Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Controversial issues in euthanasia
Euthanasia arguments for euthanasia
Euthanasia arguments for euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Controversial issues in euthanasia
Regardless of one’s desire to be euthanized, all people deserve the right to euthanasia. The question we must ask ourselves is not whether or not we want to be euthanized but whether or not we want that decision made for us. Just as one may not wish to be a doctor and another may, there are varying degrees of willingness to live. However much it may pain us, we must admit that there are, in fact, people with separate wills from our own living among us (Emanuel, Ezekiel J, and Diane L Fairclough). This considered, we must acknowledge their right to pursue happiness even if it comes in the form of death. This is why euthanasia must be legalized for use in American health care facilities. One argument that is often flaunted as a counter to euthanasia …show more content…
The reason euthanasia is so contentious, is that it revolves around one of humanity’s most dreaded fears- death; consequently, the allowance for one to die and, in voluntary euthanasia, to directly kill oneself brings about the long debated topic of the morality of suicide. Another claim is that if one is in a terminal state, at least 18 years of age, has received a comprehensive psychological exam completed at the time of application, receives a second opinion from a different doctor, and gives consent, it can be morally validated for one to be euthanized (Richardson 2). However, it would be controversial to say that humans have been right in all of their expressed views. Throughout life, we are taught to live as “herd animals.” We find friends, mentors, family members, and faith to lean on for validation and rectification of our individual ideas. We are deemed wrong in many of our decisions. We make mistakes. However, these preceding statements can be counter-argued, with the claim that “wrong” is defined differently by every individual. However, “wrong” then becomes a relative term, as well as “mistake,” and/or “bad.” Based off of this, relevant truth is only “true” until another argument can prove this truth to be invalid. The very topic of euthanasia can be seen as …show more content…
We all wish the song had no end. We all wish there were not difficult decisions, and we all wish we didn’t have to make them. We all wish there were an Atlas, and that we wouldn’t have to carry the weight of the world on our own shoulders alone. But life isn’t about wishes or dreams; life is about facing reality and making the tough decisions we don’t want to, and if one of us stumbles and drops the world, it affects all of us. Death is considered an unfortunate fact by many, but it doesn’t have to be. We have a choice, as a species and as individuals. We can realize that the power lies in our hands to grant a dignified death to those in pain, who have no living respite in sight and seek refuge in the eternal nothing. Or, we can ignore this power and, in doing so, damn ourselves to misery and suffering, lives without meaning, and desecration of personal freedom. The time to choose has not just arrived; we’ve been living in it for decades. For the United States to retain its integrity and for its citizens to keep their dignity, we must legalize euthanasia across the
Euthanasia is one of the most complicated issues in the medical field due to the debate of whether or not it is morally right. Today, the lives of many patients can be saved with the latest discoveries in medicine and technology. But we are still unable to find cures to all illnesses, and patients have to go through extremely painful treatments only to live a little bit longer. These patients struggle with physical and psychological pain. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. discusses the topic of just and unjust laws in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” which brings into question whether it is just to kill a patient who is suffering or unjust to take that person’s life even if that person is suffering. In my opinion people should have the right, with certain restrictions, to end their lives in the way they see fit if they are suffering from endless pain.
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.
Another reason a patient may opt to euthanasia is to die with dignity. The patient, fully aware of the state he or she is in, should be able choose to die in all their senses as opposed to through natural course. A patient with an enlarged brain tumor can choose to die respectively, instead of attempting a risky surgery that could leave the patient in a worse condition then before the operation, possibly brain-dead. Or a patient with early signs of Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease may wish to be granted euthanization before their disease progresses and causes detrimental loss of sentimental memories. Ultimately it should be the patient’s choice to undergo a risky surgery or bite the bullet, and laws prohibiting euthanasia should not limit the patient’s options.
Bibliography:.. Bernard, Neal, Ed. & Co. d. a. a. a. a. a. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone.
