Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and disadvantages of euthanasia
Counter arguments towards euthanasia
Counter arguments towards euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Advantages and disadvantages of euthanasia
The practical definition of euthanasia is the act of ending life painlessly, most often for someone suffering from an incurable disease. However, it is not possible for all life to end free of pain. The death may be peaceful, but the agony suffered throughout the disease is hard to forget and the untimely death of that person will be remembered. Euthanasia is a very controversial topic that divides professionals in medical and legal fields along with the general public. One of the main reasons that the debate about euthanasia has been disputed so much is because it challenges the moral values of people. Supporters of euthanasia believe in the value of life, but they don't place it as highly on their moral scale. Instead, a supporter of euthanasia might argue that individual rights are of the highest value, or that quality of life is more important than the value of life itself. The logic here is that although life is clearly an important value, there may be times when life itself is not worth living. If a person has a low quality of life, they may make the decision to end their life because it is no longer worth living or no longer a good life.
Over the past half century, the percentage of Americans who say doctors should have a right to help end an incurably ill patient’s life has doubled to about seventy percent. One of the strongest points euthanasia supporters have is the desire for independence, the urge for people to choose a course of action that is based on their personal values. When the person involved is suffering from an intolerable pain, the use of euthanasia is there to relieve them. A supporter of euthanasia might claim that respecting the right of a patient to choose should also include respecting that person’s ch...
... middle of paper ...
...Euthanasia, Pro-Pain Control.” Pregnant Pause.
9 September 2000. 5 June 2011 .
Life Org. “Mental Illness and Euthanasia.” Life Org. 2011.
9 June 2011 .
Marker, Rita L. “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Frequently Asked Questions.”
Patients Rights Council. Hamlon, Kathi. January 2010.
3 June 2011 .
Schadenberg, Alex. “Sharp Growth in Dutch Euthanasia Deaths”. Lifesite News. 16 June 2010.
3 June 2011 .
UM. "What is euthanasia?" Center for Health Ethics. University of Missouri.
14 June 2011 .
Yount, Lisa. Euthanasia. Massachusetts: Greenhaven Press, 2001.
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
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.
Euthanasia is a difficult ideal to understand, to lack the ability to place a value on someone’s life and to understand someone’s suffering at the sometime. Being pulled by both your heart and your soul at the same time.
Today there are five to ten thousand comatose patients in long term care facilities (Wheeler A1). There are countless elderly people in care facilities that have repeatedly expressed a desire to die. There are countless terminally ill patients that have also begged for death. Should these people be allowed to die, or should they be forced to keep on living? This question has plagued ethicists and physicians throughout the years.
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
Euthanasia is the termination of terminally ill person’s life in order to relieve them from suffering. A person who undergoes Euthanasia usually has a terrible condition. Mostly it is carried out at patient’s request but sometimes they might be terribly ill and decision is made by family members, medics or courts. This issue is at the centre of debates for years and is surrounded by ethical and religious conditions.
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 impulses 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.
Hazel Biggs, author of Euthanasia, Death With Dignity and The Law, writes that patients “fervently desire to take their own lives but are physically prevented from doing so” because people (most importantly doctors) have their own moral dilemmas on the subject (Biggs 107). This conflict of values and rights sparked the debate between doctors and patients about who has the ability to make such arduous decisions. One the on hand doctors practice to will to keep going and pushing until there is a fix for the problem. However, Ken would argue that he should not have to “live at any price” because if he cannot be self-supporting than he will “spend the rest of [his] life in the hospital’ which is an “act of deliberate cruelty” (Clark 54-55). To have the option of ending his life on his terms would give clarity to his life.
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.
Euthanasia has been an ongoing debate for many years. Everyone has an opinion on why euthanasia should or should not be allowed but, it is as simple as having the choice to die with dignity. If a patient wishes to end his or her life before a disease takes away their quality of life, then the patient should have the option of euthanasia. Although, American society considers euthanasia to be morally wrong euthanasia should be considered respecting a loved one’s wishes. To understand euthanasia, it is important to know the rights humans have at the end of life, that there are acts of passive euthanasia already in practice, and the beneficial aspects.
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.
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.
Is euthanasia a form of murder? Should this be a legal option for sick or terminally ill patients? Is it moral to assist people in suicide? These are just a few of the difficult questions we are confronted with today. In many cases, limits have been put on this practice, and in a few states it is a legal practice. Courts have been left to decide who lives and who should die. Doctors and nurses have been accused of murder for helping euthanize patients. Their Hippocratic oath is being put in jeopardy. To suffering, terminally ill patients who are dying natural deaths, euthanasia should be a legal option.
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because