euthanasia arguments essay

Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia Essay

Mankind has always struggled to deal with numerous illnesses that have been in existence at different periods of time. Different treatment alternatives have been employed ranging from those by traditional medicine men to the modern scientific methods.

All these efforts have been motivated by the desire to remain alive for as long as one can (Buse 7). However, there are situations when living is more problematic and either the victim or other stakeholders contemplate ending life. This is referred to as euthanasia.

It is the act of deliberately terminating life when it is deemed to be the only way that a person can get out of their suffering (Johnstone 247). Euthanasia is commonly performed on patients who are experiencing severe pain due to terminal illness.

For one suffering from terminal illness, assisted death seems to be the better way of ending their suffering. The issue of euthanasia has ignited heated debate among the professionals as well as the law makers and the general public (Otlowski 211).

The physicians should do everything humanly possible to save lives of their patients, however, euthanasia should be considered as the only alternative to save extreme cases like the terminally ill patients from their perpetual pain and suffering.

Euthanasia can either be active/voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. In voluntary euthanasia, the patient suffering from terminal illness may give consent to be assisted end his/her prolonged severe pain through death (Bowie and Bowie 215).

The patient may also decline to undergo burdensome treatment, willingly terminating treatment procedures like removal of life support machinery, and simply starving. Non-voluntary euthanasia, on the other hand, involves who cannot make sound decisions.

They may be too young, in a coma, senile, mentally challenged, or other severe brain damage (Gorsuch 86). Involuntary euthanasia involves ending the life of the patient without his/her consent. This usually happens when the patient is willing to live despite being in the most dangerous situations.

For instance, an infantry man has his stomach blown up by an explosive and experiences great pain. The army doctor, realizing that the soldier would not survive and has no pain relievers decide to spare the man further suffering and executes him instantly.

Also, a person could be seen on the 10 th floor of a building on fire, the person’s clothes are on fire and cries out for help. The person on ground has a rifle and decides to shoot him dead with a strong conviction that the individual would have experience a slow and painful death from the fierce fire.

Due to the sensitivity of the issue, laws that will protect the rights of both the patient and the physicians who practice euthanasia should be put in place.

A patient has the right to demand or refuse a given form of medication as long as it will alleviate their suffering (Bowie and Bowie 216). It amounts to violation of the patient’s rights if the physician does not respect the will of the patient.

Each one has a right to determine what direction their lives should take and is their own responsibility (Buse 7). A study conducted among adult Americans indicates that about 80% of them support the idea.

They argue that someone suffering from terminal illness, a condition which no medical intervention can reverse, should be allowed to undergo euthanasia. It is inappropriate to subject an individual into a slow but painful death. Such an individual ought to be assisted to end his/her life in order to avoid a prolonged painful death.

The laws guiding the practice of euthanasia in the state of Oregon are quite clear. Active euthanasia should only be performed on a patient who is 18 years and above, of sound mind and ascertained by at least three medical doctors that assisted death is the only alternative of helping the patient (Otlowski 212).

Under such a situation, the doctor prescribes the drugs but is not allowed to administer them. The patient in question takes the drug (s) voluntarily without any assistance from the doctor. The patient will then die in dignity, without any intense pain that living with the condition would bring.

It is evident that some terminal illness may not present unbearable pain to the patient. Instead, a chronically ill patient who is in a no-pain state will not be in a humanly dignified state. The patient of doctor may propose euthanasia as the better treatment alternative.

This has been occasioned by the advancement in the field of medicine where pain can be significantly control (Buse 8). All patients are entitled to pain relief. However, most physicians have not been trained on pain management and hence the patients are usually left in excruciating pain (Johnstone 249).

Under such a condition, the patient suffers physically and emotionally causing depression. Leaving the patient in this agonizing state is unacceptable and euthanasia may be recommended.

Moreover, the physician who practices euthanasia should be protected by the law. This can be achieved by giving him/her the ‘right’ to kill. A doctor handling a patient who is in excruciating pain should be in a position to recommend euthanasia so as to assist the patient have a dignified death.

It is not required by law or medical ethics that a patient should be kept alive by all means. Hence, the patient should be allowed to demand death if he/she considers it necessary (Gorsuch 88).

It would be inhumane and unacceptable to postpone death against the wish of the patient. It would also be unwise to insist on curing a condition which has been medically regarded as irreversible or incurable.

Most terminal illnesses are very expensive to cure although they are known to be incurable. The patient as well as family members ought to be relieved of the accompanying financial burden (Buse 8). The patient, considering the amount of money and other resources used in an attempt to keep him alive, may demand to be assisted to die.

This can only be possible through euthanasia (Johnstone 253). In fact, spending more on the patient would only serve to extend the individual’s suffering. Human beings are caring by nature and none would be willing to live their loved ones to suffer on their own.

They would therefore dedicate a lot of time providing the best care that they can afford. Some would even leave their day to day activities in order to attend to the terminally or chronically ill relative or friend.

Euthanasia, therefore, serves to spare the relatives the agony of constantly watching their family member undergo intense suffering and painful death. In most occasions, attempts to keep a patient alive would mean that he/she be hospitalized for a very long period of time (Bowie and Bowie 216).

Terminally ill patients in hospitals imply that facilities would be put under great pressure at the expense of other patients who would benefit from using the same services. These facilities include; bed space, medical machines, drugs, human resource, among others. Even if they were to be given homecare, a lot of time resource and facilities would be overstretched.

Other than the issue of homecare and the financial obligations that may arise, there is also the issue of personal liberty and individual rights. Those who front this argument explain that the patient has the right to determine when and how they die.

Since the life of a person belongs to that person only, then the person should have the right to decide if he or she wants to end it, if ending life would also mean ending irreversible suffering (CNBC News para 4).

This mean that individual undergoing great and irreversible suffering have the power to chose “a good death” and thus decide when they want to die (para 7).. Furthermore, these patients are dependent on life sustaining medication, which adds only adds the misery.

This brings forth the question about whether such patients can be forced to take life sustaining drugs if the said drugs only lead to extended life full of suffering.

