Why Euthanasia Is Wrong

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.

The reality is that today’s world is filled with anguish from untreatable diseases. Despite the rapid improvements of modern medicine, saving a person’s life or easing their pain is unlikely. The patients’ illnesses make their lives excruciating as they lose the hope of living a painless life. The act of painless killing to relieve another’s suffering is called euthanasia.

The word euthanasia, when translated, means "good death." Physician- assisted suicide is a fast, painless death that every terminally-ill person should have the liberty to choose. Euthanasia is not a drawn out process like many terminally-ill patients have to deal with. However most people want to die at home in peace and euthanasia gives people this right. The author indicates that more than half of Americans die in the hospital and that is a sad occurrence (Kim 171). PAS and euthanasia allows patients freedom from physical pain and emotional suffering. According to Willke, proponents of euthanasia are quick to accuse doctors of not letting a patient die in peace (1). The author states there are two different definitions for euthanasia. First voluntary active euthanasia is intentionally administering medications to cause the patient's death at the

A patient with terminally ill disease being in critical stage may be suffering from immense about of pain each day of their life. They have the right to request euthanasia that completely ends that suffering. Euthanasia is the painless killing of an patient with incurable disease or painfully disease. In an article by Vinod Sinha, he explains what euthanasia is used for and how exactly it works. He states, "the intent is to end the patient’s life, while in the administration of pain medications that may also hasten death; the intent is to relieve suffering." The intent of those medication is to help relive patient's suffering which is what the patient desires. The pain each day the patient suffers from helps motivate him or her to accept the option to proceed with assisted suicide or euthanasia. Because euthanasia is painless, patients would prefer to die painlessly rather than dying painfully due to their terminal disease. And as basic human rights, the patient has the right to request a painless death to relive the suffering and

Life can be a long, treacherous journey filled with many blessings, disappointments, surprises, and failures. However, the only thing guaranteed in our unpredictable lives is that one day each of us will meet our death. According to the Mariam Webster’s Dictionary, euthanasia is ‘the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering.’ Understandably, one suffering from a terminal illness such as AIDS, cancer, or Alzheimer’s, may think it best to put an end to their agony as soon as possible. Although it can be argued that there may be good intentions in carrying out this “mercy killing”, they do not change the fact that euthanasia is murder and should remain illegal in the United States of America.

Is it right or wrong for someone to pick how and when somebody dies? Should that person or the family be able to choose? In a recent survey performed by the Pew Research Center, they asked if the people approve or disapproved of laws that allow doctor-assisted suicide. The results stated that forty-nine percent of people disapproved of the laws and forty-seven percent approved (Schadenberg, para. 3). If a patient is terminally ill, he or she should have the right to choose between life and death.

Imagine this. You were just in a car accident. You are slowly flashing in and out on your way to the hospital. You continue to see lights flashing in your eyes, and you cannot feel anything. You can see rags soaked in someone’s blood coming off you. It is almost impossible to breathe almost as if you are choking. A couple more seconds and you close your eyes, and they do not open again for a long time. When you finally resurface you find yourself in a hospital bed. Without thinking you try to sit up and are instantly hit with pain. You stop and look around. You see that one leg is gone the other leg is bandaged along with both of your arms. You are hooked up to multiple machines for breathing and eating. After a couple of minutes the doctor

Recent developments in medicine have raised concern for a particular problem that has been a major debate in medical history: the issue of how to treat those who have determined their lives have no likelihood for progression and are no longer worth living. There is a right to die, because human beings have the fundamental and explicit right to choose. Four particular concepts justify how having a right to “live” also implies that there is a right to “death”: individual, competent self-determination, moral incongruity between killing and “letting die”, and the presumed lack of proof to show probable unsafe consequences of legalized euthanasia. Dying is one of the most important parts in human life, therefore the right to die and the right to

Matthew Donnelly has conducted research on the use of X-rays for a little over 30 years. Now, skin cancer riddled his tortured body. He had lost his nose, his left hand, two fingers on his right hand, and part of his jaw. He was left blind and was slowly deteriorating. Doctors estimated that he had a year to live. Lying in bed with teeth clenched from the excruciating pain, he pleaded to be put out of his misery.... Then, one day, Matthew's brother Harold shot and killed his brother to relieve him of the unbearable pain his brother was living in. Harold was tried for murder. For years, people have been debating the morality and legality of an assisted suicide and euthanasia. There are currently eighteen states in America in the midsts of determining whether this should be approved or not. The legalization of a physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia is a must to help patients who are suffering.

They tend to defend their argument with their own opinion value and rights of human life just as I have here but in a different context. As I have previously mentioned, the right for one to choose euthanasia holds a higher value than the views of society. In any case, the process of consent and administering the drugs is only one between the doctor and patient. This signifies a legal binding agreement between the physician and the patient. Therefore, it is not unethical for the physician nor in violation of one’s human rights. So to argue the value of human rights and that all humans deserve to live, is not a valid argument. As previously stated, it cannot be denied that the majority of patients who turn to euthanasia are terminally ill. Their bodies have begun to fail them to the point where they are unable to carry out daily functions such as eating, putting on clothes, or even breathing without assistance. From my perspective, I find it to be virtuous to let a psychologically capable, terminally ill

The hemlock society has two definitions of suicide one is emotional suicide or irrational self-murder in all its complexities. In this society, they do not believe in any type of suicide. In America today Euthanasia is a huge controversial problem that is recently spoken about in certain debates, for example in my American Government we had certain debates on things such as gay marriage, should we have guns in school and about other controversial topics. But one topic we did not thoroughly discuss is the topic of Euthanasia which in my viewpoint wrong and should be kept illegal. Most personals would disagree with me and say that euthanasia is okay if the person is willing to allow it to happen but what most people do not understand is the

On the stance of Euthanasia, I feel like I’m against it. I feel against it because as the book stated that, “human life is a gift from God” (241) It is our life to make choices freely, however “Euthanasia and PAS are morally wrong because they are a rejection of this sacred gift from God” (241) I feel like this is a strong argument when people state that it is their life to decide how they should live and die.

According to dictionary .com “Euthanasia is the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person suffering from an incurable disease”. Specialists, researchers, legislators and delegates of various admissions talk about the likelihood of legitimating Euthanasia. Different nations take inverse sides and either permit Euthanasia or disallow it. "Killing, nonetheless, happens subtly in all social orders incorporating those in which it is held to be improper and unlawful. The history of this phenomena dates back for centuries, but it wasn’t until 1906 when the first bill to legalize euthanasia in America was introduced in the Ohio legislature. For several years, legislatures have been

What would you want to do if you were lying in a hospital bed being told you had an illness that would kill you within the next few weeks? Euthanasia is the choice you make when you're terminally ill, to end your life medically. Doctors have the tools to do this and this process is painless. Some people believe euthanasia is a murder, while others believe the patients should have the rights. People should have the right to end his or her own life if they’re terminally ill. Also this is hard on family members because medical care is very expensive, and it can be hard to see someone die very sick.

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