Euthanasia debate essay

Euthanasia debate essay

Euthanasia Debate,�� Aspects to Cover in a Euthanasia Essay

WebEuthanasia is also known as physician-assisted suicide or good death. It refers to the method where animals that are suffering or in discomfort are helped to rest in death. WebIt should be noted that The World Medical Association reaffirms its strong belief that euthanasia is in conflict with basic ethical principles of medical practice, and The World WebEuthanasia is the choice, and an alternative for patients who suffer immensely and their decision should be respected to help them alleviate suffering. In many countries where WebToday we will discuss the dilemma of euthanasia. Euthanasia also known as mercy killing is a way of painlessly terminating one’s life with the “humane” motive of ending his WebIn essence, no matter the side of the debate one is, all can agree to the fact that euthanasia is a form of murder. Both parties to the debate may present arguments but ... read more

Patients who experience extreme pain due to the nature of their illness are permitted to die with dignity in several countries while other countries totally condemn the use of euthanasia. Therefore, such individuals are among the few cases that continue to convince stakeholders to legalize euthanasia. From a religious perspective; religious leaders see euthanasia to be unnecessary because for them, pain and suffering are not only a medical problem it is more than physical pain. Pain and suffering are as a result of several factors; these include psychosocial, cultural and spiritual. Such views have changed the perspective of the debate about euthanasia.

The other aspect of euthanasia that has been ignored. By not legalizing euthanasia is viewed as violating patient rights as the doctor refuses to help patients die. Even though many people are against euthanasia because it is viewed as murder, those who advocate for its usage view euthanasia from a different perspective. For them, the issue of cost and violation of human rights are the two most important arguments presented during euthanasia debates. Even though those who support Euthanasia argue that it helps patients die with and help in containing the overall cost of treatment, others view Euthanasia as an immoral act.

The physician does not violate human rights. I believe that there are valid reasons for patients to consider euthanasia because it saves both the patient and their family members from many financial burdens associated with terminal diseases. Euthanasia is the choice, and an alternative for patients who suffer immensely and their decision should be respected to help them alleviate suffering. In many countries where euthanasia is permitted health care cost have been significantly contained. Patients with chronic illnesses do not have much choice but to die peacefully and with dignity.

Terminally ill patients are permitted to request from euthanasia to stop suffering. The laws guiding the practice of euthanasia in the state of Oregon are quite clear. Active euthanasia should only be performed on a patient who is 18 years and above, of sound mind and ascertained by at least three medical doctors that assisted death is the only alternative of helping the patient Otlowski Under such a situation, the doctor prescribes the drugs but is not allowed to administer them. The patient in question takes the drug s voluntarily without any assistance from the doctor.

The patient will then die in dignity, without any intense pain that living with the condition would bring. It is evident that some terminal illness may not present unbearable pain to the patient. Instead, a chronically ill patient who is in a no-pain state will not be in a humanly dignified state. The patient of doctor may propose euthanasia as the better treatment alternative. This has been occasioned by the advancement in the field of medicine where pain can be significantly control Buse 8. All patients are entitled to pain relief. However, most physicians have not been trained on pain management and hence the patients are usually left in excruciating pain Johnstone Under such a condition, the patient suffers physically and emotionally causing depression.

Leaving the patient in this agonizing state is unacceptable and euthanasia may be recommended. Moreover, the physician who practices euthanasia should be protected by the law. A doctor handling a patient who is in excruciating pain should be in a position to recommend euthanasia so as to assist the patient have a dignified death. It is not required by law or medical ethics that a patient should be kept alive by all means. It would be inhumane and unacceptable to postpone death against the wish of the patient. It would also be unwise to insist on curing a condition which has been medically regarded as irreversible or incurable.

Most terminal illnesses are very expensive to cure although they are known to be incurable. The patient as well as family members ought to be relieved of the accompanying financial burden Buse 8. The patient, considering the amount of money and other resources used in an attempt to keep him alive, may demand to be assisted to die. This can only be possible through euthanasia Johnstone Human beings are caring by nature and none would be willing to live their loved ones to suffer on their own. They would therefore dedicate a lot of time providing the best care that they can afford. Some would even leave their day to day activities in order to attend to the terminally or chronically ill relative or friend.

Euthanasia, therefore, serves to spare the relatives the agony of constantly watching their family member undergo intense suffering and painful death. Terminally ill patients in hospitals imply that facilities would be put under great pressure at the expense of other patients who would benefit from using the same services. These facilities include; bed space, medical machines, drugs, human resource, among others. Even if they were to be given homecare, a lot of time resource and facilities would be overstretched. Other than the issue of homecare and the financial obligations that may arise, there is also the issue of personal liberty and individual rights. Those who front this argument explain that the patient has the right to determine when and how they die.

