Persuasive Essay : The Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia

When a patient is terminally ill or is experiencing extreme pain, often Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide can both be plausible options to end any suffering. Euthanasia is currently legalized in seven countries and parts of the United States (New Health Guide). This number is not likely to increase soon because of the high controversy, which is due to the very serious topic of this matter: a person 's life. The general process of these medical methods is usually understood as a doctor somehow deliberately causing the death of a patient or helping with their suicide. Many believe that it is unethical and violates laws, oaths, and more. Though people believe this, it is truly unethical to not give a person a choice in the manner in which they will perish.

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?

Before passing moral judgment on this issue it is imperative that the true definition of euthanasia is stated to shine clarity on the matter. Euthanasia is formally defined as the administration of drugs to a patient with the precise intention of ending the patient’s life at his or her request (Marcoux, 2013). This differs from physician-assisted suicide, in which case the patient receives the life-ending drug from their physician and administers it directly to one’s self. Additionally, we must distinguish this act from other end-of life medical treatments such as withholding treatment, treatment withdrawal and terminal sedation (Marcoux). These treatments consist of CPR, blood transfusions and ceasing life-sustaining treatments such as ventilators. These acts, with proper consent by the patient, are deemed legal and moral. (Marcoux). Thus, while euthanasia shares some similarities with the mentioned treatments they are not the same and this is where the ethical dilemma occurs. It can be reasoned

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.

“Euthanasia is known as mercy killing [or assisted suicide] in order to painlessly terminate one’s life with the humane motive of ending his or her suffering,” states Dr. M. Maisie. Even though it can be argued that euthanasia is no different from a homicide, euthanasia is no the chance to alleviate agony of terminally ill patient. It is unfair and inhuman to force suffering upon any living thing, and we see animals being shown the compassion that many patients wish they had. Euthanasia saves money that could be used to cure patients. Furthermore, death is inevitable for everyone; it is one of the few things promised in life. But isn’t

The act of deliberately ending one’s life ostensibly to relieve him/her from severely unrelenting pain and suffering is called Euthanasia. The word Euthanasia is derived from a combination Greek prefix, ‘Eu’ and ‘thanatos’ meaning good and death respectively (Humphry 1-A). According to Webster’s Dictionary, Euthanasia is the practice or an act of ending the life of a hopelessly sick or injured person and will eventually lead to his/her death. Euthanasia—commonly referred to as mercy killing draws and a lot of unending debates and unparallel controversies not only the medical doctors and the families of the affected individuals, but also from the general public, governments, policy makers and scholars alike. Euthanasia is arguably attributed with socioeconomic benefits as well as moral aspects of life. If anything, death being an inevitable natural phenomenon and every living organism, at one point or another must die.

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.

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.

Why is it that when we see a disabled person, we tend to feel pity and sometimes consider than inferior than rest of the people whom we in society connote as normal. Disability is often defined in a Foucauldian perception of being a social construct rather than the actual disability which is the lack of ability which can relate to physical and mental imparity to the norms. Utilising interpretivism epistemology and an empiricism perspective, this essay shall explore disability social perception, the facilities provided, euthanasia and government regulations in a contrast between Australia and the United Kingdom.

Everyone has experienced an extreme pain at some point in their life. This pain could be physical or emotional; but could you imagine being told you have to live with that pain until you die that could be days, months, or years from now? What if you were then told that you were going to die soon from that pain? Would you choose physician assisted suicide (PAS) if you didn’t want to suffer anymore? Euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or an irreversible coma. However, if it is what you want who should stand in your way; some of the states in the United States are legalizing this option. In order to make sure this option is the right one, there is a criterion the patient must meet as well as a few other protocols. If euthanasia is legal in some states, why shouldn’t it be legal in all and should it be legal in general? I believe it should be legal in all states.

Euthanasia, a medically assisted suicide carried out by a medical professional such as a physician or doctor in order to relieve one of pain, is a controversial procedure that is illegal in many parts of the globe (Medical News Today). Pain, both physical and emotional, is seen sometimes as inescapable making euthanasia a necessary procedure to help those in need. While being illegal in many places, euthanasia is best seen as a great alternative option for those suffering and wanting to end the pain they’re undergoing (Medical News Today).

Death and dying is inevitable. At some point every living person, thing, or creature will meet the last day of life due to regular or unusual circumstances, but now ethically the topic of death has changed by the introduction of euthanasia. According to The Gale Encyclopedia of Nursing and Allied Health, euthanasia is the act of putting a person to death painlessly, or allowing a person to die by withholding medical treatment in cases of incurable and usually painful disease.1 Otherwise in a more basic terminology, euthanasia is loosely defined as the merciful killing of the hopelessly or terminally ill. There are many different ways for a patient to be euthanized and many different feelings towards the matter.

Healthcare is a huge issue in today’s society. Doctors and nurses throughout the world discuss different topics to try to find cures and support many health issues that people have to face. One such issue, that gives rise to much controversy, is that of euthanasia. This is the act of killing or permitting the death, in a painless manner. Euthanasia is very case-to-case, but no matter the situation, it should never be forced upon anyone.

Before analysing the link between ethical theories and euthanasia, euthanasia and the current legal stance must first be defined and evaluated. As stated by Christian Nordqvist. (2010), euthanasia can be defined as “a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering”. Society most widely views euthanasia as the “intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from another person”.

Euthanasia in America is a controversial topic surrounding the rights of a patient under the care of a physician. Euthanasia refers to the process when a physician assists the patient in dying and administers a form of treatment such as a drug that results in their death. The rights of a patient in terms of requesting euthanasia have long been debated, however, there are four philosophers, Brock, Callahan, Lach, and Arras, that have formally discussed the morality of euthanasia in their work. They each bring up various reasons for why it may be justified and allowed, or why it must be restricted or prohibited with regards to public policy. From their works, three convincing objections to implementing a public policy were presented. These were the inability of a policymaker to properly address the limitations of euthanasia in writing a policy due to difficulty, the possible misuse of euthanasia due to not alternative options of treatment being available or explored, and that physicians may not accurately gauge if a patient’s decision is competent and consistent with their values. These objections presented to the creation of a policy permitting euthanasia are valid, and therefore, a policy should not be created at this time.