The law should provide for such individuals to refuse to take such drugs and also to request drugs that will lead to end of their misery, even it if mean that these drugs will end their lives.

Therefore patients in this condition should be allowed the legal tight to end their miseries through assisted suicide.

Those who oppose any form of euthanasia argue that a terminally ill patient or a person suffering irreversible pain from an incurable disease should be assisted to live by all means including any medical procedure that guarantees that they live the longest possible period.

This argument is valid but has logical flows. The argument presupposes that such patients need to be prevented from dyeing through any possible means. In reality though, this efforts are futile as when a patient has determined that death is the easier way out of the misery they are suffering, the emotional distress will only pull them closer to death (Morgan 103).

Furthermore, such efforts to prolong the patients’ lives do not prevent death, as but just postpone it at the same time extending the patients suffering. This is because such patient’s life is hanging by the thread and they have been brought near to death by the virtue of their illness.

In severe cases such patient may result to suicide, as in the case of Sue Rodriguez, Canadian woman who suffered Lou Gehrig’s disease, and was refused the right for assisted death (CNBC News para 2). As such efforts to prolong their lives pushed them closer to death

While some countries such as The Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark have embraced the idea of euthanasia, others have move at a snails pace in this direction. Canada, one of the most developed countries is such countries.

Euthanasia is still illegal in Canada and any person found trying it is subject to prosecution. Furthermore, any person found to have assisted another person commit suicide is also liable to prosecution for up to 14 years in prison.

Still in Canada, the law after many years of legal battle has differentiated euthanasia and assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is what is otherwise referred to as active euthanasia where a terminally ill patient asks for help to end life.

The law in Canada has also allowed for these patients to refuse life sustaining medication if such medication does not in any way improve the quality of their lives (CNBC para 17).

If the law acknowledges the power of a person to refuse such medication then it must also allow such a person the legal right to determine the condition and the manner in which they die. This means that there is light, though, at the end of the tunnel for Canadians patients who may wish to end their lives.

Such argument for any form of euthanasia tends to conglomerate around two valid arguments. First, if a terminally ill patient who is suffering extreme and irreversible pain is determined to be of sound mind and is adult then such patients should be allowed to make judgment about their lives.

If such a patient decides that ending their lives will be end their misery, then no doctor has the legal as well as moral obligation of coercing the patient to continue taking medication that only prolongs their suffering (Morgan 145).

If doctors manage to successfully administer the drugs against the wishes of such a patient, they will have committed an assault against the patient and this is a legal as well as a professional misconduct (Morgan 146). Secondly, the desires of such a patient are supreme.

This means that the patients’ right to self determination overrides the fundamental but not absolute belief that life is holy and should only be ended by the maker.

Therefore such patient’s should be treated as competent enough to make decisions about their lives and that no medical officer has the legal or moral right to determine that such a patient is wrong. Any medical help provide to such a patient thus be for the benefit of the patient.

From a religious point of view, it can be argued that God is love and people of God should demonstrate compassion. If someone is undergoing intense pain and a slow but sure death, it would be evil to allow such a person to experience the full extent (Gorsuch 89).

Euthanasia would therefore be the better option. Helping the patient have a dignified death can be the best show of agape love. There is also the issue of quality of life where if someone is leading low quality or worthless life, then one should opt for euthanasia.

The essay has discussed several points in favor of euthanasia as an alternative when it comes to treating people suffering from terminal illness or responding to perplexing situations where death is the ultimate end although one may go through severe pain and agonizing moments.

It has also highlighted three main forms of euthanasia; voluntary/active, non-voluntary, and involuntary. Anyone can argue against the points raised in this essay but it would be difficult to justify why an individual should be allowed to suffer for a long time either willingly or unwillingly.

The doctors should do everything humanly possible to save lives of their patients, however, euthanasia should be considered as the only alternative to save extreme cases like the terminally ill patients from their perpetual pain and suffering.

Works Cited

Bowie, Bob & Bowie, Robert A. Ethical Studies: Euthanasia (2 nd ed). Neslon Thornes, 2004, Pp. 215-216.

Buse, Anne-Kathrin. Euthanasia: Forms and their Differences . GRIN Verlag, 2008, Pp. 7-8.

CNBC news. “ The Fight for the Right to Die. ” CNBC Canada . 2011.

Gorsuch, Neil M. Euthanasia- The Future of Assisted Suicide . Princeton University Press, 2009, Pp. 86-93.

Johnstone, Megan-Jane. Euthanasia: Contradicting Perspectives (5 th ed). Elsevier Health Sciences, 2008, Pp. 247-262.

Morgan, John. An Easeful Death?: Perspectives On Death, Dying And Euthanasia. S ydney: Federation press Pty Ltd. 1996. Print.

Otlowski, Margaret. Euthanasia and the Common Law . Oxford University Press, 2000, Pp. 211-212.

• Abortion and Parental Consent
• Relationship Between Doctors and Pharmaceutical Industries
• Attitudes Related to Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Among Terminally Ill Patients
• Legalizing Euthanasia
• Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die
• Analysis of Abortion as an Ethical Issue
• Advanced Diagnostic Procedures: The Individual Impact of Genetic Diagnosis
• Listening Skills and Healthcare: A Quantitative Survey Technique
• Teamwork and Communication Errors in Healthcare
• A New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 6). Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/

"Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia." IvyPanda , 6 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia'. 6 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia." May 6, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia." May 6, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia." May 6, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

We have a right to die with dignity. The medical profession has a duty to assist

Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Director: Centre for Applied Ethics, Stellenbosch University

Disclosure statement

Anton van Niekerk is director of the Centre for Applied Ethics and Head of the Unit for Bioethics in that Centre. The Unit receives an annual contribution from Mediclinic, but that is not for the exclusive use of Anton van Niekerk.

Stellenbosch University provides funding as a partner of The Conversation AFRICA.

