essay euthanasia should legalised

Euthanasia Argumentative Essay on Legalization

Introduction.

Several diseases have arisen and survived throughout human history, and people have had difficulty developing effective cures or therapies against them. Individuals have tried their hand at traditional and cutting-edge scientific methodologies in searching for a solution. Because, in the end, we want to make sure that people live as long as possible, all of our efforts have been concentrated on making that happen. However, there are times when the suffering that comes with living is so intense that the person experiencing it or people who care about them could consider euthanasia as a means of escape (Kumar et al. 91-96). Assisting another person in taking their own lives in the belief that doing so would relieve them of their pain is known as “euthanasia.” People with a terminal illness and in excruciating agony are often candidates for euthanasia. Therefore, it refers to the practice in which a medical practitioner actively supports a patient who is terminally sick in committing suicide. Many people have different opinions on whether or not it is moral to legalize euthanasia. Even though some people will not agree with me, it is my solid conviction that euthanasia should be legalized in the United States of America. People should be free to choose how they want their lives to end, and euthanasia should be permitted on a global scale if we are to take into account several ethical and practical issues that support this position. People who decide to end their lives can avoid additional suffering and pain, exercise their right to their lives, prevent additional costs, save others (their loved ones) from suffering, respect their autonomy, and become free from certain legalities.

Patients suffering unbearably while battling for their lives may benefit significantly from euthanasia. Many people who support euthanasia argue that, in some cases, dying is better than living. It is indisputable that the patient’s final days are a living nightmare due to the pain and suffering that often accompany terminal conditions. At that point, suicide may seem the most humanitarian way to end their suffering (Baksheev et al. 1360-1363). The patient’s suffering may have been exacerbated by the fact that he or she had a terminal illness from which there is almost little hope of recovery. If there is no chance of recovery, it is cruel to subject the sufferer to more suffering. It is morally correct to act following the principle of beneficence and reduce a dying person’s pain and discomfort. Unfortunately, terminally sick patients may experience more than just suffering; occasionally, they may be placed in an even more terrible situation. Consequences may include generalized fatigue, loss of appetite, and an increased sense of helplessness. The only thing the patient cares about now is ending their life, and they have given up on living with any sense of pride or honor. This highlights the potential weight of the patient’s wish for a peaceful passing.

Euthanasia also demonstrates compassion for the patients and stops the emotional and physical anguish that others would otherwise endure, such as the patient’s loved ones and those near them. The emotional misery that often comes hand in hand with some disorders may be just as painful as the physical pain they cause. A prime example of this would be the HIV/AIDS pandemic. As it worsens, those affected by this ailment are put through unimaginable suffering. The resilience of their bodies progressively decreases, they begin to weaken, and in the end, they shrivel up and die. In addition to the obvious physical suffering, they are also going through a great deal of mental anguish because they are aware that even with the highest quality of medical care, their symptoms will only be marginally improved for a short period. That death is ultimately unavoidable (Kumar et al. 91-96). Suppose terminally ill patients are legally allowed to seek euthanasia to speed up the dying process. Do the patients’ loved ones not have a moral obligation to end the patients’ mental and physical suffering? Since those in charge of providing euthanasia are aware that the patient is in pain and that death is close at hand, it is a kind gesture for the patient to let death come sooner than anticipated. In this context, euthanasia is seen as a compassionate solution to the problem of intolerable suffering.

Additionally, euthanasia is ethically commendable since it gives individuals the option to terminate their lives most satisfyingly. The United States of America Constitution allows individuals to seek personal happiness. In this discussion, “freedom of choice” means that every individual has the right to decide whether or not to continue living, even if they are terminally ill (Baksheev et al. 1360-1363). Those dealing with terminal conditions should not be denied the choice to end their lives early because of opposition to legalizing euthanasia. For whatever reason, death does not arrive as swiftly as they would want, so they have no option but to take their own lives. When governments forbid terminally ill persons from committing suicide, they are violating the constitutional right of such individuals to terminate their own life free from pain and suffering. For instance, in Texas, it is against the law to actively hasten or hasten the death of a person, whether by euthanasia, mercy killing, or other means of hastening death. The Declaration of Independence, the country’s founding document, also guarantees every citizen the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There is a direct correlation between this liberty and the last act of one’s life. Refusing terminally ill persons the choice of committing suicide would violate their right to life. Those in the latter stages of a fatal illness and so much anguish that they cannot bear to continue living should be offered the option to terminate their lives prematurely. As a result, people should not be prevented by too restrictive rules from ending their lives on their terms if they choose. For instance, euthanasia may be practiced lawfully in Oregon, New Jersey, Hawaii, Washington, Colorado, Washington, Maine, the District of Columbia, California, and Vermont. In these states, patients who are candidates for voluntary euthanasia decide on their own whether or not to end their lives. A guardian will decide if the person in question cannot provide informed permission.

