NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Michael Wilson FYSM 136 - 01 9 / 15 / 96 Professor Euthanasia Euthanasia Michael Wilson FYSM 136 - 01 9 / 15 / 96 Professor Lee A long time ago, culture was universal and permanent. There was one set of beliefs, ideals, and norms, and these were the standard for all human beings in all places and all times. We, however, live in the modern world. Our ethics are not an inheritance of the past, completed and ready for universal application. We are in the situation of having to form our own beliefs and meanings of life. This struggle is now obvious in the contemporary discussions of euthanasia.
Of the controversial discussions involving euthanasia, the question of legalization is an often argued one. Whether euthanasia ought to be illegal is different from the question of whether it is immoral. Some people believe that even if euthanasia is immoral, it still should not be prohibited by law, since if a patient wants to die, that is strictly a personal affair, regardless of how foolish or immoral the desire might be. [Rachel's, 56 ] My position is almost identical. I believe there are some instances in which euthanasia is immoral, but I believe it should unquestionably be legal.
In the following paragraphs, I will display the position of the opposition to the legality of euthanasia as well as the position of the supporters. I shall attempt to prove that, yes, euthanasia should be legal. There is a strong opposition against the legalization of euthanasia. The main argument against the legality of euthanasia is sometimes known as the slippery slope argument. People argue that if euthanasia was legally permitted, it would lead to a general decline in the respect for human life. It is professed that we would kill people in the beginning simply to put them out of extreme agony.
This is the ideal. But the opposition states that the killing of people wouldnt stop here. The killing could perhaps escalate to mass murder of innocent victims. When would the killing stop? This is what scares the opponent.
The opponents argue that once something is accepted, we have no right to deny other similar practices. This is when doctors and patients would start taking advantage of the new law. Therefore, the first step should not be taken. I disagree with this notion and believe that there would hardly be any abuse of the new law. I have formed three reasons why euthanasia ought to be legal. First, history tells us that mercy killers have generally been let off easy in court.
In the case of Hans Florian, a man who shot his elderly wife to death because she had lost her mind to Alzheimers disease, the grand jury refused to indict him. His argument was that he shot her because he feared that he might die first and then she would be left alone [Rachel's, 57 ]. As in this case and numerous others, the killers are usually let off easy because of sympathetic jury members or judges. For this reason, euthanasia should be legal, for it goes along with current attitudes in the courtroom. Secondly, the constitution states that were are all allotted our certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since we have this right to life, it is our right to decide what we want to do with our lives, and no one elses right to tell us what to do.
The third proponent to my reasoning is something called Mills Principle. This principle states that people should be free to live their lives as they themselves think best, as long as they are not doing harm to others [Markov, 21 ]. Also, this principle only applies to people who are competent and can make rational decisions. For if one is not in their right frame of mind, they could make an ill-fated decision on their life. Euthanasia should be legalized because it is inhumane to allow people to continue suffering when they request release by rapid and painless termination of life. Patients frequently suffer agony from pain that is uncontrollable.
Administration of death is the only effective release from suffering in these situations. If a person is in excruciating pain day and night, or if they are living vegetables in a permanent and unrelenting comatose with no hope for life, shouldnt they be allowed to end their lives legally. In ending the patients life, you put an end not only to their agony, but the agony of their families and friends who must watch them suffer. None of this would be possible without the legalization of euthanasia. Moreover, it would put less pressure on family members knowing that the act was committed legally. In conclusion, the advantages of legalizing euthanasia outweigh the advantages of il legalization.
It is highly unlikely that the legalization would lead to an over abuse of the rule. Of course there will always be some abusers, but not enough to cause panic. Once again, it is ones individual right to decide what he or she wishes to do with their lives. I believe it is no one elses business to have the final say in what you do with your life.
If a person is on their death bed and wishes to end there existence before matters complicate, they should legally have that right.
Free research essays on topics related to: legalization, euthanasia, agony, legally, immoral
Research essay sample on Michael Wilson Fysm Euthanasia Should Be Legal Life