View all partners

Euthanasia represents one of the oldest issues in medical ethics. It is forbidden in the original Hippocratic Oath, and has consistently been opposed by most religious traditions since antiquity – other than, incidentally, abortion, which has only been formally banned by the Catholic Church since the middle of the 19th century.

Euthanasia is a wide topic with many dimensions. I will limit myself in this article to the issue of assisted death, which seems to me to be one of the most pressing issues of our time.

Desmond Tutu, emeritus archbishop of Cape Town, raised it again on his 85th birthday in an article in the Washington Post. He wrote:

I have prepared for my death and have made it clear that I do not wish to be kept alive at all costs. I hope I am treated with compassion and allowed to pass onto the next phase of life’s journey in the manner of my choice.

Assisted death can take the form of physician assisted suicide (PAS) . Here a suffering and terminal patient is assisted by a physician to gain access to a lethal substance which the patient himself or herself takes or administers. If incapable of doing so, the physician – on request of the patient – administers the lethal substance which terminates the patient’s life.

The latter procedure is also referred to as “voluntary active euthanasia” (VAE). I will not deal with the issue of involuntary euthanasia –where the suffering patient’s life is terminated without their explicit consent -– a procedure which, to my mind, is ethically much more problematic.

Passive form of euthanasia

The term “voluntary active euthanasia” suggests that there also is a passive form of euthanasia. It is passive in the sense that nothing is “actively” done to kill the patient, but that nothing is done to deter the process of dying either, and that the termination of life-support which is clearly futile, is permitted.

However, the moral significance of the distinction between “active” and “passive” euthanasia is increasingly questioned by ethicists. The reason simply is the credibility of arguing that administering a lethal agent is “active”, but terminating life support (for example switching off a ventilator) is “passive”. Both clearly are observable and describable actions, and both are the direct causes of the patient’s death.

There are a number of reasons for the opposition to physician assisted suicide or voluntary active euthanasia. The value bestowed on human life in all religious traditions and almost all cultures, such as the prohibition on murder is so pervasive that it is an element of common, and not statutory, law.

Objections from the medical profession to being seen or utilised as “killers” rather than saviours of human life, as well as the sometimes well-founded fear of the possible abuse of physician assisted suicide or voluntary active euthanasia, is a further reason. The main victims of such possible abuse could well be the most vulnerable and indigent members of society: the poor, the disabled and the like. Those who cannot pay for prolonged accommodation in expensive health care facilities and intensive care units.

Death with dignity

In support of physician assisted suicide or voluntary active euthanasia, the argument is often made that, as people have the right to live with dignity, they also have the right to die with dignity. Some medical conditions are simply so painful and unnecessarily prolonged that the capability of the medical profession to alleviate suffering by means of palliative care is surpassed.

Intractable terminal suffering robs the victims of most of their dignity. In addition, medical science and practice is currently capable of an unprecedented prolongation of human life. It can be a prolongation that too often results in a concomitant prolongation of unnecessary and pointless suffering.

Enormous pressure is placed upon both families and the health care system to spend time and very costly resources on patients that have little or no chance of recovery and are irrevocably destined to die. It is, so the argument goes, not inhumane or irreverent to assist such patients – particularly if they clearly and repeatedly so request – to bring their lives to an end.

I am personally much more in favour of the pro-PAS and pro-VAE positions, although the arguments against do raise issues that need to be addressed. Most of those issues (for example the danger of the exploitation of vulnerable patients) I believe, can be satisfactorily dealt with by regulation.

Argument in favour of assisted suicide

The most compelling argument in favour of physician assisted suicide or voluntary active euthanasia is the argument in support of committing suicide in a democracy. The right to commit suicide is, as far as I am concerned, simply one of the prices we have to be willing to pay as citizens of a democracy.

We do not have the right, and we play no discernible role, in coming into existence. But we do have the right to decide how long we remain in existence. The fact that we have the right to suicide, does not mean that it is always (morally) right to execute that right.

It is hard to deny the right of an 85-year-old with terminal cancer of the pancreas and almost no family and friends left, to commit suicide or ask for assisted death. In this case, he or she both has the right, and will be in the right if exercising that right.

Compare that with the situation of a 40-year-old man, a husband and father of three young children, who has embezzled company funds and now has to face the music in court. He, also, has the right to commit suicide. But, I would argue, it would not be morally right for him to do so, given the dire consequences for his family. To have a right, does not imply that it is always right to execute that right.

My argument in favour of physician assisted suicide or voluntary active euthanasia is thus grounded in the right to suicide, which I think is fundamental to a democracy.

Take the case of a competent person who is terminally ill, who will die within the next six months and has no prospect of relief or cure. This person suffers intolerably and/or intractably, often because of an irreversible dependence on life-support. This patient repeatedly, say at least twice a week, requests that his/her life be terminated. I am convinced that to perform physician assisted suicide or voluntary active euthanasia in this situation is not only the humane and respectful, but the morally justified way to go.

The primary task of the medical profession is not to prolong life or to promote health, but to relieve suffering. We have a right to die with dignity, and the medical profession has a duty to assist in that regard.

• Assisted suicide
• Voluntary euthanasia
• Desmond Tutu
• World Philosophy Day
• Philosophy2021

Equine Veterinary Nurse

Commissioning Editor Nigeria

Professor in Physiotherapy

Postdoctoral Research Associate

Editorial Internship

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Human Rights — Euthanasia

Essays About Euthanasia

Euthanasia essay: examples, types of euthanasia essays:.

• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay: This type of essay presents arguments for and against euthanasia and requires the writer to take a position on the issue.
• Euthanasia Persuasive Essay: The purpose of this essay is to persuade the reader to support or reject the idea of euthanasia. The writer needs to use convincing arguments and evidence to support their position.
• Euthanasia Controversy Essay: This type of essay explores the controversies surrounding euthanasia, including ethical, moral, legal, and religious issues. The writer needs to analyze and present different perspectives on the issue.