Moreover, euthanasia should be legalized since it demonstrates respect for people’s liberties. The act of dying when and in the manner one chooses is a highly personal and private concern. Patients who have fatal conditions, such as acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), multiple sclerosis (M.S.), or Alzheimer’s disease (A.D.), are aware of their impending mortality and want control over the process of dying. They cannot bear the idea of surrendering control and being forced to depend on the assistance of others. Second, people who are nearing the end of their life and are terminally ill do not want to spend their money on the ever-increasing expenses of medical care; instead, they would want to die away as soon as possible so that their heirs may reap the full financial benefits of their inheritance. These justifications have a significant weight because the patients are in perpetual, immense pain and have accepted the reality that there is no possibility of treatment and that death is imminent. Furthermore, the patients have acknowledged that there is no chance of a cure and that death is imminent.

Another advantage of euthanasia is that it offers the emotional solace that loved ones need when they are forced to watch a loved one suffer while they get medical treatment. However, no one wants to see a loved one endure unnecessary pain in a hospital, which may sometimes occur. Given all this, it is not hard to see why so many individuals think euthanasia should be legalized. If a person’s loved ones are made to watch while someone they care about is in pain, it may give them a great deal of emotional suffering, which can spread to every part of their existence (Arsić 28-34). Hospital bills for patients with life-limiting conditions might consume significant cash. Most individuals with terminal illnesses spend the last days of their lives connected to various life support systems, leaving behind a significant medical bill for their loved ones. Euthanasia may save a patient’s family $10,000 in medical expenses even if a patient passes away while in excruciating pain; it is not unheard of for the total cost of their hospital stay to slowly escalate during their time there. Due to their poor financial conditions, some families may have little choice but to take out loans to pay for medical treatment for a family member. It would help lessen the emotional toll of caring for a sick loved one and save families a ton of money on medical treatment if euthanasia were widely acknowledged and used in hospitals (Arsić 28-34).

Also, euthanasia legalization raises the concern of individual liberty versus state interests. The State undoubtedly cares deeply about protecting the lives of its people. Such curiosity is natural and indicative of a well-run state since it is motivated by citizens’ faith in their government. Therefore, it is seen as evidence of a government properly doing the job it was elected to do when the government takes precautionary steps to safeguard its citizens, such as arresting thieves and mobsters, interning drug traffickers and human smugglers, punishing wife batterers and rapists or sentencing mass murderers to imprisonment or the death penalty. When it becomes a personal decision, however, unlike the various forms of public safeguards, the level of interest from the State is not commensurate with the level of interest from terminally ill people who choose to end their lives through death. If the State reinforces this skewed “against the State” level of interest by prohibiting it, it will be perceived as an intrusion on individual freedom. Perhaps the most significant U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln, defined democracy as government “by the people, of the people, and for the people.” So, it stands to reason that the people’s will takes precedence in the United States, a strong democracy. It follows, therefore, that in the debate over whether or not to legalize euthanasia, the people’s will should be accorded the highest priority. The majority of people believe euthanasia should be made legal.

It has been suggested that euthanasia is ethically permissible if it is carried out following the desires of a patient suffering from a terminal illness. On the other hand, it would be unethical for physicians to refuse a terminally ill patient’s request for euthanasia just because the law prohibits them from doing so (Dintcho). The practice of euthanasia ought to be legalized everywhere in the United States and the rest of the world so that those suffering from life-threatening conditions may terminate their lives with the honor and peace they have earned. Many physicians and other medical professionals would not give it a second thought to assist terminally ill patients in ending their lives with dignity if they were permitted to do so under the law. In addition, they would not hide the fact that they had done it in any way and would be very forthright about it.

