Arguments Against Euthanasia Research

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

Furthermore, euthanasia is a disgrace to humanity. An individual person or group shouldn’t decide how, when, and if another person should die. The act of ending someone’s life just because another decided that the individual’s life gives no worth to the person or to society is unjust. That is simply the person’s opinion, and their opinion shouldn’t end a precious human life. Usually, people with disabilities who request euthanasia, do so because of how others treat them, not because of their actual disability. If we were to respect those with disabilities, that would remove hardships, not death. Another reason why euthanasia is wrong is that a person who can’t think straight or is a human vegetable, a person who does not have mental or physical abilities (O’Steen). She/he can be killed by a guardian’s request according to law, even if the patient never showed a desire to die. The Declaration of Independence states our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and euthanasia goes against that. If the right to live is reduced, all over rights are worthless (“Euthanasia Statement”).

Out of the 196 countries in the world, only nine countries have legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide,” a quote brought up by Storypick. (). Euthanasia is one of the most controversial topics currently, but what can euthanasia offer patients and people all around the United States? People have different opinions and facts about euthanasia; so what are the pros and cons? In the end, euthanasia should be legalized because people will face pain mental and physical, people’s opinions should not be deterred as well with a death that will contain dignity, despite the moral thoughts it goes against. 10.2

The Nazi Party wanted to get rid of all who were not healthy enough to work. Contrary to this fear, there are important “safeguards” to prevent anything like the holocaust from happening with euthanasia or physician assisted suicide (Brock 59). According to a survey done by the Louis Finklestein Institute for social and Religious Research and HCD in February of 2007, fifty-four percent of the doctors who participated believe the government should not control or regulate physician-assisted suicide (Friedman 35). It should be a matter between the patient and his or her medical practitioner. Also, those who oppose euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide may also fear those who are physically or mentally disabled may one day be grouped with those who are terminally ill (Friedman 62). This would not be a problem. Oregon's Death with Dignity Act has a safeguard―the patient must have a predicted lifespan of only 6 months to live to even qualify for being eligible to partake in using this act (Friedman 59). This safeguard is in place so neither the doctor nor the patient can falsely apply. Additionally, euthanasia for terminally ill children is still “morally repugnant” in many of the European countries today. This hatred for the euthanasia of children stems from the Nazis, who killed thousands of

The debate on legalizing assisted suicide is an issue across the globe. It has brought countries to contemplate on the legalities of the matter in their respective legislative branches of government. Assisted suicide is just simply a matter of assessing one's will to perform such act with the permission of the subject or the patient in such way his will be done. The debate now focuses on either the act shall be legalized or not.

Firstly, people who choose to end their life due to a terminal illness are freeing hospital beds and resources for other patients who have a chance of getting better, or wish to continue living. Such resources can be used to research the disease which the terminally ill patient was suffering from, which can be to the benefit of future patients with that disease. Most importantly, euthanasia relieves the patient from a slow, painful death, depending on their illness. Although pain medications can be used to ease the pain the patients are experiencing, most of these medications have unpleasant side effects. Someone who wishes to be relieved of their life due to a life crippling illness should be granted their wish and should not have to suffer further. With this in mind, euthanasia is a procedure which should be offered to

10), was tantamount to murder. The word "euthanasia," which in Greek means "the good death" (10), was simply used as an excuse to try and justify the mass executions committed by the German military. Involuntary euthanasia occurs when a patient's life is terminated even though he or she did not initiate the request, and most importantly, did not want to die. This reprehensible form of murder is illegal in all democratic societies today and would remain so under all currently proposed euthanasia legislation. Voluntary euthanasia, on the other hand, is a patient-driven action. The patient makes an informed decision and requests, in writing, a physician's assistance in carrying out that decision. In many cases, the physician takes a secondary role, with the patient actually completing the act that will end the suffering.

Millions of precious lives have been deliberately taken throughout the world due to the new Euthanasia Law. Euthanasia is the practicing of assisted suicide, due to terminally ill patients or depression. The practicing has just been legalized September 2015, and will be put into effect in California January 1 2016. Although, it is still being argued if adolescents should have the right fro this and if it’s morally correct all together. Euthanasia should be illegal throughout the world, because people shouldn’t be the ones to decide their own death.

The topic of euthanasia has caused much controversy, It has been a subject of debate due to its seeming infringement of a person’s fundamental right to live. As a law, Euthanasia is legal in some countries, even in some parts of the United States. The topic of Euthanasia is a huge debate and a very researched subject in bioethics to this day. It is the right of any living human being to see the many benefits that the use of euthanasia provides. Euthanasia should be legally allowed in the United States because it interferes with the concept of ordered liberty, and ultimately makes death with dignity a real option.

There have been organizations supporting the legalization of voluntary euthanasia in Britain and in the US for years now. They have had some public support but were unable to achieve the goal of legalizing voluntary euthanasia in either nation. In England a society, called “The Voluntary Euthanasia Society” was founded to make voluntary euthanasia legal for an adult that is suffering. The first group that was formed in the US that was for the legalization of euthanasia was the Hemlock Society. This societie’s purpose was to support the decision of a person to die and to offer support when a person is ready to die. The only way the society would support a person was if the person believed in euthanasia for a certain amount of time before requesting to die. “On May 5, 1998, the Voluntary Euthanasia Research Foundation announced its establishment. Its purpose is to make available up-to-date information on developments in technology and methods for those seeking voluntary euthanasia” (Fox 134).

Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.

Margaret P. Battin’s “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do It” discusses the occurrence and practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide in three first-world, industrialized, developed nations: The Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. All three of these countries have one important factor in common that makes them ideal for studying euthanasia: aging populations who primarily die of degenerative diseases, rather than parasitic or infectious diseases (Battin 579). In the United States, outright euthanasia is illegal. Rather, the accepted form of

Pro-life groups contend that if we allow any type of euthanasia, sooner or later, we would begin killing off not only the terminally ill, but also the handicapped, the poor, the elderly and anyone else who becomes troublesome. The view that we should not make a decision because it could lead to other less prudent decisions later is not a reasonable foundation for setting policies, unless later decisions are definite, and are absolutely wrong. I would hope that the virtue of society would lead us to know where to draw the line between going far enough and going too far. At the present time, it is not clear if where the line is drawn now is where it should be drawn. 5. Euthanasia is killing. Most people believe that there are circumstances when killing is allowed, such as self-defense. The only question is whether or not the killing is justified under the circumstances. In the case of self-defense, killing is justified. The same is true of euthanasia. 6. People who request euthanasia may be requesting it because they are depressed and they may change their minds. I believe that psychological evaluation will detect the mental condition of a patient, and depression, if it exists, can be treated. Patients can be given

In current times we have made many technological advances that have boosted the medical productivity in hospitals. However, the rapid development of medicine is far from being a long term resolve for many health issues. We have a plethora of people whose quality of life is very low and has no chance of improving. During these situations allowing the person to end their life via euthanasia should be allowed. I will argue that Euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases because there are several moral justifications that argue for ending one’s life.

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.