Euthanasia is the ending of a life prematurely in order to prevent suffering. It is by all
accounts illegal in all countries except Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Euthanasia
should not be confused with physician-assisted suicide due to the key difference which is the self- administration of the lethal medication by the patient himself. The society that supports
euthanasia is Pro-Choice while those who are its opponent are Pro-Life as they believe every life
is precious. I stand for Pro-Choice arguments for legalising euthanasia due to these main reasons.
Firstly, it is clear that euthanasia should be legal as it is a means to end a patient’s
sufferings quickly and humanely with or without the consent of the affected party. According to
a set of euthanasia statistics verified in the last quarter of 2013, 86% of the public supports
euthanasia especially if the patient is terminally ill or on life support. This vast difference
between those of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life is an indication that euthanasia plays a significant role
at the end of a critically sick person’s life because death is usually slow, painful, and
undignified. I believe that euthanasia not only helps the patients who are dying, but also assists
their family members by shortening their grief. If pets can be put down to end their suffering,
why can’t humans be given the same kindness? American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) stated
in 1996 that every human should be given the rights to die as he or she “has a protected liberty
interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering”. I believe in letting people choose what they
want to do with their own lives; whether to live on in pain or to end it early.
Secondly, legalising euthanasi...
... middle of paper ...
...espect for the patients’ autonomy and ultimately makes dying with dignity a
possible option. I am a proponent of legalising euthanasia globally as I believe it will help not in
quantity but in the quality of life of the patients and his or her family members.
Works Cited
1. Gallup Poll, Angelfire, Nightingale Alliance. (2013, December 11). Euthanasia Statistics.
Retrieved December 2013, from Statistic Brain: http://www.statisticbrain.com/euthanasia- statistics/ 2. Top 10 Pros and Cons; Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? (n.d.).
Retrieved December 13, 2013, from Euthanasia ProCon: http://euthanasia.procon.org/
view.resource.php?resourceID=000126
3. Wang, P. (2012, December 12). Cutting the high cost of end-of-life care. Retrieved from
Money CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/11/pf/end-of-life-care-duplicate-2.moneymag/
index.html
Works Cited Doerflinger, Richard. The. The “Assisted Suicide” Pro-Choice or Anti-Life?” 28 March 2012. The Hastings Center Report. Vol.
Euthanasia has always been defined as easy and gentle death especially in cases of painful and incurable illness. It has also been referred to as mercy killing of those considered hopelessly ill, incapacitated or injured patients. It is a matter of life and death. To medical practitioners the dilemma remains: prolong
Euthanasia - Pro and Con & nbsp; Abstract & nbsp; This paper will define Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia is often confused with and associated with assisted suicide, definitions of the two are. required. Two perspectives shall be presented in this paper. The first perspective favor euthanasia or the "right to die," the second perspective. favor antieuthanasia, or the "right to live". Each perspective shall. endeavor to clarify the legal, moral and ethical ramifications or aspects of euthanasia. & nbsp; Thesis Statement & nbsp; Euthanasia, also mercy killing, is the practice of ending a life so as to.
Although euthanasia requests have begun to stabilize throughout the years while palliative care has improved, euthanasia will never completely disappear. This topic depends on the type of person someone is and what thethat person is enduring. Many people fear the process of dying and the dying itself. Even though there are treatments to relieve some pain throughin the process, a patient still knows death will eventually come. Some might believe it is better to end it now rather than prolonging it. Improving palliative care will not get rid of euthanasia requests, but instead, prolong the requests. A person’s suffering can only be temporarily managed. Even if a patient is on a pain relieving treatment, there might be other side effects that cause the patient to suffer, such as nausea and vomiting. Some may like the idea of temporarily removing the suffering, but others may not because of the realization of needing a treatment to temporarily make himself feel better. These treatments can be very costly and, over time, can add up to a great amount of money that a patient and his family does not have. Also, those who are on palliative care may decide later on that the wait or the side effects are not worth it anymore and eventually request euthanasia. The improvements of palliative care will only prolong the requests of
Physician-assisted suicide has been brought into light in recent years due to the increase in life prolonging me...
Abortion is a very controversial and sensitive topic in today’s society. Two different sides to this argument is pro-life and pro-choice. Pro-life proponents believe in the right to life for unborn fetuses saying that abortion should be considered murder regardless of how far along in the pregnancy the woman is. Pro-choice advocates people who believe the woman carrying the fetus should be able to make her own decision on aborting the fetus.
Euthanasia is illegal and considered as a crime but abortion is legal and acceptable for most people although both are almost similar situations. Euthanasia is done only if the person wills to while in case of abortion the person’s life is taken even before it comes to life. Also, animal euthanasia is legal and justified even though animals cannot speak for themselves and express their desire live or not while human beings can. Animal euthanasia is considered as humane while euthanizing a human is considered a crime. Just like animal euthanasia and abortion, physician assisted suicide is justified in some cases.
Every day, millions of people are being diagnose with terminal illnesses or being seriously injured in accidents. Sometimes, those illnesses and accidents become long and agonizingly painful deaths. Although medication could briefly ease the pain, the long-term agony that the patient has to deal with is ceaseless. Undoubtedly, the human life has an enormous value and is for that reason that it should be preserved in all the possible ways. Nevertheless, when the terminal illness comes to its last stage, or the damage caused for an accident is too much to handle and the only option left is death, shouldn’t it be the patient’s decision to end its suffering and pain in a dignified way? Or in cases where the patient has an impediment to decide, shouldn’t the family have the option to give their loved one an end to its suffer? As part of a free society, euthanasia should be considered as a legal and humane option for patients suffering from terminal diseases and victims of accidents, mainly because is every human right to die in a decent way.
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.
The debate on whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalized has been a controversial topic. Euthanasia is defined as ‘a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering’ [1]. Voluntary euthanasia refers to the patients who understand the terms in the consent and sign up under consciousness, while involuntary euthanasia is performed against patient's wishes and some people may regard it as a murder [1].
Only in extreme cases of terminally ill patients whose suffering cannot be relieved by any other means.
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.
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 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.
First of all, euthanasia saves money and resources. The amount of money for health care in each country, and the number of beds and doctors in each hospital are limited. It is a huge waste if we use those money and resources to lengthen the lives of those who have an incurable disease and want to die themselves rather than saving the lives of the ones with a curable ailment. When we put those patients who ask for euthanasia to death, then the waiting list for each hospital will shorten. Then, the health care money of each country, the hospital beds, and the energy of the doctors can be used on the ones who can be cured, and can get back to normal and able to continue contributing to the society. Isn’t this a better way of using money and resources rather than unnaturally extend those incurable people’s lives?