Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Euthanasia legal and ethical issues
Legal position of euthanasia
Legal implications in euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
My claim
I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulse or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide. The purpose of all three requirements
The first requirement – causing great pain – is one based on
The word “euthanasia” comes from the Ancient Greek “eu” - good and “thanatos” - death. Plato argued that suicide was against the will of the gods, and was therefore wrong. He does say that patients that are unable to live normally should be denied treatment. Aristotle believed that suicide is wrong because the law forbids it. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, was against active euthanasia. In his famous “Hippocratic oath”, a line forbids giving a “deadly drug” [9][11]. During the Medieval times, assisted suicide was illegal. Thomas Aquinas argued that suicide goes against one 's own love for themselves and desire for continued existence. He also viewed suicide as a violation of God 's right to decide how long one lives for
This is weak once one looks at the reasons why murder is wrong. Murder is wrong because of various reasons – denying someone the right to life, causing fear in people that they might be murdered, the grief that the loved ones will suffer, etc. All of these are inapplicable to assisted suicide. The person has waived their right to life by consenting to suicide, there is no fear that would be caused if only those who are terminally ill and consent are killed, and the grief is inevitable anyways as death is imminent.
They go on further to make an analogy with starving children [1]. This analogy does not hold, as the reason that assisted suicide is pursued is to relieve suffering, and is unrelated to the “value” that human life has.
Finally, they argue that allowing assisted suicide will cause people to be pressured into committing suicide [1]. This is an extremely weak argument. By this logic, a lot of things should be forbidden: for example, alcohol will be forbidden because allowing it will mean that people will be pressured into drinking. Additionally, it begs the question – it assumes the conclusion as a premise. The premise is that allowing assisted suicide causes pressure to commit suicide, and there is an implicit premise that committing suicide is bad, but that is exactly the conclusion they are trying to
Assisted suicide should be legalized nationwide in the United States, because every human deserves a peaceful death. Assisted suicide is when person that has been told they are terminally ill and won’t survive, they can go to a doctor and get prescribed a medication that results in death. It’s not murder, it’s giving the person a chance to say their good byes and leave this world when they are ready to go. Not making them suffer and go on when they don’t want to.
Euthanasia comes from the Greek word that means “good death” (“Euthanasia” Literary). In general, euthanasia refers to causing the death of someone to end their pain and suffering oftentimes in cases of terminal illness. Some people call this “mercy killings.”
One position within the debate for physician assisted suicide is that it should not be legalized. Many defenders cite the issue of pain for this stance. They believe that the amount of suffering that a terminally ill patient is going through is deluding their minds. They also linked this distress towards clinical depression, the root that they say are causing them to want to ...
...icide to the terminally ill. This argument gives us the conclusion that assisted suicide the principled line of being terminally ill shouldn’t be allowed as well, because of its moral implications (choosing it because it is cheaper). This is morally problematic as it is implying that a person has a baser value: a use value of a monetary value, and this is morally problematic, as we can’t put a lower value of life, as it then debases life. And a debasement of life is intuitionally wrong.
In current society, legalizing physician assisted suicide is a prevalent argument. In 1997, the Supreme Court recognized no federal constitutional right to physician assisted suicide (Harned 1) , which defines suicide as one receiving help from a physician by means of a lethal dosage (Pearson 1), leaving it up to state legislatures to legalize such practice if desired. Only Oregon and Washington have since legalized physician assisted suicide. People seeking assisted suicide often experience slanted judgments and are generally not mentally healthy. Legalization of this practice would enable people to fall victim to coercion by friends and family to commit suicide. Also, asking for death is unfair to a doctor’s personal dogma. Some argue that society should honor the freedom of one’s choice to take his own life with the assistance of a physician; however, given the reasoning provided, it is in society’s best interest that physician assisted suicide remain illegal. Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized because suicidal people experience distorted judgments resulting in not being mentally equipped to make such a decision, people who feel they are a burden to their family may choose death as a result, and physicians should not have to go against their personal doctrines and promises.