Since the life of a person belongs to that person only, then the person should have the right to decide if he or she wants to end it, if ending life would also mean ending irreversible suffering CNBC News para 4. Furthermore, these patients are dependent on life sustaining medication, which adds only adds the misery. This brings forth the question about whether such patients can be forced to take life sustaining drugs if the said drugs only lead to extended life full of suffering. The law should provide for such individuals to refuse to take such drugs and also to request drugs that will lead to end of their misery, even it if mean that these drugs will end their lives. Therefore patients in this condition should be allowed the legal tight to end their miseries through assisted suicide.

Those who oppose any form of euthanasia argue that a terminally ill patient or a person suffering irreversible pain from an incurable disease should be assisted to live by all means including any medical procedure that guarantees that they live the longest possible period. This argument is valid but has logical flows. The argument presupposes that such patients need to be prevented from dyeing through any possible means. In reality though, this efforts are futile as when a patient has determined that death is the easier way out of the misery they are suffering, the emotional distress will only pull them closer to death Morgan As such efforts to prolong their lives pushed them closer to death.

Most people would have their pets put down if they were suffering, this would be regarded as kindness. Con: Yes! some people decide to kill their pets! Is it the pet who has decided to die? No, so it is a murder! Thus, laws against euthanasia are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from people who want to decide for us, to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. There is no way you can be really sure if the decision towards assisted suicide is voluntary or forced by others, like people who forced their pets to die. Laws against euthanasia are not, and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer but in order to protect them. The economical arguments Pro: Lastly, there is an economic argument for euthanasia. A health care system which is facing serious funding problems cannot afford to spend a fortune for terminally ill or person in an irreversible coma.

So, if euthanasia was legal, it could frees up funds to help other people… Con: Yes, it may produce possible impact on medical economics. The future medicine could promote euthanasia as a form of health care cost containment. The average cost of euthanasia is somewhere around 40 dollars, while the complete care for a dying patient normally costs ten thousands of dollars. However, it could involve an assisted suicide of many patients who do not have health insurance, or even Government and insurance companies may put undue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide procedure.

Euthanasia can help decrease the expenditure on health care. If euthanasia is made a possibility, a family will not have to spend as much as they do on a patient who they know is going to pass on soon anyway. Con: Yes, it may decrease the expenditure on health care but euthanasia can lead to a steep decline in the quality of medical care administered to patients. Doctors and medical professionals will take it easy on themselves and may do little or zilch to actually rescue patients from the venomous jaws of a serious illness.

A hospital and doctors exist to save the lives of people suffering from illnesses, not end it. Advanced medical technology and knowledgeable medical professionals have made credible breakthroughs in the battles against illnesses and diseases. All these efforts would only go in vain if euthanasia got the nod from those who yield power. What is the difference between active and passive euthanasia? When we forego a treatment that we are not required to use, then even if death comes faster as a result, that withholding is not euthanasia in any form and should not be called by the name. What is the slippery slope effect? As applied to the euthanasia debate, the slippery slope argument claims that the acceptance of certain practices, such as physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, will invariably lead to the acceptance or practice of concepts which are currently deemed unacceptable, such as non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia.

Do you agree or disagree with theses statements? Human beings have the right to die when and how they want to. And they should have the right to refuse medical treatment. Death is a private matter, and if you are not hurting anyone else, the state should not interfere. Legalizing euthanasia could frees up medical funds to help other people. Euthanasia can lead to a steep decline in the quality of medical care administered to patients. Doctors and medical professionals will take it easy on themselves and may do little to actually rescue patients from the venomous jaws of a serious illness.

Published by gudwriter on May 27, May 27, Discover a list of Argumentative Essay Topics to choose from. These topics will sharpen your debating skills. Most students find it hard to submit their argumentative assignment on time at some point in studies. Contact us today and have your paper delivered within hours. Thesis: Despite the argument put across by both sides of the debate, euthanasia is legally and morally wrong since it disregards the value of human life. Euthanasia should be condemned by all means necessary since it involves ending the life of a human being. In essence, no matter the side of the debate one is, all can agree to the fact that euthanasia is a form of murder. Sometimes a patient may consent to mercy killing due to the amount of pain that they are going through.

Most of the times, patients who claim to be euthanized do so out of pain, suffering, and medical costs. In summary, the existence of palliative care and technological advancements in the medical industry proves that euthanasia is wrong. Although there are both sides of the debate on euthanasia a common agreement between the two groups is that it involves killing a patient. One of the greatest debates surrounding the topic of euthanasia revolves around its legalization. The legality of euthanasia has spurred a lot of debate due to the rise in cases of terminal illnesses such as cancer. There are people who support legalization of the procedure while there are others who strongly condemn it, terming it as intentional killing.

Despite the argument put across by both sides, euthanasia is legally and morally wrong since it disregards the value of human life. Any country that upholds Christian or any other religious values should make laws that prohibit the practice. In the same breadth, by allowing euthanasia, medical practitioners are given too much power to kill. Doctors are given the right to kill in what is commonly referred to as playing God. In the modern days, doctors are taking self-centered interests in making money or making things go their way. In Netherlands for example, many patients die every year due to physician-assisted killing whether it was without consent or not Reichlin, Euthanasia also destroys the normal doctor-patient relationship.