Euthanasia: Argumentative Essay

• Choose a clear position: Before you start writing, it's important to decide where you stand on the issue of euthanasia. Do you believe that euthanasia should be legalized, or do you think it should remain illegal? Your position will guide your research and the evidence you present.
• Conduct thorough research: Euthanasia is a complex and controversial issue, so it's essential to do your research before starting to write. Look for reliable sources of information, such as academic articles, government reports, and medical journals.
• Develop a strong thesis statement: Your thesis statement should clearly state your position on euthanasia and provide a roadmap for the rest of your essay. It should be clear, concise, and easy to understand.
• Provide evidence to support your arguments: Use evidence to support your arguments, such as statistics, expert opinions, and case studies. Make sure that your evidence is credible and comes from reputable sources.
• Address counterarguments: It's important to address counterarguments to your position to demonstrate that you have considered all perspectives on the issue. Addressing counterarguments will also make your essay more persuasive.
• Use persuasive language: Use persuasive language to make your argument more convincing. Use strong, clear language that emphasizes your point of view.

Euthanasia: Persuasive Essay

• Conduct research: The writer should conduct thorough research on the topic to gather as much information as possible to support their argument.
• Develop a clear thesis statement: The writer should clearly state their position on euthanasia in the thesis statement.
• Present convincing evidence: The writer should use credible and convincing evidence to support their argument, such as statistics, case studies, and expert opinions.
• Address counterarguments: The writer should acknowledge and address counterarguments to their position, and provide strong rebuttals.
• Use persuasive language: The writer should use persuasive language and techniques, such as emotional appeals and rhetorical questions, to convince the reader of their position.

Euthanasia Controversy Essay

• Start with a clear and concise introduction that presents the topic and the main arguments.
• Conduct thorough research on the topic, using credible sources, such as academic journals, government reports, and expert opinions.
• Present a balanced view of the issue by providing arguments for and against euthanasia.
• Use clear and concise language, avoiding emotional language that may detract from the argument.
• Consider the ethical and moral implications of euthanasia, and the different perspectives of stakeholders involved.
• Conclude the essay with a summary of the main arguments and a final thought on the topic.

Tips for Choosing a Topic for Euthanasia Essays:

• Identify your stance: Before choosing a topic, decide on your position on euthanasia. This will help you select a suitable topic for your essay.
• Conduct research: Thoroughly research the topic of euthanasia to gain a better understanding of the subject matter. Use reliable sources such as books, journals, and academic articles.
• Brainstorm: Create a list of potential topics related to euthanasia and narrow down your choices based on your research and personal interest.
• Focus on a specific aspect: Instead of trying to cover the entire topic of euthanasia in your essay, focus on a specific aspect such as the ethical or legal implications.

Hook Examples for Euthanasia Essays

Anecdotal hook.

Meet John, a terminally ill patient who faces excruciating pain every day. His decision to seek euthanasia sparks a controversial debate over the right to die with dignity.

Question Hook

Is it ethical for physicians to assist patients in ending their lives to relieve unbearable suffering? Explore the moral dilemmas surrounding the topic of euthanasia.

Quotation Hook

"Dying is not a crime." — Jack Kevorkian. Investigate the legacy of Dr. Kevorkian, who championed the cause of physician-assisted suicide, and its impact on the euthanasia debate.

Statistical or Factual Hook

Did you know that euthanasia is legal in several countries, while it remains illegal in others? Examine the global landscape of euthanasia laws and the factors that influence these decisions.

Definition Hook

What exactly is euthanasia, and how does it differ from other end-of-life choices? Delve into the definitions, types, and terminology associated with this complex issue.

Rhetorical Question Hook

Should individuals have the autonomy to decide when and how they will end their lives, especially in cases of terminal illness? Analyze the arguments for and against euthanasia's role in preserving personal freedom.

Historical Hook

Travel through history to explore the evolution of euthanasia practices and laws. Discover how societies have grappled with the idea of mercy killing across centuries.

Contrast Hook

Contrast the perspectives of medical professionals who advocate for euthanasia as a compassionate choice with those who argue for preserving the sanctity of life at all costs. Explore the ethical dilemmas inherent in these differing viewpoints.

Narrative Hook

Step into the shoes of a family member faced with the agonizing decision of whether to support a loved one's request for euthanasia. Their personal story sheds light on the emotional complexities involved.

Shocking Statement Hook

Prepare to be shocked by the cases of covert euthanasia that occur outside the boundaries of the law. These stories expose the gray areas and ethical challenges surrounding end-of-life decisions.

Euthanasia, Assisted Dying and The Right to Die

Human euthanasia as an assisted suicide, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Issues Why Physician-assisted Suicide Should not Be Legalized

Physician-assisted suicide (pas), a controversy over the issue of physician assisted suicide, right to die: euthanasia issues, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

My Views on The Issue of Assisted Suicide

Physician-assisted death: advantages and moral matters of right to die, medical and ethical dilemma: euthanasia or right to die, range of moral, ethical and legal perspectives of right to die or euthanasia, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Discussion on Whether Human Euthanasia Should Be Made Illegal

Natural death and euthanasia: the catholic church’s historical response, the popularity of euthanasia among the american population, a moral interpretation of euthanasia and murder, analysis of physician-assisted suicide (pas) in terms of bioethics, a debate over allowing physician assisted suicide, arguments expressed by proponents of the legalization of physician-assisted suicide (pas), persuasive essay pro euthanasia, why physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients should be legalized, the arguments for euthanasia: a critical analysis, advantages and disadvantages of euthanasia, death with dignity act: ethical dilemma regarding euthanasia, the right to die: debating euthanasia in modern society, advocating for legalizing euthanasia, an assisted suicide: roller coasters as tools for euthanasia, euthanasia: examining arguments, ethics, and legalities, voluntary euthanasia persuasive speech, the struggle with physician assisted suicide in the united states, why euthanasia should not be allowed, physician aid in dying: a controversial ethical issue.

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending life to relieve pain and suffering.

Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary (when a person wills to have their life ended), non-voluntary (when a patient's consent is unavailable), or involuntary (.done without asking for consent or against the patient's will)

Jack Kevorkian, Philip Nitschke, Barbara Coombs Lee.

