Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of euthanasia BBC
religion and euthanasia
religion and euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and cons of euthanasia BBC
Euthanasia is the act or practice of taking someone’s life that has an incurable illness or injury or assisted suicide. Benefits with assisted suicide are helping the terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain, it also help their loved ones who are dependent on to avoid extreme health care cost, and health care cost can be spend on caring for and research for the future. If there are the pros for euthanasia, there are also cons against euthanasia. Those who are against euthanasia are mostly due to their religious beliefs or the fact that doctors will have the advantage to take someone’s life without giving the patient a chance to be cured from their illness. These pros and cons are main reasons why assisted suicide is such a controversy. When it comes to free will, people with an incurable illness have the right to choose to end their life to avoid a lifelong pain and suffering. In 1992, Sue Rodriguez was a great example of someone who decides to end her life because of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease. Lou Gehrig's disease causes the nerve cells in the central nervous system to stop voluntary muscle movements. Patients who have the Lou Gehrig’s disease may have difficulty moving, swallowing, and speaking. Sue Rodriguez was suffering from this disease and she cannot end her pain and suffering based on Canada law that said assisted suicide is prohibited. Her belief about the law was that the banning “...violated the Constitution by curbing her rights of personal liberty and autonomy guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/09/f-assisted-suicide.html#socialcomments). She took her argument twice in the Supreme Court of Canada, but sadly she lost both batt... ... middle of paper ... ...still make a choice on their will before they are in a vegetative state. Most states allow for this to come about. Euthanasia will always be a controversy in society as it is the same as abortion. I stand for euthanasia as it will benefit people more as no one would like to live through life with pain and suffering. Death gives meaning to life. “Any ones belief in life is going to be influenced by their interpretation of the significance of death.” (http://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/51503.html) People should not be afraid of death, as death is part of life. Works Cited "Jack Kevorkian." www.wikipedia.org. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian#cite_note-5 (accessed May 11, 2010). "The fight for the right to die." CBC. Febuary 9, 2009. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/09/f-assisted-suicide.html#socialcomments (accessed Febuary 9, 2009).
There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death. Should these people continue to suffer even though they really are ba...
On the contrary, when looking at the bio-medical model and the treatment of people with disabilities, it is not surprising to note that disabled people tend to resort to the means of assisted suicide despite being prohibited under sec. 241 (b) of the Criminal code. This was seen in the famous case of Sue Rodriguez, a 42 year old woman who suffered from Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, a condition that was slowly depriving her of moving, eating and breathing eventually confining her to bed. Sue Rodriguez argued that by prohibiting physician assisted suicide; it infringed sec 7, 12 and 15(1) of the Charter of rights and Freedoms which was overruled by the court. In the end, Sue Rodriguez did end up dying with the help of a help of a unanimous physician.
In British Columbia, euthanasia is illegal as it is unconstitutional and violates Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Duffy, 2015). Muckart, Gopalan, Hardcastle, and Hodgson (2014) define euthanasia as the conduct that brings about an easy and painless death for persons suffering from an incurable or painful disease. I maintain that the law should regulate euthanasia as it goes against the Charter and the judicial system should have the power to determine issues relating the euthanasia as legality is under question. I will rely heavily on the narratives from The Common Place of Law supported by secondary sources (Ewick & Silbey, 1998). I will consider each of the possible alternatives of legal consciousness to develop
Because only the individual or their families can decide what that particular persons quality is they should have the right to choose if euthanasia is an option. For those who suffer from terminal illnesses, euthanasia would be a way to escape from intolerable pain that cannot be alleviated by pain relieving drugs (Minois, 131).