In conclusion, euthanasia should be seen as a means to offer individuals more control over their deaths, reduce the amount of suffering that people experience, and reduce the amount of money people spend on medical care. People on life support or with a fatal condition that causes them chronic agony can contemplate euthanasia. This may make their suffering more manageable. It is true that if you are paralyzed and unable to care for yourself, spending the rest of your life in a hospital bed is not exactly what you would call having a high quality of life (Baksheev et al. 1360-1363). However, if you can communicate with other people, there is a possibility that you could have a better quality of life. It is nonsensical to say that legalizing euthanasia offers enormous moral and ethical issues, especially because of its message about the value of human life. Freedom in its purest form exists only when an individual is unfettered in their ability to choose whether their own life is worth living. The decision ultimately rests with the patient and the patient alone. If a person cannot make decisions for themselves—for example, if they are in a coma—their loved ones are the only ones authorized to do so. In addition, if euthanasia is legalized, physicians who have received patients’ informed permission might stop carrying out the practice secretly (Dintcho). A change in the law regarding euthanasia does not always lead to its widespread acceptance. It is about giving people the credit they deserve when they use their freedom. Because euthanasia is a morally acceptable practice, it should be legalized globally, not only in the United States. However, legislation should establish acceptance criteria for each occurrence, eliminating arbitrary judgments that lead to the untimely deaths of people and adding stress to the lives of those who are already under enormous pressure.

Dintcho, Arisa D. “Should Active Euthanasia Be Morally and Legally Permissible?” Sound Decisions: An Undergraduate Bioethics Journal 5.1 2020: 1.

Arsić, Miloš. “Euthanasia and moral dilemmas.” Medicinski časopis 56.1 (2022): 28-34.

Kumar, Ajay, Aseem Mehra, and Ajit Avasthi. “Euthanasia: A Debate—For and Against.” Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, Education and Research 55.2 2021: 91–96.

Baksheev, Andrey Ivanovich, et al. “Euthanasia in modern society: the topicality, practicability, and medical aspect of the problem.”  Journal of pharmaceutical sciences and research  10.6 (2018): 1360–1363.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

Ets performance assessment artifacts, annotated bibliography: how can policing community prevent excessive use of force by the police during arrest, reflection on technology in education, psychological impact of covid-19 on hospital workers in nursing care hospital, selective incapacitation report, comparing the american and norwegian healthcare coverages for the elderly adults, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

+61 272 520 888

15% discount on first order.

Sample argumentative essay: why should euthanasia be legalized.

The legalization and ethics of euthanasia remain a topic of debate within various countries. Its direct effect on the circumstances of an individual’s death makes it a sensitive subject that some tend to avoid while others strive to regulate. Those that try to avoid the subject often value basic ethical teachings that permit them from harming others. Alternatively, individuals that promote the regulation of euthanasia acknowledge the benefits that the practice can provide to society. These benefits often outweigh the ethical arguments that the opposition tries to instill in the topic. The legalization of euthanasia will allow for the recognition of the “right to die”, improve the organ donation process, and strengthen the support of the medical community towards the practice.

Pro-Euthanasia Arguments

Removing unnecessary burden.

Euthanasia patients are mostly individuals that possess incurable and painful diseases that prevent them from performing basic human activities. Most of the patients are in a vegetative state, require extensive care, or continuously feel pain. They stop becoming functioning members of society nor can they take care of others and themselves. By choosing to undergo euthanasia, these individuals can exercise their “right to die” with dignity (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). Aside from easing their suffering and illnesses, they allow caregivers to avoid unnecessary burdens that often include financial, emotional, and physical investments. Medical institutions can utilize these resources for other patients that are more likely to survive and live a normal life. Lastly, euthanasia can prevent family members from witnessing painful and disturbing deaths which can lead to emotional and psychological burdens, especially for young and sensitive individuals.

