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
Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Mentally competent people or guardians of non competent people should be able to make the right-to-die decision. In the following paragraphs, many controversial issues will be discussed to possibly sway your opinion on a very important issue, but in the end the decision will rely solely upon you and your beliefs. In recent years, debate has intensified in the United States over the question of whether terminally ill people should have the legal right to obtain a doctors help in ending their lives. Assisted suicide and euthanasia also called the right to die movement, which has either been barred by the law or has been prohibited by court rulings in almost every state. In 1997, the Supreme Court upheld two state laws that barred assisted suicide. The court ruled that the constitution sis not guarantee an individuals right to die.
Euthanasia must be legalized in a way that individuals are to decide for themselves what should or should not be done to their bodies. That is, laws must be strengthened and guidelines must be set to ensure the right of euthanasia will not be denied to people. The case for euthanasia is justified on three fundamental moral principles: mercy, autonomy, and justice (Battin 18). First, there is the principle of mercy. This means that one ought to relieve pain of another and that it is a doctors duty to relieve pain and suffering for the patients. Granting mercy sometimes requires euthanasia, both by direct killing and letting die.
Moreover, allowing doctors to end the life of terminally ill patients is more merciful than allowing them to die slowly and painfully. Second, there is the principle of autonomy. That is, euthanasia is an individual s choice. It is the right of those who have a desire to be free from pain and total dependence on others to end their lives. The degree of pain experienced by one can never be fully appreciated by another. Thus, no one can decide for another, and no one can take a choice away from another.
Third, there is the principle of justice. Euthanasia is central to the liberty protected by the fourteenth amendment. Again, every human being of adult years has the right to decide what should be done with his or her body. This also applies to terminally ill patients who are especially in need of choices. They are at a situation in which they must be allowed to decide for themselves. Otherwise, it would be unconstitutional to deny them the freedom of choice in which everybody else has.
It would be a crime to deny them this right because they are at the mercy of other people. Doctors and hospitals and sometimes the law itself deny a lot of terminally ill patients who wish to end their suffering by death. Medical authorities often have to consult courts when it comes to the issue of euthanasia. They fear the responsibilities because they lack concrete guidelines to exercise euthanasia.
This only results in the prolonging of the suffering of the patients. It is absurd to put terminally ill patients through painful treatments unless they choose to, when euthanasia is available as an alternative choice. Opponents of euthanasia contend that life is too precious for anyone to decide to end it. Cardinal Bernardin, arguing against euthanasia, states, As individuals and as a society, we have the positive obligation to protect life not to destroy or injure human life directly, especially the life of the innocent and vulnerable (70). Opponents of legal assisted suicide say that making suicide a legitimate medical option will have unfortunate consequences for the terminally ill and could adversely affect other patients who are not in such desperate situations. The safeguards included in most proposed assisted suicide laws would still leave patients vulnerable to abuse.
Many are concerned that assisted suicide would be more common among low-income families that are impoverished by the cost of medical care. Opponents say that the dying patients deserve improved care. Not and invitation to end their lives. If a patient feels he or she is deteriorated to the point of misery or meaninglessness then the government entity or medical facility should not force that person to go on living. Families in favor of the right to assisted suicide believe that a dying relative should have the right to decide how and when to end his or her own life.
They believe that terminally ill people have the right to die with dignity. Once a patient is no longer mentally competent, families feel that caring for a dying loved one can be a financial burden for years after the loved one has died. Assisted suicide would allow the families to put an end to the physical, emotional, and financial ordeal. Physicians that support the right to assisted suicide feel that people with terminal illnesses should have the right to end their lives. The majority of doctors agreed that legalized assisted suicide would be ethically acceptable. On the other hand, opponents of euthanasia claim that it would lead to devaluation of human life because it would force medical professionals and patient s families to judge the worth of other s lives.
However, their views are invalid. On the contrary, forcing hopelessly ill patients to continue their suffering and total dependence on others would be devaluation of human life. It is demoralizing for many of these patients to be in such a situation of continuous pain and helplessness. Terminally ill patients will eventually die, and most of the time it will be a painful death.