Those against it are equally worried about the victim’s situation in where their lives are taken away without their consent and at the same time, the possibility of a recovery. However, just because something is not accepted by society does not mean it is wrong, as the pro side of involuntary Euthanasia mentions, it would end with the victims’ pain by giving them a peaceful death. The reason to keep someone alive is to give him/her a new opportunity to fight for an improvement, if there no such thing the best option, although the hardest too, is to let the person rest in a better place, the positive fact about practicing Euthanasia is that the organs of the victim will save a life. On the other hand, a good effect of keeping someone alive is that the family will still see their loved one. Besides, they will save many legal problems because of Euthanasia still illegal in many countries. Both sides can agree that their cases in where their beliefs do not fit, as an example for the ones that support involuntary Euthanasia, if there a possibility to a recover they cannot kill the patient, they must keep him/her alive until the doctors said something different. In comparison, an exception for the con side that does not support involuntary
McCullough, Colleen. "Why I Oppose Euthanasia." The Weekend Australian 16-17 Mar. 1996. http://www.ucaqld.com.au/trendz/3ethics/oppose.htm (27 Feb. 1997)
Do terminally ill patients have the right to choose death with the assistance of others? Do religious and political leaders have the right to intervene with a patientís decision to die with the assistance of others? These two questions are some of the many about which this increasingly complex debate thrives. Society is often asked to answer each ques...
Envision being diagnosed with end stage cancer. You are only given a few months remaining to live. Your doctor informs you of all the frightening and painful experiences lying ahead of you. As your health beings to deteriorate, your family no longer recognizes the person that you once were. Would you choose the path to suffering tremendous amounts of pain, or would you want to die peacefully? Euthanasia is an assisted death option for those who are diagnosed with an incurable disease. It is the permissive right of voluntary suicide, to prevent those who are terminally ill from suffering in vain. Some terminally ill patients suffer a great deal of pain, and do not wish to prolong their suffering. Euthanasia ensures that a person with a degenerative disease can end their own life with the assistance of the medical community.
Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.
Who owns your life? In the case of Canadians, the choice to die is not in your hands…unless you decide to break the law. Sue Rodriguez, 42, from British Columbia, fought the Supreme Court of Canada, challenging the prohibition against Euthanasia. She lost to a vote of five to four. Sue later took her life with the help of an anonymous doctor. Ironically, Canada was founded upon the principles of rights, freedoms, and dignity. Why do our rights end when faced with Euthanasia? Does freedom from suffering not apply? How does artificially prolonging life respect human dignity? The act of Euthanasia poses many questions because there is an element of control. The following paper will examine why the control should be in the hands of the individual: Fundamentally, controlling one’s life should be an independent choice; additionally, the majority of Canadians are in favour of euthanasia; moreover, many arguments against euthanasia are invalid.
Thus, despite the arguments against euthanasia, patients’ lives should not be deprived of well-being, comfort or dignity. “In the last stage of life, every person is entitled to a high standard of care and a stable environment in which his or her privacy is respected” (Policy Options, 2013). A lot of the time, patients with terminal illnesses are thought of as ‘better off dead’ or ‘not the person they used to be’. This is all the more the reason why euthanasia should be legalized in Canada. The government should relax current laws and allow doctors to participate in assisted suicide if need be and are willing. If people suffering with terminal illnesses want to die peacefully and not endure painful procedures or live off machines whilst also helping society out money wise, the option should be available.
Smith, M. (2002, October 24). THE RODRIGUEZ CASE: A REVIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION ON ASSISTED SUICIDE.Government of Canada . Retrieved December 26, 2010, from dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp349-e.htm#B. Section 12(txt)
Euthanasia is very controversial topic in the world today. Euthanasia, by definition, is the act of killing someone painlessly ,especially someone suffering from an incurable illness. Many people find euthanasia morally wrong, but others find people have control over thier own bodies and have a right to die. A solution to this problem is to have the patient consent to euthansia and have legal documentation of the consent.
Sobsey, Dick. "A Background Paper Prepared for The Premier's Council on The Status of Persons with Disabilities (Alberta)." Euthanasia & People with Disabilities. University of Alberta. Web. 11 Jan. 2014.
Euthanasia, according to the dictionary, means the killing of a person who is suffering from an incurable disease. Lately, it had been a huge debate over whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. Personally, I believe that euthanasia should be legalized if it is voluntary. I have three reasons for my argument.