Pro Euthanasia Argument in Mla Format Essay

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.

When it comes to people’s attitudes towards euthanasia, age has a very strong impact. According to Brogden, elderly, terminally ill individuals are considered vulnerable. They might be short of the ability and understanding of lessening the pain of their symptoms, and could experience apprehension regarding the future and what the consequences of their illness are (Blank et al, 2001). The elderly individual’s decision making about euthanasia may just be because of confusion, depression, dementia, or a number of other symptoms, however, these could all be relieved with suitable treatment and support (Blank et al, 2001).

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.

Active and passive euthanasia has been a controversial topic for many decades. Medicine has become so advanced, even the most ill patients can be kept alive by artificial means. Active euthanasia is a deliberate action taken to end a person’s life, such as lethal dose of medication (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2014). Passive euthanasia is allowing a person to die by not intervening or stopping a treatment that is keeping them alive (Garrard, 2014). There are three main arguments within this issue; Firstly, in the healthcare setting, it is morally accepted to allow a patient to die but purposely killing a patient is not (Garrard, 2014). Secondly, some people believe there is no moral difference between passive and active euthanasia.

To fully understand the issue at hand, one must understand the various forms of euthanasia. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals…in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient is relieved of medical treatment and is allowed to die naturally. Active euthanasia occurs when either a physician or a family member actively takes the life of the patient, perhaps through lethal injection, and eliminates a natural death process. Many people commonly use the word “euthanasia” to refer to assisted suicide. Essentially, assisted suicide is a form of active euthanasia in that a person, usually a physician, aids in the suicide of a patient.

For multiple years, the debate on physician assisted suicide has prevailed. Physician assisted suicide is the death of a terminally ill patient, who wants to die on their own terms with the administration of a doctor. This is different than euthanasia because physician assisted suicide is backed by a controlling legal authority (“Physician…”). Some debaters are uncomfortable with the morality issues that arise with doctors killing patients or physician assisted suicide being abused. Others focus on the pain people who are terminally ill suffer from and the control physician assisted suicide gives them. Overall, the right to live or die should not be up to the government. Physician assisted suicide is legal in six states within the United States. Specific regulations are already practiced in five of those six states. Legalizing physician assisted suicide nationally would solve any regulation issue. Physician-assisted suicide should be legal nationwide with strict regulations in order to offer the freedom that the United States stands for.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian more commonly known as Dr. Death is greatly known for his opinion that euthanasia should be legalized and his work with patients seeking help. He was very important in showing euthanasia and voicing his opinion on the subject so the public could not ignore the importance of the matter. Dr. Kevorkian was said to have been involved with 130 suicides by patients who wanted to end their own lives (Nicol and Wylie 17). He had two machines he used to help the patients, one an injection and the other a mask, however both machines were operated by the patient and although Dr. Kevorkian was taken to court many times for these he was not convicted because the patient was in control. He was very careful as to not actually commit the act himself until he was contacted by Thomas Youk, a young with Lou Gheric’s disease; Lou Gheric’s disease is when the muscle stop working and eventually the patient chokes to death. Tom’s condition prevented him from actually operating the machines and therefore Dr. Kevorkian decided that he would operate the machine himself because he cared greatly about all his patients and could not let Tom live in his constant fear (Nicol and Wylie 11). Dr. Kevorkian taped Tom’s wishes and then himself hooking up the machine and pushing the button to inject the drugs. He then proceed to

Active euthanasia is a subject that is raising a lot of concern in today’s society on whether or not it should be legalized and under what circumstances should it be allowed. This is a very tricky subject due to its ability to be misused and abused. There are a wide variety of things that need to be considered when it comes to who should be allowed to request active euthanasia such as, is it an autonomous choice, do they have a terminal illness, is their quality of life dramatically decreased, and are they in pain and suffering. Both James Rachel and Daniel Callahan have very different opinions on active euthanasia and whether or not it should be allowed. However both authors manage to provide a substantial argument on where they stand regarding active euthanasia.

Euthanasia is a subject most people wouldn’t touch at all. Any argument on this subject usually evolves into a series of complex, abstract questions about freedom of choice, morality and so on. There are many reasons to considering legalization of euthanasia/assisted-suicide, reasons that involve hard statistics, evidence and lived experience.

Active euthanasia is commonly confused with physician assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is performed “when a physician, at a rational request of an adequately informed, competent patient who plans to commit suicide, knowingly provides that patient with the medical means…and the patient uses those means to commit suicide” (Gert). Through this method, a physician does not “actively” kill the person, but simply provides the person with the means to end their own life. For example, a doctor gives a patient an injection of a morphine that is sufficient to cause their death, but does not administer it. In the other hand, a physician “actively” kills a patient to end his or her suffering in active euthanasia. For instance, a physician either overdoses the patient with pain-killers or sleeping pills. Although they are done differently, they both have the same purpose of ending a person’s suffering and pain.

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and

When individuals are lying on their death bed from a horrendous disease or medical condition they are left with no choice, but to lie in pain and agony until they eventually become deceased. But what if there is an alternative? There is in fact an alternative, it is euthanasia, which is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain, agony, and suffering when requested by a patient (Euthanasia). Euthanasia should be legal and acceptably practiced when there is nothing more a physician can do for a patient with the patient’s consent.

Although many individuals are against human euthanasia, I am against prolonging suffering. There are alternative treatments, such as palliative care and hospices. Which kills the symptoms, but

In Belgium, most cases of euthanasia includes a patient who has extreme physical or psychological pain or is terminally ill. Marc and Eddy Verbessem, now deceased belgian twin brothers, had an incurable illness and went blind, and yet had no pain or difficulty. Due to their fear of losing means of communication, they decided to be euthanized, but were declined once until they were granted their wish at their second choice of hospital, in spite of the law. Due to this and many similar cases, euthanasia has become a controversial topic debated about around the world. Euthanasia, also known as “mercy killing”, is a dangerous course to take and is the circumstance where an attending physician administers a dose of a fatal drug to a patient, usually by the patient’s request. Others believe that it is the patient’s right to choose what happens to them and is their right to die. Though controversial, euthanasia must be banned due to its violation of the Hippocratic Oath and its overall illegality in the majority of countries around the globe.

In cases where an individual's quality of life is irreparably diminished by terminal illness, one may seek to end their life with the help of a doctor. This has been a solution for patient suffering in neighboring countries, but there are ethical and legal issues that make it an impractical solution for American healthcare. Considering the results of negative potential of euthanasia practices exposes its flaws, and sheds light on better alternatives. Therefore active euthanasia, not to be confused with physician assisted suicide, should not be legalized in the United States.