The United States (Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Montana, Vermont, Hawaii), Switzerland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia, Canada.

Though euthanasia is still illegal in England, King George V was euthanized. Euthanasia is mostly administered by giving lethal doses of painkiller or other drugs. Despite Euthanasia being generally illegal in India, there is a tradition of forced euthanasia in South India.

Relevant topics

• Freedom of Speech
• Death Penalty
• Human Trafficking
• Police Brutality
• Child Labour
• Gay Marriage
• Same Sex Marriage
• Assisted Suicide

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Pros and Cons of Physician Aid in Dying

Lydia s dugdale, barron h lerner, daniel callahan.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

To whom all correspondence should be addressed: Lydia S. Dugdale, MD, MAR, Associate Professor, Columbia University, 622 W 168 St, PH 8E-105, New York, NY, 10032; Tel: 212-305-5960, Email: [email protected] .

Series information

Focus: Death

Collection date 2019 Dec.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-NC license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

The question of a physician’s involvement in aid in dying (or “assisted suicide”) is being debated across the country. This article adopts no one position because its authors hold contrasting views. It aims instead to articulate the strongest arguments in favor of aid in dying and the strongest arguments opposed. It also addresses relevant terminology and reviews the history of its legalization in the United States.

Keywords: Aid in dying, Physician-assisted suicide, End of life, Death, Dying, Ethics, Bioethics, Autonomy, Suicide

Physician aid in dying is a controversial subject raising issues central to the role of physicians. According to the American Medical Association, it occurs when a physician provides “the necessary means and/or information” to facilitate a patient’s choice to end his or her life [ 1 ].

This essay’s authors hold varying views on the ethics of aid in dying; thus, the essay explores the subject without taking a position. It addresses its terminology; history of legalization in the United States; arguments in favor of aid in dying; and arguments opposed.

Terminology

Physician aid in dying goes by many names. Perhaps the best recognized is “physician-assisted suicide.” Alternative terms include but are not limited to: death with dignity, doctor-prescribed death, right to die, and physician-assisted death. For simplicity’s sake, we use aid in dying (AID), although we recognize that there will be some who object, no matter the label.

A variety of factors have led to these various neologisms. Supplanting the word “physician” with “medical,” for example, makes it possible for non-physician clinicians to prescribe the lethal medications. Some advocates of AID prefer not to use the term “suicide;” they contend that AID is a medical practice, distinct from the act of suicide for a depressed or hopeless person [ 2 ]. By contrast, opponents maintain that the process of prematurely and deliberately ending one’s life is always suicide, regardless of motivation. Some insist that dissociating “physician-assisted suicide” from other types of suicide demeans those who die by suicide for other reasons, as if only medically-assisted suicides are legitimate [ 3 ]. People on both sides of the issue worry whether “aid in dying” or “assisted dying” might be confused with palliative, hospice, or other care of dying patients.

In the United States, physician-assisted suicide or aid in dying has always been carefully distinguished from euthanasia. Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, refers to the administration of a lethal medication to an incurably suffering patient. It may be voluntary (the patient requests it) or involuntary. Euthanasia is illegal in the United States, but voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Colombia, Luxembourg, and Canada. It is decriminalized in the Netherlands.

At risk of compounding terminology further, Canada legalized in June 2016 “medical assistance in dying” (MAiD), which includes both “voluntary euthanasia” and “medically-assisted suicide [ 4 ].”

A Brief History of Legalization in the United States

In the early 1900s, advocates argued forcefully for legalizing euthanasia, which was already being secretly practiced in the US. According to Jacob Appel’s work on this period, the eugenics movement strongly influenced discourse on euthanasia, and opponents of legalization tended to put forth practical rather than religious or moral arguments [ 5 ]. When efforts to legalize euthanasia failed, public discourse on the subject waned for many decades.

In the 1980s, the pathologist Jacob “Jack” Kevorkian began advertising in Detroit area newspapers as a death counselor [ 6 ]. He had studied the technique of Dutch physicians in the Netherlands, and created his own device with which patients could self-administer lethal medications. His first patient ended her life in 1990 while lying on a bed inside Kevorkian’s Volkswagen van. He went on to assist with some 130 deaths by suicide over the next eight years. In 1999, after Kevorkian publicly distributed a video of himself directly euthanizing a patient, he was convicted of second-degree murder and sent to prison. Although Kevorkian reignited national debate about dying, his off-putting approach and personal idiosyncrasies prevented his becoming a national leader on the issue.

Several of Kevorkian’s physician contemporaries filed suit against New York’s Attorney General, arguing that the State of New York’s prohibition against physician-assisted suicide violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argued, in effect, that the right to refuse treatment was effectively the same as the right to end one’s life. The Supreme Court ruled in response in Vacco v. Quill (1997) that there is no constitutionally-protected right to die. It left such decisions to the states. The Court also ruled in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) that a right to aid in dying was not protected by the Due Process Clause.

Oregon became the first to pass its death with dignity law that same year. More than a decade later, Washington legalized AID in 2008. Montana decriminalized the practice a year later. Vermont legalized it in 2013.

In 2014, a young Californian named Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with an astrocytoma and became a spokesperson for the legalization of AID. She was a newlywed facing terminal illness, and her story quickly captured the public imagination. Her well-publicized death by lethal ingestion in Oregon in 2014 influenced her home state of California to legalize AID in 2015. This was subsequently followed by Colorado in 2016, the District of Columbia in 2017, Hawai'i in 2018, and New Jersey and Maine in 2019.

Pro Arguments

The two most common arguments in favor of legalizing AID are respect for patient autonomy and relief of suffering. A third, related, argument is that AID is a safe medical practice, requiring a health care professional.

Respect for Patient Autonomy

Bioethics as a discipline gained significant traction in the 1970s, at a time when the concept of patient rights was pushing back against physician paternalism. The philosophers Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, in their well-known textbook Principles of Biomedical Ethics, advanced four fundamental principles as a framework for addressing ethically-complex cases: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Of these principles, autonomy undeniably exerts the most influence on current US medical practice [ 7 ].