The first law explicitly prohibiting euthanasia in the United States was enacted in New York in 1828 (ProCon). Since then many more states have outlawed ...
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.
Physician -assisted suicide has been a conflict in the medical field since pre- Christian eras, and is an issue that has resurfaced in the twentieth century. People today are not aware of what the term physician assisted suicide means, and are opposed to listening to advocates’ perspectives. Individuals need to understand that problems do not go away by not choosing to face them. This paper’s perspective of assisted suicide is that it is an option to respect the dignity of patients, and only those with deathly illness are justified for this method.
There are some arguments for assisted suicide and Respect for autonomy is one of them. A competent person should have the right to choose to live or die. Justice is another. Competent terminally ill patients are allowed to hasten their deaths by refusal of medication. Physician assisted suicide may be a compassionate response to unbearable sufferings. Although society has a strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when a person is terminally ill and has a strong desire to end life. Lastly, legalization of assisted suicide would promote open discussion. These arguments make it hard to go along with the arguments against assisted suicide.
The authors of “Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong?" say that allowing people to assist in killing and destroying lives, along with devaluing human life, in a society that swears to protect and preserve all life, violates the fundamental moral society has to respect all human life. Once we devalue life, and say a certain quality of life isn’t worth living for a person, where will it stop? If assisted suicide is allowed for the terminally ill, society will start to accept and even presume that those with terminally ill conditions should end their life. The start of this divide assisted suicide can create is exemplified by Ben Mattlin. Mattlin has an incurable disease called spinal muscular atrophy. He was not expected to live into adulthood, yet has survived and now has two children of his own. “I could easily convince anyone that suicide is a rational option for me...and that scares me. Why shouldn’t I have the same barriers protecting me from moments of suicidal fantasies as everyone else has?” (Mattlin). This stresses the danger, as a society, that is posed to those with terminal conditions who want to live. Assisted suicide though seems to almost encourage ill people to end their lives. This is emphasized in the article “Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong?", explaining that if assisted suicide is legalized on the basis of compassion and mercy that society could start assisting “and
Thesis Statement: Physician assisted suicide or euthanasia may offer an accelerated and pain relieved alternative to end someone’s suffering, therefore people should not be denied the right to die especially when faced with terminal illnesses.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their lifetime. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are suffering from euthanasia.
One of the main reasons assisted suicide should not be considered for legalization is the fact that it reduces the value of a human life. If this act becomes legal, many people who are sick are going to begin believing that because they are ill, their life is not worth living anymore. This alone i...
Two patients share a hospital room. By miraculous circumstance, they are both suffering identical cases of late stage terminal cancer, and both have expressed firmly that they don’t want their lives to be artificially extended. Patient A has contracted a hospital-borne infection, and will die quickly if this infection is not treated. This being the case, the doctors decide to take no action, allowing Patient A to die from the infection. This raises the question: what does this choice imply for Patient B? Should he be allowed to choose active euthanasia to combat his suffering? I will argue that there is no moral distinction between letting Patient A die and “killing” Patient B. I will do so by looking at each patient’s circumstances individually, then applying arguments about euthanasia to their cases, and ultimately bringing them back together to consider a verdict. While some may argue that there is a difference between killing Patient B and letting Patient A die, I assert that any such claims are based in irrelevant reasoning.
I think that a person has the freedom to choose what they do with there life. And if that person is terminally ill, and is in so much pain that they cannot function as they did before the illness, they have the right to end their life in a dignified manor. I am not a supporter of suicide, but I do not think that euthanasia is a form of suicide. It is a way to die without suffering. Not just anyone is able to die by euthanasia, there are strict guidelines that must be followed, and only those that fit the description are allowed to follow through with it. Again it is by the patients free will to choose this way to end their life, and no one else’s!