Acknowledgment of the Right to Refuse Care

The legalization of euthanasia would promote the acknowledgment of the right to refuse care. This concept pertains to a patient’s ability to refuse medical services, provided that they have the legal capacity to make the decision. Pirotte & Benson (2021) highlighted that autonomy is a basic ethical principle in medicine and that healthcare practitioners should not impose their opinions on their patients. The right to refuse care is a form of passive euthanasia as the refusal of medical service can lead to the eventual death of the patient. However, patients will need to possess specific requirements that guarantee that they have the proper mental capacity to make such a decision. This can lead to “gray areas” where a medical professional may assess that a patient does not have the capacity to decide as they find it ethically wrong to stop treatment. Legalizing the practice can prevent healthcare practitioners from ignoring the right to refuse care and imposing their ideas on their patients. It will also strengthen the recognition of autonomy within the medical field.

The Medical Community’s Support

Since the legalization of euthanasia is a medical topic, considering the professional opinions of healthcare practitioners is integral in addressing the issue. Herath et al. (2021) revealed that the majority of medical practitioners agree with the legalization of euthanasia. Abohaimed et al. (2019) stated a similar result with 43.9% of medical practitioners agreeing to legalize the practice. Other studies acquired similar data, further supporting the premise that many practitioners acknowledge the benefits of euthanasia. However, it is important to note that some of the studies concluded that the medical community has diverse opinions regarding the matter despite the research data. This is due to the respondents that are within the category of “undecided” as well as practitioners that agree with the legalization but are not willing to practice euthanasia. The legalization of euthanasia can improve the attitudes of practitioners towards the topic since they will have first-hand experiences with terminally ill patients that desire euthanization.

Improve the Organ Donation Process

Finding a suitable organ donor can be difficult since many factors contribute to a successful transplant. Patients can often require weeks, months, or longer before they find the right donor. Some patients even utilize illegal markets or pay living donors to gain access to suitable organs. According to Luo (2019), 20 individuals die each day waiting for organ donors. This statistic suggests that there is a need for more organ donors or sources to prevent unnecessary deaths. The legalization of euthanasia can aid in this issue as terminal patients may possess healthy organs. The opportunity to save others may persuade euthanasia patients to become organ donors and help other patients live healthy normal lives. Math & Chaturvedi (2012) stated that through organ donation, euthanasia does not only respect the “right to die” but provides the “right to life” for patients that require organ donations. Through this, euthanasia patients can contribute to society and provide opportunities to others.

Counter to the Pro-Euthanasia Arguments

Euthanasia disregards the sanctity of life.

A common argument against euthanasia is its disregard for the sanctity of life. This argument often comes from religious perspectives since most religions teach against taking a life and committing self-harm. Since the legalization of euthanasia will lead to the disposal of patients with incurable diseases, society's value on life may focus on functionality than the condition of living or existing. Furthermore, the practice of palliative care makes euthanasia an unnecessary practice since society can allot specific resources to the care of terminal patients (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012). If governments legalize euthanasia, palliative care becomes an alternative for individuals that value the sanctity of life which can affect the quality of this type of service.

Mental Conditions of Euthanasia Patients

The refusal to receive medical care is a form of passive euthanasia and requires the patient to have the legal capacity to make a decision. From this, individuals who experience intoxication, psychiatric conditions, and other mental impairments cannot refuse medical care. In Breitbart et al. (2010), researchers revealed that terminally ill patients with depression are likely to desire death. There was also a correlation between the response to antidepressants and the decreased desire for death. This study suggests that some euthanasia patients may be suffering from some form of depression which causes them to prefer euthanization. The role of antidepressants in the study also suggests that the desire for euthanasia may decrease if terminally ill patients take the medicine. Through this, anti-euthanasia individuals may argue that the legalization of euthanasia can lead to indirect methods of self-harm for patients with depression.

While euthanasia may seem to trivialize the value of human life, it provides terminal patients the option to alleviate their suffering and pain. According to Cipriani & Fiorino (2019), medicine aims to relieve patients’ suffering which often requires control over the circumstances of their death. Instead of disregarding human life, euthanization acts as a form of mercy to prevent more suffering. Additionally, while depressed patients are more likely to desire death, professional assessment and regulations of the practice will prevent decisions from incapable patients. The practice of euthanasia is simply the fulfillment of a healthcare practitioner’s duty as well as the acknowledgment of patients’ autonomy. 