Autonomy refers to governance over one’s own actions. In the health care setting, this means a patient determines which medical interventions to elect or forgo. Patient autonomy serves as the justification for informed consent; only after a thorough explanation of risks and benefits can the patient have the agency to make a decision about treatments or participation in medical research. This logic, it is argued, naturally extends to AID; patients accustomed to making their own health care decisions throughout life should also be permitted to control the circumstances of their deaths.

Relief of Suffering

At its core, medicine has always aimed to relieve the suffering of patients from illness and disease. In the West, Hippocrates’s ancient oath pledged to use treatments to help the sick, but not “administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so [ 8 ].” In contrast, advocates of AID argue that relief of suffering through lethal ingestion is humane and compassionate – if the patient is dying and suffering is refractory. Indeed, some of the most compelling arguments made in favor of AID come from patients, such as Maynard, who suffer from life-threatening illnesses.

A Safe Medical Practice

Aid in dying is lauded by advocates for being a safe medical practice – that is, doctors can ensure death in a way that suicide by other means cannot. Aid in dying thus becomes one option among many possibilities for care of the dying. Although individual state laws vary, most propose a number of safeguards to prevent abuses and to provide structure for an act that some people will do anyway, albeit more haphazardly or even dangerously. Safeguards include requiring that a patient electing AID be informed of all end-of-life options; that two witnesses confirm that the patient is requesting AID autonomously; and that patients are free of coercion and able to ingest the lethal medication themselves [ 9 ].

Con Arguments

Although opponents of AID offer many arguments ranging from pragmatic to philosophical, we focus here on concerns that the expansion of AID might cause additional, unintended harm through suicide contagion, slippery slope, and the deaths of patients suffering from depression.

Suicide Contagion

The sociologist David Phillips first described suicide contagion in the 1970s. He showed that after high profile suicides, society would witness a broad spike in suicides [ 10 ]. This was particularly true for individuals whose demographic profiles were similar to those of the person who died by suicide [ 11 ]. Although Phillips’s work did not focus on AID, it has been corroborated recently by the spike in youth suicidality following the airing of Netflix’s 13 Reasons Why [ 12 ].

The publicly-available data from Oregon, however, reveal that in the months surrounding Maynard’s high-profile death in November 2014, the number of similarly situated individuals in Oregon who ended their lives by lethal ingestion more than doubled. Furthermore, from 1998 (when Oregon started recording data) to 2013, the number of lethal prescriptions written each year increased at an average of 12.1%. During 2014 and 2015, however, this increase doubled, suggesting that high-profile AID leads to more AID [ 13 ]. Although the data do not prove that an increase in AID causes more non-assisted suicide, a study by Jones and Paton found that the legalization of AID has been associated with “an increased rate of total suicides relative to other states and no decrease in non-assisted suicides [ 14 ].” They suggest that this means either AID does not inhibit non-assisted suicide or that AID makes non-assisted suicide more palatable for others.

Slippery Slope

Some opponents of AID express concern that once doctors are involved in the business of hastening patients’ deaths; they have already slid down the slippery slope [ 15 ]. Others suggest that the slope is best exemplified by an expanding list of reasons for electing AID. Refractory physical pain is no longer the most compelling reason for ending one’s life through lethal ingestion. Instead, cumulative Oregon data suggest that the vast majority of patients elect AID because they are concerned about “losing autonomy” (90.6%) or are “less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable” (89.1%). Some fear a “loss of dignity” (74.4%); being a “burden on family, friends/caregivers” (44.8%); or “losing control of bodily functions” (44.3%). Concern about inadequate pain control was the reason for pursuing a lethal ingestion in only 25.7% of cases [ 16 ].

Opponents also point to increasing calls in the US for euthanasia. In 2017, Senate Bill 893 was introduced to the Oregon State Legislature; it would have enabled patients to identify in a legal directive the person they wished to administer their lethal medications, effectively legalizing euthanasia [ 17 ]. Although this bill failed, the Oregon House passed HB2217 in 2019, which expanded the definition of “self-administer” to include options in addition to the oral ingestion of lethal drugs. The House also put forward HB2903, which seeks to expand the word “ingest” for lethal medication to “any means” and also proposes to expand the definition of “terminal disease” to include “a degenerative condition that at some point in the future” might cause death. It remains to be seen whether Oregon will become the first state to legalize euthanasia.

Although Belgium and The Netherlands permit both AID and euthanasia, the latter dominates. Over the years there has been a steady increase in acceptable criteria. Currently, patients who suffer from depression, dementia, or being “tired of life” may be euthanized. In some cases, minors may also be euthanized [ 18 ]. Published data from the Flanders region of Belgium highlights that vulnerable populations are especially likely to be euthanized. From 2007 to 2013, the largest increases in rates of granting euthanasia requests were among women, those 80 years or older, those with lower educational achievement, and those who died in nursing homes [ 19 ].

Depression in Advanced Illness

Up to half of patients with cancer suffer from symptoms of depression [ 20 ]. The elderly also suffer from high rates of depression and suicide [ 21 ]. Because depression often manifests somatically [ 22 ], if patients are not screened, clinicians miss half of all cases of clinical depression [ 23 - 25 ]. Opponents of AID are concerned that in Oregon, greater than 70 percent of patients who elect AID are elderly and have cancer, but fewer than five percent are referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist to rule out clinical depression.

Physician AID remains a controversial subject relevant to the care of patients. The Hippocratic model dominated medical practice for thousands of years. With the rise of euthanasia in Europe during the second half of the twentieth century, many began to rethink this stance, but hastening the death of patients still sits uncomfortably with many physicians. Although a number of medical societies have begun to reconsider their positions, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates voted in June 2019 to maintain the organization’s long-held opposition to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia [ 26 ]. Strong arguments remain both in favor and in opposition to the practice, and physicians have an ethical responsibility to remain informed on this timely issue.

aid in dying

medical assistance in dying

Additional Information

Co-author Daniel Callahan, PhD, died after the first submission of this article.

