Persuasive Speech Against Euthanasia

Euthanasia and assisted dying are one of the controversial topics that are highly argumentative for its legalization in many countries. Through it is legal in some countries of Europe, few states in the US, Canada, Japan, Australia is one of the countries that still against legalizing Euthanasia or assisted Dying.Though once this option was legal in NT, reformation of law has caused it to be illegal again.Discussion of this topic is prevalent in media which often fueled by the nonfrequent prosecution of individual who becomes involved in the death of patients wanting death by lethal drugs causing death(QUT,2017).Arguments against legalizing euthanasia in Australia has been discussed in this essay.

A. The problem here is that people are already burdened with an illness and on top of that, it is a long and painful process that they must endure.

It has been argued that for people on life support systems and people with long standing diseases causing much pain and distress, euthanasia is a better choice. It helps in relieving them from pain and misery. In cases like terminal cancers when the patient is in much pain and when people associated with them also are put through a lot of pain and misery, it is much more practical and humane to grant the person his/her wish to end his/her own life in a relatively painless and merciful way.

Physician assisted suicide- the voluntary termination of one’s own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician, and euthanasia, the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable, painful disease are both highly emotional and contentious subjects. Some argue physician assisted suicide (P.A.S.) is admissible for someone who is dying and trying to painlessly break free from the intolerable suffering at the end of their life, and some attempt to argue physician assisted suicide is not considered admissible because it violates the doctor’s Hippocratic oath and other reasons. From research, I believe, however, that there are some solutions that take sides with and against P.A.S. and euthanasia, but when they’re debated against each other there is a stronger argument for allowing the legalization and practices of P.A.S. rather than degrading the practice and prohibiting it.

As we have explained so far throughout our speeches, we think that for the people that are suffering because their treatment is not working, that they should have the option of euthanasia.Under such circumstances, because they are suffering and nothing is working they should have a choice - that means it is of their own will - to die a painless death with the assistance of a doctor. We believe there are too many stories of people who are suffering and want the pain to end but can't die with dignity. Some of them end up committing suicide on their own.

John Frank quotes the American Medical Association saying “Allowing physician assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician- assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks” (Frank, 36).

Think about you lying on a hospital bed and the only reason you are alive is because of wires hooked up to your body. The nurses and doctors are constantly injecting you with painkillers that only prolong your certain death. You are dying without dignity. The only thing that is stopping you know from reaching your kingdom come are the doctors. All this would hardly happen if physician assisted suicide was allowed.

There has been as many arguments over these topics in the medical field as there have been with the law. With medical technology progressing, there are things that can prolong ones life. These things may all seem good, but for a patient who has to live a life of suffering, a prolonged one is not something these people may wish for. This is where physician assisted suicide would come in, the terminally ill patient would go to their doctors for medicine to help with their suffering, fatal drugs. Examples can be taken from landmark cases such as Karen Anne Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan, and Terri Schivao, these are all cases in which the patient (or a close family member), decided that using medical technology to prolong the patients life would not be worth it. The 1990 case of Nancy Cruzan was one that brought much controversy because her parents were the ones to decide to remove the feeding tube after Cruzan was left in a vegetative state after an accident. The parents argued that she should “die a dignified death as they said she would have wanted” (NY Times). Cruzan was in a vegetative state where she could not move and experience life as a

A dead man walking, but yet you have to keep on walking till you take your last breathe. Weak, unhealthy, and already a part of the deceased, you can’t end your own life and neither can your physician. My grandfather was recently in the hospital for terminal cancer with multiple lymph nodes in his throat with excruciating pain every time he coughed, I wondered why they couldn't just let him go if he was going to die soon anyways. Already dying soon, unbearable pain, and being bored counting the colorful blocks on the curtain, wouldn’t you want to go to paradise too?

People make decisions every single day of their lives. Although, people with a terminal diagnosis still have the capability to make decisions, they are not given the legal right to a physician assisted suicide. A choice some may desire in their final days. Once the person with the terminal diagnosis has met the specific criteria he or she should decide what would be optimal decision for both themselves and their families. Palliative care will always be available to terminal patients; however, not all patients will wish to wait and wonder. Nevertheless, some terminal patients will wish to take death into their own hands. People should be allowed to choose how they will die this would reduce the overall healthcare cost, decrease the emotional toll of the patients and their families, and allow there to be dignity within death.

Imagine the case scenario: you are in a hospital waiting room one of your family members is incredibly ill you don't know what going to happen. Your family is called into the hospital room and you discover that your family member has stage three lung cancer and that it has been uncovered for too long that many options are limited, you must walk out of the room because it pains you to see the sight of a loved one ill. The doctor mentions that assisted suicide is one of the options, there are many blank stares. Your family says okay and your loved one gets to spend their last few days with the comfort of their family. Legalizing assisted suicide would allow both terminal and permanently disabled patients an escape from the mental, emotional, & physical pain of useless treatments, and impaired quality of life, in their final months.

Euthanasia, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, religious, philosophical, legal and human rights debate in Australia. Euthanasia is defined as the intentional act of terminating one’s life, who is suffering from an incurable illness or a terminal disease. This act requires explicit consent from the person who wishes to die and it must also be done out of concern and compassion for that person who is suffering. Several legislative attempts have been made to legalise euthanasia in parts of Australia. However, at the present time, it remains unlawful. With Euthanasia being illegal all across Australia it has forced our citizens overseas to unregulated medical centres in hope of having access to a

Whilst in some instances, justice has to some extent, been achieved, this is not always the case. Euthanasia is one of the most, radically contested issues of today. Activists have continually sought law reform on this topic over the last 30 years. Yet, with similar issues as to that of abortion, it raises strong ethical and moral questions. In this case, the beliefs of those opposed have seen a halt on any reform. Meaning that justice, for those in some of the most horrific of life positions, is not being served. Euthanasia is another matter involving 'choice' and 'sanctity of life', it also continues the argument of liberal versus democratic, utilitarian perspectives. An example of the tension between these two principles is seen in comments made by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, 'the demands of common good must be measured against claims of liberties: a request for voluntary euthanasia is a request to be killed by another… Aspects of common good affected by the legislation of euthanasia include equal protection under the law,… and factors affecting an individuals sense of security a times when they are feeling particularly

Euthanasia, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, legal and human rights debate in Australia. Broadly speaking, this term is used to describe the termination of a person’s life to end their suffering, usually through the administration of drugs. The core of this debate is centred on how to mitigate and pacify competing values; an individual's desire to self autonomy and freedom and choice to die with dignity when suffering, alongside with the devaluation of human life as a consequence that is formed through the legalisation of euthanasia. Due to the nature of the topic of euthanasia that is shrouded with ethical controversy and ambiguity, there is difficulty in legal justification and establishment of voluntary

Attention Getter: Think about yourself or picture the one person you love with all your heart. Now imagine yourself or your love one suffering from unbearable pain or something so fatal that can’t be cured. There is no way that you or your love one could function without assistance. You or your love one feel that life has no meaning. This is real situation for so many people. These people should be able to make their own choices and have control of their own lives.