Those who advocate euthanasia have capitalized on people's confusion, ambivalence, and even fear about the use of modern life-prolonging technologies. Further, borrowing language from the abortion debate, they insist that the "right to choose" must prevail over all other considerations. Being able to choose the time and manner of one's death, without regard to what is chosen, is presented as the ultimate freedom. A decision to take one's life or to allow a physician to kill a suffering patient, however, is very different from a decision to refuse extraordinary or disproportionately burdensome treatment.
“Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window […] the variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames.” This was said by American author David Foster Wallace who died by suicide in September of 2008. Most people do not want to die, dying is absolutely terrifying but for some, it becomes a choice between leaping out the window and sailing down to a quick death at your own hands and getting caught in the building and waiting for the
The so-called ‘right to life’ debate has been beaten to death with no resolution in sight…but what of the ‘right to die’ issue? In California, legislation was passed last year that allows terminally ill patients, who are not expected to live more than six months, to request physician-assisted suicide. However, as with the other four states that have adopted similar legislation, the patient must be capable of administering the lethal drug to himself or herself, medical personnel are not required to participate in any way, and the relief does not benefit any others, such as quadriplegics or those suffering from chronic debilitating diseases("State-by-State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide"). Therefore, healthcare professionals can choose to follow their own moral values regardless of the patient’s wishes…and they do. The option to choose not to follow a patient’s wishes, or to deny assistance, steps squarely on the personal rights and freedoms of the
The right to choose is one of the most hotly contested ideas in America. While abortion is the topic that usually comes to mind, the right to die is a debate that is becoming more prevalent in our society every day. Dr. Kevin Fitzpatrick writes in “Euthanasia: we can live without it…,” that people should not be able to choose if they can die. He defends his ideas by showing how euthanasia is not a fully regulated practice and not always done legally. He goes on to say that most people who choose euthanasia do not have terminal illnesses and are usually just unhappy with their lives. However, Dr. Philip Nitschke disagrees in “Euthanasia: Hope you never need it, but be glad the option is there,” saying that we should have euthanasia as a viable option. Nitschke believes that people should be able to have euthanasia as an option to put in their living will in cases of
Euthanasia is the fact of ending somebody’s life when assisting him to die peacefully without pain. In most cases, it is a process that leads to end the suffering of human beings due to disease or illness. A person other than the patient is responsible for the act of euthanasia; for example a medical provider who gives the patient the shot that must kill him. When people sign a consent form to have euthanasia, it is considered voluntary, involuntary euthanasia is when they refuse. When people are not alert and oriented they are not allowed to sign any consent including the consent to euthanasia. When euthanasia is practiced in such situation, it is a non-voluntary euthanasia. In sum, people who practice voluntary euthanasia in honoring other
Philosophers like Peter Singer and Margaret Battin have dedicated their personal and professional time to evaluating the choice to which a person has the right to continue to live or to die. In order to do this, we first have to examine what exactly euthanasia is. The practice of euthanasia can be classified in two different ways. First, euthanasia can be either active or passive. Active euthanasia involves the direct interruption of ongoing daily functioning that otherwise would be adequate to maintain life. Passive euthanasia involves the withholding or withdrawing of treatment that might support ongoing daily functions; without drugs or treatment the body would continue its process of shutting down. In the case of passive euthanasia, the argument can be made that the treatment is actually withholding the natural process of death. Secondly, euthanasia can be divided into three categories based on a level of consciousness: involuntary (death against ones wishes), voluntary (death based on expressed wishes), and non-voluntary (incapable of consent or competent decision-making).
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 topic of euthanasia and assisted suicide is very controversial. People who support euthanasia say that it is someone 's right to end their own life in the case of a terminal illness. Those in favor of this right consider the quality of life of the people suffering and say it is their life and, therefore, it is their decision. The people against euthanasia argue that the laws are in place to protect people from corrupt doctors. Some of the people who disagree with assisted suicide come from a religious background and say that it is against God’s plan to end one 's life. In between these two extreme beliefs there are some people who support assisted suicide to a certain degree and some people who agree on certain terms and not on others.
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 a sensitive topic and its sensitivity brings the world to a division. The two sides are those who support the issue and those who are not in favour. The side that supports the idea can argue that...
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.