Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Euthanasia should be legalized 5 introduction body conclusion
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.
Debate Speech Opposing the That Euthanasia Should be Legalized
Madame chair, fellow members of the opposition, members of the
proposition and members of the house we are all here today to debate
the controversial topic of Euthanasia and whether or not it should be
legalized. Members of the house the opposition vehemently cannot
accept the legalization of Euthanasia.
The term Euthanasia has came to mean an easy death which is what we
all want ,but will legalizing euthanasia provide us with this? To
legalize Euthanasia is to regard the deliberate and barbaric act if
killing a fellow human being as acceptable.
Our lives are a gift from God and all life on our planet is given by
the divine power of our God. God has final authority over our lives
and we should not do anything which would interfere with this. Since
our very beginning God has been involved in our lives, so I ask you
all is it not wrong to try and shut God out from our deaths?
Furthermore as human beings we are made in the likeness and image of
God. This does not mean that we look like God but that human life
possesses an intrinsic dignity and value because it is created by God
in his own image for the distinctive destiny of sharing in his own
life. By legalizing Euthanasia we would be disrespecting the sanctity
and value of life.
On the other hand the proposition have previously argued that
Euthanasia spares a terminally ill person from suffering intolerable
pain and that it is cruel to deny a person’s right to die. We believe
it is not our choice when or how to conclude our lives as we owe our
lives to God. If it was God’s plan for us to suffer then we must obey
his orders. We believe that there may be value in a person’s
suffering. Pope John Paul II said:
‘ Down through the centuries and generations it has been seen that in
suffering there is concealed a particular power that draws a person
Mortality, the subject of death, has been a curious topic to scholars, writers, and the common man. Each with their own opinion and beliefs. My personal belief is that one should accept mortality for what it is and not go against it.
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
The issue at hand is whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized for patients who are terminally ill and/or enduring prolonged suffering. In this debate, the choice of terms is central. The most common term, euthanasia, comes from the Greek words meaning "good death." Sidney Hook calls it "voluntary euthanasia," and Daniel C. Maguire calls it "death by choice," but John Leo calls it "cozy little homicides." Eileen Doyle points out the dangers of a popular term, "quality-of-life." The choice of terms may serve to conceal, or to enhance, the basic fact that euthanasia ends a human life. Different authors choose different terms, depending on which side of the issue they are defending.
In conclusion, humankind is blessed with life as God created it. One must reflect on their actions throughout life because one will be judged by God in the next life, one must see the importance of gasping liberation, and one must have a loving and open heart when helping the poor. Life should be lived to its fullest because once time is lost, it cannot be regained; life needs to be appreciated.
I have brought forward considerations that counter Callahan's reasoning against three types of arguments that support euthanasia: the right to self-determination, the insignificant difference between killing and letting a person die by removing their life-support, and euthanasia's good consequences outweighing the harmful consequences are all positive, relevant and valid factors in the moral evaluation of euthanasia. Callahan's objections against these reasons do not hold.
Death is not a concept that is well grasped or understood but we all know the cycle of life, we live and we die. We do not know how and we do not know when, our fate is laid out for us, we just learn to accept it because it is just how it goes. Some are lucky enough to live a healthy life with few to none complications and some find themselves fighting for their lives because of a terminating illness or severely injured from any type of accident. In an act of pain, torture, agony and knowing there is no hope for survival why can it not be you that has the upper hand in deciding when it is time to say goodbye.
“Michael Manning, MD, in his 1998 book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring?, traced the history of the word euthanasia: ‘The term euthanasia.originally meant only 'good death,'but in modern society it has come to mean a death free of any anxiety and pain, often brought about through the use of medication.” It seems there has always been some confusion and questions from our society about the legal and moral questions regarding the new science of euthanasia. “Most recently, it has come to mean'mercy killing' — deliberately putting an end to someone’s life in order to spare the individual’s suffering.’” I would like to emphasize the words “to spare the individual’s suffering”.
