Pro Euthanasia Debate Essay

Legalise euthanasia will ultimately undermine doctor-patient relationship. Euthanasia is basically giving doctors the right to kill their patients. ‘It’s not up to the doctors whether life is happy or unhappy, worthwhile or not and

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.

Physician assisted suicide does not lead to abuses or down the hypothetical slope. Peter Rogatz, a physician, states that requesting someone to be taken off a ventilator is socially acceptable. What is the difference between assisted suicide and ending a ventilator? Does one have to be in coma or brain dead to allow him to die with dignity? These are the questions that patients and society are asking today. Rogatz asks these questions from a physician’s point of view and explains the pain that he has seen through suffering patient’s eyes. These questions alone are one factor that Rogatz is sickened by because he does not understand what in the world the difference should be between these two tragic events. The next point Rogatz explains is that people should see assisted suicide as a merciful end rather than killing. The word killing has such a strong meaning and that does not have any place in the right to die debate because killing is intentional without consent (134). Rogatz believes that the physicians who understand the plea for assisted suicide are doing good not harm. More often than not, the physicians responding to assisted suicide will handle the situation correctly. Rogatz does accept that there will be someone who will abuse this power, but that will not happen with everything physicians have as guidelines. According to Rogatz, physicians also have a strict criterion to even think about mentioning assisted suicide. The patients must qualify for assisted suicide. This factor alone also helps to eliminate abuses because physicians only can administer to a select number of terminally ill patients (134). Assisted suicide is not an act of murder and does not lead down a hypothetical slope.

There is also debate as to whether or not non-participating states should make legislation to legalize this life ending option. Those who are against legalization of physician assisted death often present with the arguments that legalization will lead to abuse of the practice and consequently harsh treatments of our nation’s sickest patients. They also argue that it is an unethical practice in which mortals are “playing God” and determining where the line between life and death is. This group also establishes that physician assisted death is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors vow to “do no harm” to their patients. Additionally, they maintain the argument that all human lives have value from the time of conception until natural death and allowing physician assisted death would be a premature limitation of an individual’s life. The opposition, however, says that physician assisted death is a dignified treatment for hopeless patients whose only alternative treatment is prolonged suffering until death. Additionally, they argue that allowing doctors to participate in physician assisted death upholds the Hippocratic Oath because forcing a patient to endure undue suffering against their will is in fact doing harm. Also, a major argument states

It is obvious discussing physician-assisted suicide is a very controversial issue that is discussed daily by those who wish to die to avoid loss of dignity and also by those who think it is unethical. For physician-assisted suicide to even be considered, the patient must be of sound mind when they are requesting death with dignity. Physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for people who are unable to end their own lives. However, there should be safeguards to prevent any sort of abuse. There should be the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, but not for active euthanasia. “It should never be contemplated as a substitute for comprehensive comfort care or for working with patients to resolve the physical, personal, and social challenges posed by the process of dying” (Meier, D.E., p. 294). If an incurable patient who is suffering asks for specific help in physician-assisted suicide, physicians should have the obligation to fully scrutinize the request. Not only is it the seriousness of considering medicine as the placement of certain suicide an issue, it is a form of direct killing. Medical advances are surely making it easier to reduce pain and suffering, so why should there be policies devised and sanctioned by the state to kill those in pain and suffering?

Opposing viewpoints argue that human euthanasia is inhumane and unethical to patients and the doctors responsible. Many doctors feel that physician assisted suicide stands against everything they stand for. Physicians feel that they have a responsibility to treat patients not murder them. This viewpoint is concerned incorrect to those whom support the Right to Die movement because a doctor's first responsibility to a patient is not only to heal but as quoted in the Hippocratic Oath is to,"First do no harm” which includes allowing an individual to suffering in longing

Many people have different opinions on the debate of legalizing Euthanasia or Physician- assisted suicide. “The term assisted suicide has several different interpretations. Perhaps the most widely used and accepted is "the intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a doctor, relative, or another person". Some people will insist that something along the lines of "in order relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering" needs to be added to the meaning, “(2) The major debate on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are: the slippery slope to legalized murder, the right to die, and the Hippocratic oath and prohibition of killing. “Proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a quick, dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the right to die is protected by the same constitutional safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage, procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment.” (1) I

Margaret Somerville, who has authored, edited, and co-edited a number of books and newspaper articles opposing the use of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and who also is the Samuel Gale Professor of Law, Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, and Founding Director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law at McGill University, Montreal, wrote the internet article titled “Against Euthanasia.” In the article Somerville blatantly states that any type of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is completely and totally wrong under all circumstances. She offers the two major reasons why she considers the practice of euthanasia to be entirely immoral and unacceptable. The first main reason that is given is, “that it is wrong for

Another reason that assisted suicide and euthanasia should be legal everywhere is because it can be the key for terminally ill people to avoid agonizing and intense pain. According to a Statistics Brain study, Euthanasia Statistics, on average “55 percent of terminally ill patients die in pain,” this would lead one to believe that if a nation were to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, less of these terminally ill patients will die painful

A more natural way to administer, or in some ways control, death would be through passive suicide. eu“Passive euthanasia occurs when a person is allowed to die due to the deliberate withdrawal of treatment that might keep them alive” (Pg.124)and prolong their life. It is a legal way of hastening death in a calm manner. Its methods are not the same as active suicide. The main difference is that it simply consists of removing treatments that would prolong life, instead of prescribing lethal doses of medicine to kill someone. Passive euthanasia is not as controversial for the main reason that even e“ many physicians consider it good medical practice not to prolong artificially the life of a suffering person whose disease is inevitably

The term Euthanasia is quite a hot debate these days, even back in last century. People consider this as a process where people choose to end their lives with no physical pain by ingesting a pill, which also known mercy killing and assisted suicide. Due to the effect, many comments are about whether this way of killing should be legal or forbidden. Jack Kevorkian, an euthanasia proponent, was well known as “Doctor Death” who was a physician give patients the choice of mercy killing. Yet, he was arrested in 1999 for convicted second-degree murder, and was released in 2007. Differently, people who stand against euthanasia may see this as a ruthless and unwise action, while it may also cause serious issue in the society. Personally, the

Envision a situation where one of your family members is 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 and they are losing 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 be given the option to use assisted suicide to end their life, they wouldn’t have to go through so much unnecessary suffering and they would be able to die with dignity.

Euthanasia is an issue frequently disregarded and overshadowed by other contradictory subjects such as abortion. This leads to many younger generations having less of an awareness about the more undervalued, unpopular problems that affect our world. Surprisingly, just like abortion, many have strong opinions towards the legalization of euthanasia. Some believe that people should have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies while others believe that it breaks religion and therefore should not be practiced; however, this is only a miniscule portion of such an intricate topic. My goal for this argumentative essay is to promote the legalization of euthanasia and educate those who may not know much about it. I plan to do this by first providing the background behind the practice of euthanasia. Next, supplying opinions from a number of individuals that will include data collected by surveys. Then, to further support my claim, counter arguments will be deliberated on. Finally, it will conclude with my own thoughts on the practice and why I believe people should make euthanasia legal in the states.

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.

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.