• Opinions on caring for patients at the end of life. AMA Code of Medical Ethics, 2016. https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/code-of-medical-ethics-chapter-5.pdf Accessed April 30, 2019.
• Medical aid in dying is not assisted suicide. Compassion & Choices, 2016. https://www.compassionandchoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FS-Medical-Aid-in-Dying-is-Not-Assisted-Suicide-FINAL-11.22.16-Approved-for-Public-Distribution.pdf Accessed January 19, 2017.
• Yuill K. Assisted Suicide: The liberal, humanist case against legalization. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. p. 16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Medical assistance in dying. Government of Canada, 2017. http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/services/end-life-care-soins-fin-vie/medical-assistance-dying-aide-medicale-mourir-eng.php Accessed April 30, 2019.
• Appel JM. A duty to kill? A duty to die? Rethinking the euthanasia controversy of 1906. Bull Hist Med. 2004;78(3):610–34. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dr. Jack Kevorkian dies at 83; A doctor who helped end lives. New York Times. June 3, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/us/04kevorkian.html Accessed April 30, 2019.
• Quill TE, Brody H. Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and patient choice. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:763–9. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hippocrates of Cos The Oath. Loeb Classical Library. 1923;147:298–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips DP. The influence of suggestion on suicide: substantive and theoretical implications of the Werther effect. Am Sociol Rev. 1974;39(3):340–54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dugdale LS, Callahan D. Assisted Death and the Public Good. South Med J. 2017. September;110(9):559–61. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bridge JA, Greenhouse JB, Ruch D, Stevens J, Ackerman J, Sheftall AH, et al. Association between the release of Netflix’s 13 Reasons Why and suicide rates in the United States: an interrupted times series analysis. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;Apr 28:pii: S0890-8567(19)30288-6. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oregon death with dignity act: 2015 data summary. Oregon Public Health Division, 2016. https://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year18.pdf Accessed May 2, 2017.
• Jones DA, Paton D. How Does Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide Affect Rates of Suicide? South Med J. 2015. October;108(10):599–604. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caplan AL, Curlin FA. Physician-assisted dying: The antithesis of medicine, says doc. Medscape. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/874232 Accessed April 30, 2019.
• Oregon Death with Dignity Act: 2018. Data Summary. Oregon Public Health Division, Center for Health Statistics. https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Documents/year21.pdf Accessed April 30, 2019.
• Senate Bill 893. Oregon State Legislature, 2017. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Measures/Overview/SB893 Accessed April 30, 2019.
• Bollen JA, Ten Hoopen R, van der Hoeven MA, et al. Organ donation after euthanasia in children: belgian and Dutch perspectives. Arch Dis Child. 2019. September;104(9):827–30. Epub 2018 Aug 28. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dierickx S, Deliens L, Cohen J, Chambaere K. Comparison of the Expression and Granting of Requests for Euthanasia in Belgium in 2007 vs 2013. JAMA Intern Med. 2015. October;175(10):1703–6. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenstein DL. Depression and end-of-life care for patients with cancer. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(1):101–8. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown PJ, Rutherford BR, Yaffe K, et al. The depressed frail phenotype: the clinical manifestation of increased biological aging. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;24(11):1084–94. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tylee A, Gandhi P. The importance of somatic symptoms in depression in primary care. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;7(4):167–76. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ansseau M, Dierick M, Buntinkx F, et al. High prevalence of mental disorders in primary care. J Affect Disord. 2004;78(1):49–55. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• González HM, Vega WA, Williams DR, Tarraf W, West BT, Neighbors HW. Depression care in the United States: too little for too few. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67(1):37–46. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell AJ, Vaze A, Rao S. Clinical diagnosis of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009. August;374(9690):609–19. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ama/80384
• PDF (538.6 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Arguments for and against Euthanasia

This essay will present a balanced overview of the arguments for and against euthanasia. It will explore the ethical, legal, and emotional aspects of the debate, including autonomy, quality of life, and potential abuses. The piece will examine the perspectives of various stakeholders including patients, healthcare providers, and legal experts. It will also consider the role of cultural, religious, and societal values in shaping opinions on euthanasia. PapersOwl offers a variety of free essay examples on the topic of Assisted Suicide.

How it works

Euthanasia is also known as physician-assisted suicide or good death. It refers to the method where animals that are suffering or in discomfort are helped to rest in death. Many pet owners consider Euthanasia a more compassionate manner of bidding their beloved animals goodbye. In the case of people, many states have not legalized euthanasia for people with dementia or those suffering from incurable diseases. Euthanasia creates an ethical dilemma on three main lines: legal, medical, and philosophical. There are four different forms of euthanasia.

These include directly assisted suicide, voluntary or active suicide, indirectly assisted suicide and involuntary or passive suicide. 

Proponents of active voluntary euthanasia claim that each person has a right to a dignified death and so all individuals have the right to decide the time and how they should die (Rosenstand pp. 653). On the other hand, opponents to this act argue that God had ordained a time when each person should die, thus doctors or patients should not interfere with that (Rosenstand 653). Although euthanasia remains illegal in most of the states in the US, others such as Colorado, Vermont, Washington, Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Montana have legalized it.

• 1 Arguments For Euthanasia
• 2 Arguments Against Euthanasia
• 3 Final Assessment

Arguments For Euthanasia

Euthanasia proponents argue that ill people deserve the right to alleviate their suffering with a compassionate, quick, and dignified death. These supporters dispute the claim that rights to death are equally protected by the constitutional demands that cover such rights as procreation, marriage, and cessation or refusal of life-saving treatment. Many media opponents of voluntary active euthanasia frequently argue that the legalization of to use of medical assistance to die is such a radical movement whose implication distresses society.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian is among the people that consider it immoral to let a dying person be in despair and great suffering. Dr. Kevorkian was imprisoned due to offering assistance to people to die compassionately. Many friends and relatives of the patients that were assisted to die by Dr. Kevorkian appreciated and supported the fact that he helped them to rest from their misery. Some philosophers in the past were against active euthanasia because they thought the act violated the individual’s autonomy. Many people generally accepted passive euthanasia citing respect for the quality of human life. Other philosophers such as John Stewart Mill argued that dementia patient has lost rationality and so they must die. Mill made this inference because euthanasia aims to alleviate suffering from both the patient and their families, hence amounting to greater happiness for a great number of the affected people. 