Frequently, a patient seeks a doctor because he or she knows that the doctor will do anything to save their life. However, if euthanasia is legalized, then patients may distrust the doctors. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath that makes it clear that they should treat their patients to the best of their ability, alleviate pain, and protect life. Legalizing mercy killing would go against the very oath through which doctors are sworn in. Further, euthanasia goes against the sanctity of human life. Moral ethics dictate that nobody should intentionally terminate the life of another person or their own life Goligher et al. The foundation that the worth of the human person is both intrinsic and incalculable Goligher et al.

In line with this foundation, human life should only be lost naturally but not intentionally. Both parties to the debate may present arguments but what remains clear is that life will be lost. In the past, some terminally ill patients had survived even when medical reports indicated that they would not survive. Therefore, it would be selfish and wrong to end the life of a patient based on a medical report. Individuals who are for mercy killing agree that sometimes miracles do happen where terminally ill patients survive Attell, Therefore, every patient no matter their level of pain should be given a chance to live or die in peace.

However, in the recent past, there have been technological advancements that tend to help to ease pain. As a result, killing a patient on the basis of ending their pain is slowly becoming a thing of the past. No medical practitioner should play God by deciding who lives and who dies no matter the level of consent given. Individuals who are in a coma and had not indicated whether they wish to die or not, have the right to keep on going with their lives until they die naturally. That should be left unto God to decide. Here, they may feel as if they are a burden to their relatives and therefore desire to die with an aim of cutting down on the expenses.

However, the truth is every person desires to see their relative up to the last point of their life. In case such a patient is taken through mercy killing, the relatives will live with a guilty conscious wondering whether their loved one could have survived if they were not given the lethal injection. By all means possible, the life of a patient should be preserved and no person should decide when it ends. The existence of palliative care and technological advancements in the medical industry proves that euthanasia is wrong. Although there are both sides of the debate on the practice, a common agreement between the two groups is that it involves killing a patient. In such instances, doctors decide to play God and administer a lethal injection that ends the life of a patient.

Although a patient may decide to receive the lethal dose, they do so out of pain and suffering, and sometimes out of concern for the medical costs involved in their care. No matter the argument put across by any group, euthanasia remains what it is: killing an innocent patient. It is morally wrong. Attell, B. Changing attitudes toward euthanasia and suicide for terminally ill persons, to an age-period-cohort analysis. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying , Goligher, E. Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the intensive care unit: A dialogue on core ethical issues. Crit Care Med. Saul, H. Sulmasy, D. Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The Linacre Quarterly, 83 3 , Good reasons to legalize weed everywhere.

Special offer! Promo code: SAVE The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…. A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…. An ad analysis essay is a type of academic essay whereby the writer is required to examine an advertisement.

The aim of the essay is to find any hidden messages which may be deceptive or misleading Read more…. Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Sample Published by gudwriter on May 27, May 27, Are your assignments troubling you? Get your troublesome papers finished by our competent writers now! Hire A Writer Now Special offer! Categories: Free Essays and Research Papers. Tags: Examples of Argumentative Essays Free Euthanasia Essays. Related Posts Free Essays and Research Papers Synthesis Essay Example — With Outline The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Free Essays and Research Papers Examples of Spatial Order — With Outline A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations.

Free Essays and Research Papers Ad Analysis Essay Example With Outline An ad analysis essay is a type of academic essay whereby the writer is required to examine an advertisement.

Euthanasia Essays,Related topics

WebIn essence, no matter the side of the debate one is, all can agree to the fact that euthanasia is a form of murder. Both parties to the debate may present arguments but WebEuthanasia is also known as physician-assisted suicide or good death. It refers to the method where animals that are suffering or in discomfort are helped to rest in death. Web10 Lines on Euthanasia Essay in English. 1. Euthanasia is the voluntary act of a patient suffering a terminal disease, of terminating their life. 2. Euthanasia is essentially divided WebEuthanasia is the process of intentional life ending. Its goal is to stop patients’ suffering and pain. In today’s world, euthanasia is a debatable topic, and there are many questions WebEuthanasia is commonly performed on patients who are experiencing severe pain due to terminal illness. For one suffering from terminal illness, assisted death seems to be the WebEuthanasia is the choice, and an alternative for patients who suffer immensely and their decision should be respected to help them alleviate suffering. In many countries where ... read more

Better Essays. Why Euthanasia is Wrong Essay Words 6 Pages. Euthanasia started in both the Roman Empire and Greece. A lethal dose of opioids, for example, may be prescribed for this. If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda. Should Physician Assisted Suicide Be Legalized Essay.

Euthanasia is assisted suicide, it is an action taken by a doctor with consent of the patient in order to relieve immense pain and suffering. To many suicidal people, the problem is life, euthanasia debate essay. Plagiarism scanner DO THE CHECK. Children of 16 and 17 can make their own decision, but their parents must be involved in the decision-making process regarding the ending of their life. The majority of people are concerned with control […]. In most countries, euthanasia is considered illegal and is euthanasia debate essay as murder.