Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide
EL PASO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Euthanasia and Assisted suicide In November 1994 general election, Oregon voters approved one of the most controversial vote measures in that state’s history. With fifty-one percent in favor and forty-nine percent opposed, Measure sixteen was passed, establishing the Oregon Death with Dignity act. Oregon is one of very few places around the world where the terminally ill can legally choose to end their lives. The subject of euthanasia is complex. This issue is important to me because all men have the right to be treated as a person until the last moment. People who support assisted suicide believe they are being compassionate. Assisted suicide is not an answer to the problems it seeks to address; …show more content…
it is to surrender to them. It is an important issue to society because it deals with the purposeful ending of a life.
It comes down to watching someone suffer unbearable pain, or spending every time they have just to stay alive. Medicine and the law are the principal institutions that maintain respect for human life in a secular, pluralistic society. The debate over euthanasia can be confusing because the term itself can be defined and categorized in different ways. Voluntary euthanasia is performed at the patient’s requested and with his or her consent. Involuntary euthanasia is the killing of a patient without such consent and possibly against his or her wishes. Today’s euthanasia debate has been influenced by both classic debates on the value of human life and modern medical developments. The debate over euthanasia often centers around the so-called slippery slope argument. This argument holds that permitting one behavior or outcomes. Opponents of euthanasia argue that if it is legalized in some circumstances, it will eventually be applied to other situations as well. Some people argue that individuals should not be allowed to choose euthanasia because it would be harmful to both society and medical profession. Euthanasia cannot be simply a matter of personal choice, because it would destroy one of the most important foundations of society, a prohibition on
killing. Other persons argue that legalizing euthanasia would help ensure that the terminally ill receive adequate end-of-life care, and would give them more control over the way they die. In his opinion, patients, not doctors or the government, should have the right to decide when death is appropriate. Advantages of euthanasia, or right-to die policies, is in allowing the person to maintain a dignity in death after a lifetime of dignity. It may provide them with a sense of empowerment in the face of being powerless against the progression of a chronic, perhaps fatal, disease. A central theme includes a person’s quality of life. Disadvantages may involve the "slippery slope" many ethicists feel may occur, thinking that voluntary euthanasia can devalue human life. Quality of life is not as significant a theme as is maintenance of a life. To convince somebody to be against euthanasia I would tell him/her that the option of euthanasia is a selfish way because you are not fighting for your life. The vulnerability of a sick person, added to that feels a "weight" for family or economic considerations may force decide for euthanasia. The implications for society by making assisted suicide and/or euthanasia available, some people will be pressured into accepting assistance in dying by their families. People may be influenced by other people and feel that they should commit suicide. Catholics believe euthanasia is morally wrong because it is the destruction of life. The implications also are that once euthanasia is legalized in a country, the inhabitants of neighboring or nearby countries can take advantage of it, if in your country is illegal. Could reduce the resources devoted to the cure of a disease, because it could get out cheaper to let people die and thereby decreases also, the research effort in medicine. My plan of action is to convince people that doctors have a special responsibility to show by word and deed, in season and out that intentionally killing another person is simply wrong. Physician should never kill a terminally ill patient, even if that patient wants to end his or her life. The medical profession must be based on respect for life, with no exceptions.
References
Andrea, N. (2005). Terminal Illness. Opposing viewpoints 4: 144-184.
Carrie, S. (2006). Euthanasia. Opposing viewpoints. Editor.
Herbert, H. (2003). The Practice of Euthanasia. Hasting Center Report 5: 74-110.
Robert, P. (2000) Negotiating a Good Death. Euthanasia in the Netherlands 12: 229- 236.
William, D. (2002) Euthanasia. Examining Issues Through Political cartoons 1: 6-17.
Euthanasia and Assisted suicide In November 1994 general election, Oregon voters approved one of the most controversial vote measures in that state’s history. With fifty-one percent in favor and forty-nine percent opposed, Measure sixteen was passed, establishing the Oregon Death with Dignity act. Oregon is one of very few places around the world where the terminally ill can legally choose to end their lives. The subject of euthanasia is complex. This issue is important to me because all men have the right to be treated as a person until the last moment. People who support assisted suicide believe they are being compassionate. Assisted suicide is not an answer to the problems it seeks to address; …show more content…
it is to surrender to them. It is an important issue to society because it deals with the purposeful ending of a life.
It comes down to watching someone suffer unbearable pain, or spending every time they have just to stay alive. Medicine and the law are the principal institutions that maintain respect for human life in a secular, pluralistic society. The debate over euthanasia can be confusing because the term itself can be defined and categorized in different ways. Voluntary euthanasia is performed at the patient’s requested and with his or her consent. Involuntary euthanasia is the killing of a patient without such consent and possibly against his or her wishes. Today’s euthanasia debate has been influenced by both classic debates on the value of human life and modern medical developments. The debate over euthanasia often centers around the so-called slippery slope argument. This argument holds that permitting one behavior or outcomes. Opponents of euthanasia argue that if it is legalized in some circumstances, it will eventually be applied to other situations as well. Some people argue that individuals should not be allowed to choose euthanasia because it would be harmful to both society and medical profession. Euthanasia cannot be simply a matter of personal choice, because it would destroy one of the most important foundations of society, a prohibition on
killing. Other persons argue that legalizing euthanasia would help ensure that the terminally ill receive adequate end-of-life care, and would give them more control over the way they die. In his opinion, patients, not doctors or the government, should have the right to decide when death is appropriate. Advantages of euthanasia, or right-to die policies, is in allowing the person to maintain a dignity in death after a lifetime of dignity. It may provide them with a sense of empowerment in the face of being powerless against the progression of a chronic, perhaps fatal, disease. A central theme includes a person’s quality of life. Disadvantages may involve the "slippery slope" many ethicists feel may occur, thinking that voluntary euthanasia can devalue human life. Quality of life is not as significant a theme as is maintenance of a life. To convince somebody to be against euthanasia I would tell him/her that the option of euthanasia is a selfish way because you are not fighting for your life. The vulnerability of a sick person, added to that feels a "weight" for family or economic considerations may force decide for euthanasia. The implications for society by making assisted suicide and/or euthanasia available, some people will be pressured into accepting assistance in dying by their families. People may be influenced by other people and feel that they should commit suicide. Catholics believe euthanasia is morally wrong because it is the destruction of life. The implications also are that once euthanasia is legalized in a country, the inhabitants of neighboring or nearby countries can take advantage of it, if in your country is illegal. Could reduce the resources devoted to the cure of a disease, because it could get out cheaper to let people die and thereby decreases also, the research effort in medicine. My plan of action is to convince people that doctors have a special responsibility to show by word and deed, in season and out that intentionally killing another person is simply wrong. Physician should never kill a terminally ill patient, even if that patient wants to end his or her life. The medical profession must be based on respect for life, with no exceptions.
References
Andrea, N. (2005). Terminal Illness. Opposing viewpoints 4: 144-184.
Carrie, S. (2006). Euthanasia. Opposing viewpoints. Editor.
Herbert, H. (2003). The Practice of Euthanasia. Hasting Center Report 5: 74-110.
Robert, P. (2000) Negotiating a Good Death. Euthanasia in the Netherlands 12: 229- 236.
William, D. (2002) Euthanasia. Examining Issues Through Political cartoons 1: 6-17.