Undecided Medical Practitioners Lean on Anti-Euthanasia Opinions

As mentioned earlier, the studies regarding medical practitioners’ opinions on euthanasia revealed that the field shares diverse perspectives on the issue. However, in a study by Herath et al. (2021), the “undecided respondents” approached the questionnaires with answers leaning on unfavorable opinions of euthanasia. This suggests that while some medical practitioners prefer to not answer the questions, their values may lean on anti-euthanasia perspectives which implies that more practitioners are against the legalization. This can be due to various cultural and environmental factors, such as religion which is a major reason against euthanasia (Abohaimed et al., 2019). Through these arguments, anti-euthanasia individuals can infer that medical practitioners possess values that oppose the legalization of euthanasia.

However, it is important to note that the same studies stated that there are diverse opinions about euthanasia among medical practitioners. While the research data in Herath et al. (2021) implied that more practitioners disagree with the legalization of euthanasia, other studies concluded the diverse opinions. This included different approaches to the different forms of euthanasia. Abohaimed et al. (2019) revealed that 29% of medical practitioners in Kuwait approve of passive euthanasia while only 8.7% approve of the active form. This data may suggest that the “undecided respondents” may disapprove of active euthanasia but may condone passive euthanasia. To answer these questions, researchers will need to conduct further studies to better measure the collective opinion of the medical community.

Negative Effects of Euthanasia on Organs after Death

While euthanasia can promote a better organ donation process, there is the issue regarding the effects of euthanasia death on a patient’s organs.  A sedation process is common in euthanization as it allows a patient to die without pain and stress. According to Tajaâte et al. (2021), patient sedation using propofol or midazolam can potentially damage the quality of donated organs. Furthermore, organ donation requires euthanasia patients to die within hospital facilities to ensure the proper protocols for organ harvesting. However, 80% of euthanasia patients prefer to die at home which increases the risk of damaged organs. This makes euthanasia an inefficient source for organ donation due to patient preferences and the adverse effects of the process on organs.

In response to this issue, some medical institutions have employed innovative processes to meet the preference of euthanasia patients while protecting the quality of donated organs. An example of these processes is the Organ Donation After Euthanasia Starting at Home or ODAEH which Tajaâte et al’s (2021) article discussed. In this method, a euthanasia patient falls asleep at home where they lose consciousness. Medical personnel will then transport the patient to a hospital facility where they will perform the final step in the euthanization process. ODAEH allows medical practitioners to safely harvest healthy organs from euthanasia patients while still allowing them to “die” at home. As the medical field develops more ways to effectively harvest organs, euthanasia patients can become integral parts of the organ donation process.

Legalizing euthanasia can be a beneficial act to improve the quality of life in society. The legalization will lead to better recognition of the “right to die”, improve organ donation processes, and strengthen the support of the medical community towards the practice. Euthanizing terminally ill patients will allow them to die with dignity and even provide the opportunity to help other patients that require organ donations. The legalization can further strengthen the support of the medical community towards the practice as they experience the process and understand its benefits. While there are many cultural and ethical barriers to the legalization of euthanasia, surpassing these hurdles can lead to a better and more efficient society.

Need To Write an Argumentative Essay Quickly?

Argumentative essays are lengthy academic documents that discuss opposing sides of an issue as well as defend the paper’s thesis. The process for this type of writing is long and tedious which is a serious challenge for many students. They will need to start doing research and taking down notes as soon as they get the chance. However, if you fail to do this and find yourself nearly facing the deadline, one of the few options you have is to  buy an argumentative essay from CustomEssayMesiter. To do this; simply go to our website, order the specific paper you need, set the deadline, and wait for our professional writers to finish your essay. Try it out today and avoid missing that deadline!

Abohaimed, S., Matar, B., Al-Shimali, H., Al-Thalji, K., Al-Othman, O., Zurba, Y., & Shah, N. (2019). Attitudes of Physicians Towards Different Types of Euthanasia in Kuwait. Medical Principles and Practice. Available at https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/497377 . Accessed February 22, 2022.

Breitbart, W., Rosenfeld, B., Gibson, C., Kramer, M., & Li, Y., Tomarken, A.,... Schuster, M. (2010). Impact of Treatment for Depression on Desire for Hastened Death in Patients with Advanced AIDS. Psychosomatics, vol 51(2). Available at doi: 10.1176/appi.psy.51.2.98. Accessed February 22, 2022.