Critics to the idea of providing dying patients with lethal doses, fear that people will use this type those and kill others, “lack of supervision over the use of lethal drugs…risk that the drugs might be used for some other purpose”(Young 45). Young explains that another debate that has been going on within this issue is the distinction between killings patients and allowing them die. What people don’t understand is that it is not considered killing a patient if it’s the option they wished for. “If a dying patient requests help with dying because… he is … in intolerable burden, he should be benefited by a physician assisting him to die”(Young 119). Patients who are suffering from diseases that have no cure should be given the option to decide the timing and manner of their own death. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for
“It’s Over, Debbie” an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, written by an anonymous person, sparks a heated debate concerning the nature of euthanasia. The article is written from the perspective of gynecology resident’s. After analyzing the patient’s condition, he gives her a twenty milligram dose of morphine sulfate. This amount of dose is not concerned lethal; however, given the patient’s underweight body and medical condition was enough to kill her. The problem arises in determining whether this was active or passive euthanasia. Due to the ambiguous wording of the article, the answer can vary from reader to reader. For example, the anonymous author describes how the nurse gave the resident hurried details,
I am writing to you today with both the interests of the public, and my own interests, on the topic of Euthanasia becoming legalized in British Columbia. In a 2013 poll conducted by Life Canada the findings were that in British Columbia 63% of Canadians believed that Assisted Suicide be brought into place, and 55% believed that Euthanasia should take action, although some hesitated because of the numbers of non-consensual Euthanasia deaths in Belgium. Having Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide legalized would not only be able to help the terminally ill and physically disabled decide how they wish for their life to end, but the legalization would also save a lot of time, money, and resources in hospitals and palliative care facilities. Although some laws such as section 241 of the Criminal Code would need to be reviewed, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide could potentially end some people’s suffering, and save money and resources for the province.
On the flip side of this coin, there are those people who are pro-life and against the option of euthanasia becoming legalized across the board. Connecticut was featured in the news recently on the issue of euthanasia as proponents for the bill tried to have it passed but it was shot down and once again unsuccessful. Maybe these people who are against it feel this way because there is nothing really in place to prevent its misuse by patients and doctors alike. What happens if we embrace death with dignity and inadvertently contribute to the premature deaths of patients due to misdiagnoses of illnesses? Everyone knows about the famous Dr. Kevorkian who was the angel of death by assisting over one hundred patients to their death in the name of mercy. All doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to preserve life and do whatever is necessary to hold true to this oath. Maybe our society as a whole need to try to remember why we look to those in healthcare to make us better. All healthcare professionals essentially make a promise to preserve life and make a patient look forward to a healthy outcome. Maybe we need to revisit this instead of leaning towards a patients attempt to reevaluate why they should live.
The concept of human mortality and how it is dealt with is dependent upon one’s society or culture. For it is the society that has great impact on the individual’s beliefs. Hence, it is also possible for other cultures to influence the people of a different culture on such comprehensions. The primary and traditional way men and women have made dying a less depressing and disturbing idea is though religion. Various religions offer the comforting conception of death as a begining for another life or perhaps a continuation for the former.
The voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral. It is morally right for a person to seek euthanasia because it is their freedom or autonomy to control their own lives. It ends the suffering of the patient without harming other people. Furthermore, it prevents the person to suffer by giving him/her lethal injection or medication that prevents a person to die slowly with pain. On the other hand, the arguments against euthanasia are not sound. A thorough assessment will protect patient who request euthanasia for the benefits of others. A patient who seek for euthanasia does not use him/herself as means, but as ends to respect his/her own humanity. Furthermore, God as a benevolent will not allow a person to suffer which endorse the purpose of euthanasia – to end suffering. Therefore, voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized in the United States.
My opponents and their followers “see it as a term of murder, killing those who are sick, infirm, or disabled, young and old alike, with or without their permission.” (Urofsky 22). They could even say that by allowing euthanasia, we could possibly be encouraging people that it is ok to end your own life when you see fit; inadvertently telling people it is okay to commit suicide. My opponent also believes that euthanasia should not be allowed as it allows doctors to play God with the lives of people who are ill.
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.