More handpicked essays just for you.
Legal and ethical issues surrounding euthanasia
Legal and ethical issues surrounding euthanasia
Legal and ethical issues surrounding euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Euthanasia and the Robert Latimer Case
Euthanasia is undoubtedly an issue that plagues the minds of those living with children or adults who are severely disabled. Rarely is one found to have a ‘ neutral' outlook upon it; that is, a side must be chosen, for or against. It is too delicate a topic to be ‘in the middle' about. Over the years, cases involving euthanasia have caused massive controversies as to whether or not it is feasible to take the life of another human being in order to ‘put them out of their misery'. One of the strong questions raised in my mind is: Does the killer really want to put the victim out of their misery? Or is it the killer who is under the extreme pressures of living with the victim, and is it their own lifestyle that they are truly fed up with?
In the Robert Latimer case, as in many other cases of euthanasia, it can never be proven whether or not Latimer killed his young daughter Tracy to ‘save' her, or to save himself. While I have never experienced living with someone who is severely disabled, I have had the chance to discuss the issue with many friends and associates. From what I have learned, it is, indeed, an extremely tough matter to deal with. While no-one I have spoken to has been suicidal over the matter, they have seen the true pain and misery that some severely disabled individuals are forced to deal with every day of their lives. Still, many agree with myself on the point that a human life is just that, a human life; and that everyone alive has the right to live, no matter whether or not it is under tougher circumstances than another person. Nobody has the right to take the life of another person, and technically, the law states that nobody has the right to take their own life as well.
A severely disabled person may have to deal with much pain in their lives, but they are entitled to the right of simply enjoying being alive, and denying them that right would be an infringement upon their freedom. Latimer should have taken the law into deeper consideration before taking his daughters life. He may have seen the suffering that she went through, but it is evident that he had some sort of strange love for his daughter. Indeed, he did want ‘what was best' for Tracy, but possibly what he was after was what he thought was best. He valued her rights as his daughter, unfortunately he did not value her rights as
The non-fiction text I decided to read that led me to my topic of Capital Punishment is titled, Just Mercy by attorney-at-law Bryan Stevenson, and it provides stories of a lawyer who wanted to bring justice to the court system by helping men, women and children, sentenced to death row by helping them obtain their freedom. The book first begins with a back story of the Mr. Stevenson. Bryan Stevenson is a graduate from the law soon of Harvard. His interest in Death Row cases grew when the law office he was interning for sent him to talk to a man, Walter McMillian, who was sentenced to death row after wrongfully being accused of a murder he did not commit and was framed for. Mr. Bryan helped him, and Walter was eventually released about six years in death row. In the book, Mr. Stevenson goes through many cases that he has taken upon, some failures and some great success. The people Bryan helped were mostly minorities who faced racial bias at the time of their trial. He represented not only men, but also children. There’s stories about how a woman whose baby was born dead was sentenced to prison
In the book Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson is a memoir where Bryan Stevenson guides us through his life as a lawyer for those who are death sentence. From 1983 when he was student at Harvard Law to 2013 where he lost a client he was defending for years , he takes us through several cases he has taken over the years and showed how they personally impacted him as not only as a lawyer , but a person as well.
Malcolm X should be everyone’s hero, someone people like myself should look up to as a human being. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either a racist or is extremely ignorant. Malcolm X wore his heart on his sleeve and whether right or wrong he was never afraid to say what was on his mind to anyone who cared to listen. I personally believe Malcolm X’s beliefs give me strength to do what's right and carry myself with dignity. I remember, as a kid, my parents had tons of books about Black History books. The first book I read was a Malcolm X biography. I realized Malcolm X was truly a powerful, significant, and essential work for all time.
“Just Mercy” by Bryan Stevenson (2014) really uncovers the devastating truth behind our justice system, from people who provide false testimony on a whim, to biased jurors, to an entire court system that does not, chooses not, to recognize its own errors. The book focuses on the Walter McMillan case, and is interwoven with chapters of how Stevenson came to study law, with different cases he’s worked on braided in with accurate and relevant facts throughout. The story, from a perspective as a person that is relatively against the death penalty, and certainly is against youth being punished to “die in prison” (a term used by Stevenson that is much more factual) is heartbreaking to read.
