Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a controversial subject of debate globally due to its seeming intrusion of a person’s fundamental right to life. Allowing Australians access to euthanasia would give them the opportunity to alleviate prolonged suffering from terminal illnesses. For many, the expenses of medical care for terminally ill patients is extremely expensive and creates financial stress upon themselves and their family. While there is much extensive and thorough research and evidence as to why euthanasia should be legalised, many Australians do not have the same views. Although some believe euthanasia is morally wrong, Australians should have the right to decide for themselves.
Para1:
Australians should be able to choose euthanasia as part of their ability

Preventing a person from making the choice to end their life due to unbearable conditions due to a terminal illness, is breaching their humanity and their ability choose for themselves. If the dying process is unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten it, and thus reduce the unpleasantness. Many people think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. Behind this lies the idea that human beings should has as much freedom of choice as possible and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a negative intrusion on that right. The views and beliefs of religious individuals shouldn’t be inflicted upon those who do not practise the same religion or religion at all. Gorsuch (2006) proposes government laws shouldn’t dictate what people would want to do to their own body if it to alleviate them of prolonged suffering of a terminal

Most people believe in quality of life over quantity so with the availability of euthanasia people can dictate their lives and have the dignity of a chosen death. To deny an individual of the dignity of a chosen death, they are forced against their will to live out the rest of their life in agony and discomfort. Diaconescu (2012) believes that the law should not restrict individuals from their choice to preserve their quality of life in their own way. If an individual feels that dignity is unattainable due to the progression of a terminal illness, then taking recourse though assisted dying should to be a legitimate option. Keown (2002) comments that the main hindrance to the allowing of euthanasia has proved to be the objection that, even if they were morally acceptable in certain 'hard cases ', voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide could not be effectively controlled; society would slide down a 'slippery slope ' to the killing of patients who did not make a free and informed request, or for whom palliative care would have offered an alternative. But that would not be the case as the process for choosing euthanasia is an extensive and thorough examination of the patient. According to Sikora and Lewins (2007) terminally ill people can have their quality of life severely damaged by physical conditions such as incontinence, nausea and vomiting,