Arguments Against Euthanasia

The people that oppose the concept of euthanasia are concerned with the fact that physician-assisted suicide communicates an unsafe message to society that death is the way out of life’s problems. Some clinical workers and psychologists claim that terminally ill patients that request physicians to assist them to die do not want to die. When people are made to know that they are suffering from incurable diseases, most of them spiral into a deep depression and they should not be served with the option of giving up. Although Dr. Kevorkian thought he offered patients some help, the rational jury charged him with second-degree murder since many states have not legalized euthanasia. Immanuel Kant and other philosophers were against euthanasia regardless of the state of the individual’s physical or mental health. The philosopher believed that people ought to act in a manner that can be accepted as a universal law. Therefore, when assisting patients to die, we ought to be willing that euthanasia becomes a universal law that can be applied to anyone. Besides, Kant asserted that rational duty and not emotional reasoning should guide us in doing moral things.

Final Assessment

It is thus clear that both the supporting and opposing side to this subject have substantial claims and each side gives patients certain rights. Since death is inevitable, our reactions to patients’ desire for death on their terms ought to be approached with an open mind. Respecting each individual’s desire would imply that each person should have a right to choose when they need to depart this life. Although I do not advocate for murder, I believe one has a personal choice to voluntary euthanasia. Americans have the freedom to make various choices in life such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and so forth. Therefore, legalizing euthanasia should not be a crime. It is not fair to deny individuals suffering from an incurable disease or loss of autonomy the right to overcome agonizing symptoms through compassionate death. Regardless of the opponents to physician-assisted suicide, they do not experience the pain and suffering themselves and so they are not entitled to interfere or challenge the patient’s personal choice. None could know what a better option is than the patient suffering from a terminally ill condition. I was also against euthanasia until my father voluntarily requested to die with dignity when his illness made his life unenjoyable. Since I cannot ponder my death going through a slow and painful departure, I am sure that none wants to witness their beloved suffer such an experience. 

Cite this page

Arguments For and Against Euthanasia. (2019, Mar 13). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia/

"Arguments For and Against Euthanasia." PapersOwl.com , 13 Mar 2019, https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia/

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Arguments For and Against Euthanasia . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia/ [Accessed: 8 Nov. 2024]

"Arguments For and Against Euthanasia." PapersOwl.com, Mar 13, 2019. Accessed November 8, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia/

"Arguments For and Against Euthanasia," PapersOwl.com , 13-Mar-2019. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia/. [Accessed: 8-Nov-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Arguments For and Against Euthanasia . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia/ [Accessed: 8-Nov-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• EssayBasics.com
• Pay For Essay
• Write My Essay
• Homework Writing Help
• Essay Editing Service
• Thesis Writing Help
• Write My College Essay
• Do My Essay
• Term Paper Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Write My Research Paper
• Assignment Writing Help
• Essay Writing Help
• Call Now! (USA) Login Order now
• EssayBasics.com Call Now! (USA) Order now
• Writing Guides

Euthanasia (Argumentative Essay Sample)

Euthanasia is one of the subjects that have faced intense debate over time, the legalization of euthanasia have been debated for many years with different views presented in terms of  ethical and legal consideration for both patients and health care providers. Healthcare providers are faced with ethical dilemmas when caring for terminally ill patients. They are forced to make tough decisions by using their moral reasoning to overcome some of the ethical dilemmas related to euthanasia.

Euthanasia is viewed as murder, however, ethically; physician has the moral obligation to comply with patients’ decisions. Making such decision to either withhold or withdraw treatment for any patient is not an easy decision to make based on the cultural, religious and legal factors.  Death resulting to euthanasia is different between countries. Patients who experience extreme pain due to the nature of their illness are permitted to die with dignity in several countries while other countries totally condemn the use of euthanasia. Therefore, such individuals are among the few cases that continue to convince stakeholders to legalize euthanasia.

From a religious perspective; religious leaders see euthanasia to be unnecessary because for them, pain and suffering are not only a medical problem it is more than physical pain.  Pain and suffering are as a result of several factors; these include psychosocial, cultural and spiritual. Such views have changed the perspective of the debate about euthanasia.  The other aspect of euthanasia that has been ignored. It is a fact that the doctor has an obligation to fulfill patient’s request.

By not legalizing euthanasia is viewed as violating patient rights as the doctor refuses to help patients die. Even though many people are against euthanasia because it is viewed as murder, those who advocate for its usage view euthanasia from a different perspective. For them, the issue of cost and violation of human rights are the two most important arguments presented during euthanasia debates.  Even though those who support Euthanasia argue that it helps patients die with and help in containing the overall cost of treatment, others view Euthanasia as an immoral act. Other people view euthanasia as patient’s choice, not a physician; therefore, killing patients even when physicians have signed the code of ethics, is in line with the healthcare standards because the patient has the final say. The physician does not violate human rights.

I believe that there are valid reasons for patients to consider euthanasia because it saves both the patient and their family members from many financial burdens associated with terminal diseases. Euthanasia is the choice, and an alternative for patients who suffer immensely and their decision should be respected to help them alleviate suffering.  In many countries where euthanasia is permitted health care cost have been significantly contained. Patients with chronic illnesses do not have much choice but to die peacefully and with dignity.  Terminally ill patients are permitted to request from euthanasia to stop suffering.

Euthanasia remains one of the hot topics among many interest groups; some people believe that it is the only humane way to end suffering. Christians believe that humans have to undergo suffering because it’s part of God’s plan. In this debate considering the political, religious, legal and personal views all these people want to justify their reasons as to why euthanasia should be legalized or not. Euthanasia remains a debatable subject because of the varied views that might be valid to a certain point.