Malcom X’s outlook on race goes through many stages of change throughout his life. As a child, Malcom X was immediately categorized as black and poor, therefore being a lower class citizen and creating a lack of exposure and diversity of ideologies. As he grows up and meets new people he is introduced to different lifestyles and for once has an opportunity to choose what kind of life he is going to lead. This creates a young man who does not his own identity and is soul searching. Ideas are introduced to him slowly. Everybody he meets has something new and exciting to offer to him.
Life is a precious gift given to us the moment we are born and Thomas Jefferson knew this. We can define life as having respect for ourselves and others, accepting our individuality, not judging certain groups or individuals, and being able to exercise our morals and beliefs. Living in America, we are allowed to live these rights of “life”. The United States has become a very diverse nation.
Society thinks being multi-cultural is a reason why many people aren’t as successful here because they cannot leave behind their old culture and transition to the new one. Gloria Anzaldua, author of: “How to Tame a Wild Tongue,” says, “Until I can take pride in my language, I cannot take pride in myself,” explaining that she wanted to be proud that she was Chicana and American at the same time but without the demands of picking either one. Literacy impacted Gloria Anzaldua’s life because she went through the obstacle of whether being true to herself or becoming someone who she was not to please society. In the story, “Blue Collar Brilliance,” by Mike Rose is also a good story that tells us that literacy does not determine our intelligence levels, because for every job there are a certain amount of techniques you need in order to be able to perform well. Although there are occasions when literacy isn’t as important, being well educated is a crucial thing in order to make yourself stand out and be able to navigate through this
On September 2, 2014, after three decades of waiting for their death row, Henry Lee McCollum, 50, and his half-brother, Leon Brown, 46, were declared innocent and ordered released with $750,000 in compensation from the state (Brothers Henry McCollum). After thirty years of isolation, the brothers are both mentally and physically affected. McCollum and Brown, who are now middle-aged men, have no education, job, or family, have to reorganize their lives in which they could have done 30 years ago. The two brothers, who were only scared, mentally challenged teenagers, while under pressure, confessed to committing a capital murder. Moreover, the question, whether race played a role in the two brothers’ sentence remain unjustified.
...neficiaries of the liberty interest here” (Smith 5). The Court’s ruling for euthanasia is broad and non-specific, allowing euthanasia for the “seriously impaired,” which though it claims to be beneficial to patients, could be applied to treatable conditions. Like the existing laws and the information advertised to the public on saving money, euthanasia advocates are not specific, and they do not tell the whole story of an issue that could costs lives and increase trauma to families.
I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is:
The right to die movement entered the United States in 1980, when a man helped his dying wife ends her life. This man then found the Hemlock Society - an organization that would help terminally ill patients die in peace, and advocated for laws supporting physician assisted suicide. After this event, the movement took charge, finding itself being argued in court numerous times. Debates went on as more and more doctors were being charged with murder as they accommodated their suffering patient’s wishes to die with the method of euthanization - a painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable or painful disease. States began to propose legislation giving these terminally ill patients to be able to choose to die - and although many states rejected it at first, the matter still never left the courthouse. In 1994 the state of Oregon passed the “Death with Dignity Act” allowing “terminally ill adults likely to die within six months to obtain a prescription for lethal medicine from a doctor” - serving as a milestone in the right to die movement. In 2008 Washington becomes the second state to permit physician assisted suicide, and the year after Montana’s Supreme Court ruled that “doctors [couldn’t] be prosecuted for helping to hasten the death of terminally ill patients” (“1980”).
For euthanasia to be effective when legalized, restrictions need to be applied. All of the states that have legalized physician assisted suicide have strict controls over who is eligible for it. A patient must be at least 18 years of age, have six or less months to live, have requested for euthanasia two times at least 15 days apart with the addition of a witness and written request, be a resident of the state, and be capable of making own decisions (ProCon.org 1). These strict requirements allow euthanasia to be abused less, while still benefiting those who are terminally ill.
of life. Death is inevitable. Why should each of us not have the right to
As a community we have the responsibility to guard each others lives. It is vital we do not, under any circumstances, deny anyone the right to live, when we should allow them to live as long as possible. We must not destroy anybody’s life, especially the vulnerable or innocent. I believe in protection of life, and am against abortion, murder and euthanasia, so we can live our lives to the full.
Costanzo, Mark. Just Revenge: Costs and Consequences of the Death Penalty. New York: St. Martin's, 2001. Print.