It would be much more honorable to human life to respect these patients wishes and give them a choice to end their pain by euthanasia. This is not to say that they should be forced to choose death as a method of pain relief. Those who choose to fight their illnesses until the need should be respected in the same way. The opponents of euthanasia also use the slippery slope argument to speak against euthanasia. This argument claims that once euthanasia becomes acceptable for the terminally ill, it would become acceptable for the less seriously ill, the handicapped, the mentally retarded, and the elderly. The opponents fear that it would get out of hand, and unjustified deaths would be uncontrollable.
This view, like the previous one, is too blindly exaggerated. It is for these reasons why laws must be strengthened to ensure the right of euthanasia, not to omit euthanasia, completely. The laws that protect the people right to euthanasia will, at the same time, protect the people right from euthanasia. It is not about getting rid of the unwanted people of society, but it is about a necessity of choices for people who need choices, such as the terminally ill.
Thus, it is necessary to have euthanasia legalized. This would allow competent patients to decide for themselves how they prefer to be treated. They could decide for themselves whether they prefer to either fight their illnesses with painful treatments or to end their suffering by euthanasia. People would be allowed to determine their own destiny and worth. More important so, terminally ill patients could have an alternative choice available to them when their pain is becoming unbearable. The point is that they should be allowed to decide for themselves, when they are conscious, or are incapable of deciding for themselves.
Then their families and doctors can decide on their behalf. The opponents of euthanasia suggest that instead of having to legalize euthanasia, better pain relief would make euthanasia unnecessary. However, the fact is that pain is not the only reason why people seek euthanasia. Many incapable patients fear the loss of control of their bodily functions. The feeling of hopelessness and mental anguish overwhelms them. Thus, reducing the pain alone cannot solve the problem.
Other opponents of the legalization of euthanasia suggest moving all terminally ill patients into a hospice where they can be cared for. In a hospice, patients are visited, read to, and kept in constant contact with loving people. Doctors can care for the medical need of the patients and attempt to keep pain at a minimum. The opponents claim that a hospice would also make euthanasia unnecessary. Sure, this plan will benefit those who do not want to go through euthanasia, but what about those who do? Patients will still be totally dependent on others and forces to prolong their suffering.
There are always those who should rather die than be totally dependent on others. Why not just let them die to end their pain and suffering, and why not just let them die peacefully with dignity? When euthanasia is legalized, terminally ill patients will have the choice to end their suffering and die with dignity. Those who wish to go through euthanasia will not have this right denied to them.
They are free to judge their own lives, and free to exercise their right to self-determination. When euthanasia is legalized, patients will not be forces to have their pain prolonged due to court hearings, or due to hospital bureaucracies. Patients should not have to feel that they are at the mercy of others. Furthermore, doctors will be free form the burden of providing medical care to patients who are hopelessly ill; especially patients who wish to discontinue painful treatments. Yet, legalizing euthanasia does not mean that society would force people to die when they are incapable or when the get old.
People would simply be granted an alternative choice other than having to go though prolonged and painful treatment. It is now clear that euthanasia is a right that cannot be denied to people. But in order to ensure that this right is not denied to people, our legislators must take action. They must provide concrete laws to ensure terminally ill patients have the right to choose.
They must provide concrete guidelines for medical authorities to act upon. Moreover, we as citizens need to urge our legislators to strengthen the laws to support euthanasia. We must stand together and speak out to let them know that right t cannot be denied to us. We need to have euthanasia legalized so that we have this choice available to us when needed. And for those who are hopelessly ill, legalizing euthanasia will allow them to end their suffering and die with dignity. In conclusion, assisted suicide is a controversial debate whether terminally ill people should have the right o die.
If the patient can understand the nature of the decision and its consequences then let them die with dignity. Relatives of the terminally ill feel that the decision lies in the hands of the patient. No court, judge, jury, or medical panel should stand in they way. Most of all the physicians who support the right to die have seen first hand fate of long-term illnesses.
Ending life can only relieve the pain and suffering that cannot be controlled by modern medicine. References Battin, Margaret Pabst. Euthanasia Is Ethical. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989. Bernardin, Cardinal Joseph.
Protecting Life. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989. Leo, John. Assisted Suicide s Slippery Slope U. S.
News and World Report 16 May 1994: 22. Ogg, Elizabeth. Euthanasia Should Be Legalized Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
Schofield, Joyce Ann. Euthanasia Is Unethical. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
Free research essays on topics related to: legalizing euthanasia, die with dignity, san diego greenhaven, end their lives, terminally ill patients
Research essay sample on Terminally Ill Patients San Diego Greenhaven
