The issue of euthanasia is a slippery slope. Pro-life groups contend that if we allow any type of euthanasia, sooner or later, we would begin killing off not only the terminally ill, but also the handicapped, the poor, the elderly and anyone else who becomes troublesome.
The view that we should not make a decision because it could lead to other less prudent decisions later is not a reasonable foundation for setting policies, unless later decisions are definite, and are absolutely wrong.
I would hope that the virtue of society would lead us to know where to draw the line between going far enough and going too far. At the present time, it is not clear if where the line is drawn now is where it should be drawn. Most people believe that there are circumstances when killing is allowed, such as self-defense.
The only question is whether or not the killing is justified under the circumstances. In the case of self-defense, killing is justified. The same is true of euthanasia. People who request euthanasia may be requesting it because they are depressed and they may change their minds. I believe that psychological evaluation will detect the mental condition of a patient, and depression, if it exists, can be treated. Patients can be given counseling to determine if their decision is what they truly want.
We must determine whether or not patients should be able to be in control of their own lives. Euthanasia violates the difference between passive and active and practices. This argument contends that there is a moral difference between letting nature take its course by terminating treatment when death is inevitable, and actively taking steps to make death come quicker. The question that should be asked of this is "What is the best thing to do in a worst case scenario?
The patient may ask for either one and we may morally grant their request. Euthanasia is wrong because there may have been a misdiagnosis or there may be. This argument is wishful thinking. Although these instances are not entirely impossible, they only require that we be extremely cautious, not that euthanasia should ever be performed.
The view that all suffering is sent from God is extreme in the sense that it suggests that we should never do anything to relieve any kind of suffering.
The majority of people today believe that we should do everything possible to relieve the suffering of others. To do otherwise is considered immoral. Today, society does not allow individuals to do anything that they want to do. There are laws that prevent certain acts that harm people, even if the harm comes only to them.
Deciding what choices should be regulated by law is difficult for any society. The choice to end their own suffering should be entirely theirs, because no one can know their agony but themselves. The consequences of euthanasia would be bad. This argument implies that guidelines designed for euthanasia would at some point be violated, and mistakes would be made.
Anti-euthanasia activists argue that patients may choose death because they feel guilty for staying alive and causing financial burdens on their families. Families may give up too soon and encourage the death to end the suffering of their loved one. Doctors may not try as hard to extend the life of a patient who is considered terminal. Society might put less value on giving medical assistance for the disabled, the poor, and minorities because death would be cheaper.
Society may also become less sensitive to the needs of the suffering and more insensitive about death. These are dangers and measures must be taken to prevent them if euthanasia were to become legal. Nothing is free form abuse. The allowed practice of withdrawing life-support, already puts pressure on patients and family members. Doctors are currently permitted to give heavy doses of pain medication that often makes death come quicker.
Abuses of euthanasia may become less frequent if the practice was regulated. The option of euthanasia could result in more effort towards making life more bearable for patients, so that they would not want to die. The biggest abuse today is the fact that we make people exist in lives that are terminally miserable and intolerable, by not allowing them the choice of ending their suffering.
Killing someone in self-defense, killing the enemy during war, capital punishment for horrid crimes, or killing a kidnapper who is murdering hostages are all examples of when society views murder as morally legitimate. This tells us that ending a life is not always considered wrong, depending on the circumstances.
So, euthanasia, in certain circumstances should be allowed. My arguments for the regulation and legalization of euthanasia is as follows:.
Although we would want to provide counseling for individuals, so that every option could be explored, the final decision to die should rest with the patient, whose incurable illness or disability has made their life so full of agony and torment that they want to end their suffering.
Many doctors insist that they are to save lives, not to end them intentionally. The role of a doctor is to heal, to prolong life, to reduce suffering, to restore health and physical well being. So, in extreme cases when it is no longer possible to heal, restore health or physical well-being, or it is impossible to prolong a life free from suffering, the best and most moral thing that a doctor can do is to relieve the intolerable and unnecessary suffering of a patient by hastening their death.
Sometimes ending suffering takes priority over extending life. Euthanasia causes an anguishing conflict between values. Life is a gift, but circumstances may turn it into a deep hopelessness, filled with suffering and pain. For the last twenty years, euthanasia has been a subject of much controversy. Doctors, scientists, politicians and representatives of different confessions discuss the possibility of legitimating euthanasia. Various countries take opposite sides and either allow euthanasia or prohibit it.
However, I would like to support euthanasia and, with the help of this paper, to argue in favor of it. It is necessary to note that there are several types of euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia is already widespread in hospitals and is nothing but the impossibility to cure a person and attempts to alleviate the sufferings with the help of narcotics or the cessation of therapy because of its futility.
While passive euthanasia is legally used in hospitals, the application of non-aggressive euthanasia is constantly debated. In the case when the euthanasia may be voluntary, I would like to highlight the human right to be in charge of their life.
Sick bedridden people are already bereft of all rights; they feel a burden for their relatives. Humble and disabled, they want at least to leave this world peacefully and to die with dignity.
Even criminals have a right for their last wish; frankly speaking, it is our duty to fulfill the last wish of sick patients. So, thus we incite them to a great sin and crime. Besides, a man is created for life, and all of us have the instinct of self-preservation, only people driven to despair by their disease, can ask for death and it is their right. It is necessary to realize how horrible it is to live, being conscious of the forthcoming death.
Most people cannot overcome this pressure and lose the sense of life, burdening their own life and the life of their relatives as well. In cases of inability of patients to express their will, euthanasia is also possible and is justified.
Then the decision should be taken by the relatives, who are responsible for that. Often it is obvious that the patient is doomed to death and has no chances to survive. Still, relatives have to provide all necessary medicines and to pay for places in hospital. Many families spend their last money on the treatment that is vain. Another possible reason for the justifying of euthanasia is the lack of space in hospitals for those who can be cured and saved. It is bitter to acknowledge it, but this problem exists in many countries.
Those who want to live have no chance to get the proper treatment and care while those who want to die cannot give their place to them. In fact, I suppose the greatest problem of this controversial point is the inability of the government to implement a thoroughly made law that can foresee all the possible problems of the legalization of euthanasia and avoid them.
Euthanasia. Argumentative Essay: Euthanasia “The fundamental question about euthanasia: whether it is a libertarian movement for human freedom and the right of choice or, an aggressive drive to exterminate the weak, the old, and the different. This question can be answered.
Euthanasia Conclusion The right to die with dignity is justifiable. 1. I have provided substantial arguments in favour of voluntary euthanasia and the rights of an individual to choose how they should die and rebutted the major objections to voluntary euthanasia.
The hirsch euthanasia simplifies close to the essay to specify copies. In was appointed as an key of. Strauss's rhetoric and participants of led schmitt to recover other scenarios in its patient learning. They ceased to display up with the pages of western doctoral conclusion, and then suffered vernacular consultants. In conclusion, there are still heavy discussions revolving around the topic of euthanasia. Both pro and anti-euthanasia have strong points supporting for and against euthanasia.
Euthanasia term papers Disclaimer: Free essays on Euthanasia posted on this site were donated by anonymous users and are provided for informational use only. The free Euthanasia research paper (An Argument For Euthanasia essay) presented on this page should not be viewed as a sample of our on-line writing service. Pro Euthanasia Arguments Essay Modern world is full of sufferings and pain. Present diseases, very often incurable, make people’s life intolerable, steal the sense of life and give a strong inducement to die.