Arguments For And Against Euthanasia Essay

Euthanasia is defined as the deliberate ending of one's life by means of either administering prescribed lethal drugs or withholding life-sustaining treatment. The word itself is derived from the Greek roots "eu," meaning "good,” and "thanatos," meaning "death." Consequently, the issue becomes controversial, as euthanasia advocates argue a "right to die a good death" whilst others deem the killing of another being, regardless of motives, unethical and unlawful. Is it moral to end a life to end suffering? Can one truly die a good death? Is a so-called “good death” dignified? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide suicide suggest so, yet they are a threat to society and defeat the intended purpose of the medical profession. Euthanasia (physician-

Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death.

Euthanasia is defined as an 'act of killing someone painlessly to relieve his or her suffering'[1]. It's etymology is derived from the Greek 'eu thanatos' which means a good death. It is a contentious issue that provokes strong arguments for and against changing UK legislation to permit it. The UK currently prohibits active euthanasia. Active euthanasia is an act where the intention is to end or deliberately shorten someone's life.

Physician-Assisted Suicide has always been a topic of great debate among individuals. Not only a contemporary issue, assisted-suicide, or euthanasia, has been practiced since the time of ancient Greeks and Romans; physicians often participated in the suicide of their patients for merciful reasons (Kopelman and De Ville 1). Euthanasia, which means “good death”, had a broader meaning than what we use it for today. According to Manning, it was “essential that death be met in a psychologically balanced state of mind, under composed circumstances, in a condition of self-control” (6). In other words, it was the manner in which one died rather than the method death was delivered that was important to the Greeks and Romans. Euthanasia did not have the negative stigma that suicide had attached to it, rather, it was advocated for by the ancients, granted that it was done for the right reasons.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are never acceptable acts of mercy. They always gravely exploit the suffering and desperate, extinguishing life in the name of the ‘quality of life’ itself. - Pope john Paul

In the argument for death, a statement about life must be addressed. No person chooses to be born; someone has made that decision for each person. Once we become self-aware, we become responsible for our own actions, except when it pertains to how we expire. Life is a finite period of time, which none of it is predetermined. The legal and ethical challenges as to who can make decisions regarding euthanasia are a concern for everyone.

Euthanasia is the act of ending the life of a person who is suffering from an illness or an incurable condition. Across of the world, euthanasia is illegal, except of the Netherlands and Belgium where it has been legalized. In the United States, euthanasia is legal in three states-Oregon, Washington and Montana. Supporters of euthanasia contend it is a humane way for ill people to end their pain and suffering. They contend that everyone should have the right to end their lives. Opponents of euthanasia argue it is murder, and that it violates the Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors to "do no harm."

Technology has brought about drastic changes in the morality of today’s society. One organization it has greatly effected is the medical field. Few would argue with the fact that medical technology has greatly improved the quality of life. However, with doctors and other health care workers having the authority to contribute to both the patients’ well-being and inevitable death, society believes there should be limits to best serve the patient’s wishes. The controversial issue that society now stands against, and questions is the practice of euthanasia. Is this “medical advancement” ethical?

In that sense, the legalization of euthanasia in the Netherlands has affected innocent patients who didn’t ask the physician to end their life. To illustrate, numerous physicians have not followed the law, and there will be no guarantee that they will if euthanasia is legalized in the USA or anywhere

Humans, like all animals, attempt to evade death. Though death is usually seen as an unwanted end, some see it as an alternative to suffering. Most people cringe at the thought of suicide, but is euthanasia the same thing? Do human beings have the right to choose death?

A long, ongoing battle in the institutional review boards, ethics committee and in the United states federal court is Physician assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia. PAS refers to “a third part action informed by the intended objective (at the very least) to furnish a potential suicide with the lethal means necessary to end his or her bodily life” (Parteson 11). There are victims suffering in silence because of this issue and it calls for immediate action with a federal regulated law. The victims are cancer patients who want to end suffering from their illness and impending death, patients that are brain dead or on life support, and patients that have diseases that cause excruciating pain that ultimately deteriorate the quality of life

In this paper, I will be presenting the opposing arguments on Euthanasia, the controversial issue of terminally ill patients committing suicide with the assistance of a physician. One of the main arguments for euthanasia is that people have the right to die. Many people for euthanasia have the mindset that humans have the right to control his or her body and life and therefore have the freedom to choose how, where and when they will die. This belief stems from the idea of free will, which is a fundamental part of the human soul. Adding to this argument, supporters state that other human rights include the right to die such as the right to life, which is not the right to simply exist or to a life of minimum quality

A teacher I once had in high school would often talk about her father who lived in hospice care. Her father suffered from dementia and had been for years. She would often talk about how on his “good” days he would plead her husband to put a pillow on his head and suffocate him, to take him out of his misery. If it was legal, her husband would have willingly helped her father and put him out of his misery, however in the state of North Carolina, physician-assisted suicide is illegal. Luckily, her father passed away this year and is finally free of pain and suffering. However, if physician-assisted suicide was legal, her father would not have had to suffer as long as he did.

Victoria is currently in the midst of debate whether Euthanasia/assisted suicide should be legal. This study investigates how Australian newspaper articles present their information on this topic to the public, with a focus on negative versus positive portrayal of the issue and how this may potentially sway its audiences opinions.

    America’s founding fathers declared that every person had certain inalienable rights they are born with and cannot be separated from. They listed citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today's government must decide if a right to life equates to a right to death.