is morally, socially, and religiously incorrect. It is incredulous that physicians agree to basically kill a human being. It is unethical for physicians to even agree on participating in this act. Euthanasia should be banned, life takes its own course and it should end naturally, not with “help” from physicians.

In 1939 Adolf Hitler initiated a program called “Aktion 4”, the first step towards genocide. The purpose of this program was to eliminate “life unworthy of life”. At first, only sick and disabled children under the age of 3 were a subject to be euthanized. Eventually, it was used as a tool to get rid of “undesirables”: those who did not posses German citizenship or were not of a “master race”, including Jews, Negroes, and Gypsies. What started as a “mercy killing”, ended 3 years later with the extermination camps of the Holocaust. Almost six million innocent people resulted from what was considered a humane act. Only five decades later, new euthanasia movements emerged in Europe. In the Netherlands, euthanasia has been at the center of public debate since the early 1970s. Today, euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is legal in the Netherlands and several other countries, including Belgium and Switzerland. Does history not teach us at all? Some may say that comparing Hitler’s genocide practices to modern euthanasia is too radical. However, according to a study, 30% of all cases in the Netherlands are done without a patient’s consent. In 70% of which this decision is not discussed with a patient.

There is active-voluntary, -involuntary, and -non-voluntary euthanasia as well as passive-voluntary, -involuntary, and –non-voluntary euthanasia. In active euthanasia, the healthcare professional is giving the patient something to end their life with, be it some drug or a lethal injection. Closely related to active euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide, where the doctor gives the patient the means to die but the patient themselves administer the drug or injection. In passive euthanasia, the healthcare professional is either doing nothing to help the patient or has removed some kind of existing treatment; passive euthanasia is loosely allowing nature to take its course. Whether active or passive euthanasia, if it is voluntary then the patient requested it, if it is involuntary then the patient requested against it but the healthcare provider did it regardless, and non-voluntary is when the patient did not request it but was not against

Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from a terminal illness. When most people bring upon this subject it opens a very broad debate. It could easily be seen in both a negative way and positive way. Some people see it as more of murder and morally incorrect, but some view it as a way to keep someone from suffering until their death. There are ways to cure colds, fevers, broken bones, etc. but for those who are terminally ill, have to live in pain and agony knowing it won’t get better. Despite plentiful hard evidence to the contrary, the same way we have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, we should have to right to death. Also, government shouldn’t be able to define our end-of-life decisions, or our bodily choices. Lastly, keeping the patient alive costs more money and emotional distress than to keep them suffering with no hope of getting better.

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.

Should it be legal to choose physician-assisted suicide? The answer isn't as easy as yes or no. Everyone has their own opinion. There are so many reasons as to why people are against it and many more reasons why others are for it. Some cons would be how euthanasia devalues human life, and how physicians shouldn't be involved in directly causing death. On the other side, euthanasia can be a way to relieve extreme pain, it can provide relief when a person's quality of life is getting lower by the second, and euthanasia can always free up medical funds to help other people.

Dr. Elizabeth Trice Loggers, medical director of the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance's Supportive and Palliative Care Service states, " “If you look at the way most Americans say they want to die, it is in their home, with their family members present, not in pain, and with their mental faculties intact.” (Aleccia, Jonel) Physician assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, has been legalized in a few states across America. You never know when someone close to you will be given the choice of physician assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide should be legalized in all states because health care costs can be reduced, the patients can die with dignity and it is not a sin.