Cipriani, G. & Fiorino, M. (2019). Euthanasia and Other End of Life in Patients Suffering From Dementia. Legal Medicine, vol 40. Available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1344622319301208 . Accessed February 21, 2022.

Herath, H., Wijayawardhana, K., Wickramarachchi, U. & Rodrigo, C. (2021). Attitudes on Euthanasia Among Medical Students and Doctors in Sri Lanka: A Cross Sectional Study. BMC Med Ethics. Available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00731-2. Accessed February 21, 2022.

Luo, E. (2019). How Organ Transplants Work. MedicalNewsToday. Available at https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325631 . Accessed February 22, 2022.

Math, S. & Chaturvedi, S. (2012). Euthanasia: Right to Life vs Right to Die. The Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 136(6). Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612319/. Accessed February 21, 2022.

Pirotte,  B. & Benson, S. (2021). Refusal of Care. StatPearls Publishing. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560886/. Accessed February 21, 2022.

Tajaâte, N., Dijk, N., Pragt, E., Shaw, D., Kempener-Deguelle, A., de Jongh, W., Bollen, J., & Mook, W. (2021). Organ Donation After Euthanasia Starting at Home in a Patient with Multiple System Atrophy. BMC Med Ethics. Available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00686-4. Accessed February 21, 2022.

Deadline Approaching?

We work 24/7 and we are affordable (from $13.95/page). Our writers, managers and support agents all have been involved in academic ghostwriting for years. We can assist even with the most difficult writing assignment under time constraints.

more in Essay / Euthanasia

• Sample Argumentative Essay: The Case of Martha Sepúlveda and the Legalization of Euthanasia
• Sample Compare and Contrast Essay: Euthanasia on Humans and Animals
• Sample Argumentative Paper: The Euthanasia Decree or Aktion T4
• Sample Argumentative Essay: People Should Be Granted the Right to Die

Let’s get your assignment done!

Euthanasia should be made legal - Discuss

Essay, 2009, 5 pages, grade: b, sebastian regber (author).

Abstract or Introduction

It exists is no clear-cut answer to the question of whether euthanasia should be made legal or not. “Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of a person who is very ill and going to die, in order to stop them suffering.” Since it became legal in Netherlands, Belgium, Oregon and Washington, there has been existing a lot of debate about this bioethical topic. The following essay will discuss at first all arguments supporting legalisation of euthanasia. Then, there will be offered the arguments in contra. The author will conclude by stating that euthanasia should not be made legal, because of too much gaps in law leading to misuse.

• No comments yet.

Similar texts

Intercultural Communication. How Can ...

"No Woman Should Die While Givin...

Should Medical Marijuana be Legal?

Standardization of rewards and work c...

Die Church of Euthanasia. Die Frage n...

The Euthanasia Debate

Should law enforcement be privatized?

The Age-old Practice of Euthanasia

Euthanasia. A Short Overview of Suppo...

Types of Euthanasia

Euthanasia as seen by Law, Morality a...

To what extent did the Euthanasia Pro...

An ethical business decision in veter...

Who should be shot? - "Saints, S...

Euthanasia - An overview about forms,...

Euthanasia. Are Values a Dilemma?

Is the act of Euthanasia the next ste...

Euthanasia and Suicide. Does Ownershi...

Euthanasia. A Granted Death?

Upload papers

Your term paper / thesis:

- Publication as eBook and book - High royalties for the sales - Completely free - with ISBN - It only takes five minutes - Every paper finds readers

Publish now - it's free

BOSS Magazine

Studying The Reasons Why Euthanasia Should Be Legal

Explore the compelling reasons why euthanasia should be legal. Learn the multifaceted debate surrounding the topic and the arguments that underscore compassion.

by BOSS Editorial | Published: August 21, 2023 | Updated: August 21, 2023 2:22 pm

Euthanasia basically means a painless death. It is an intentional practice to end someone’s life to limit their suffering. It is due to unbearable pain or a terminal illness. But the specific circumstances of physician-assisted death vary. The practice is also regulated in the jurisdictions where it is legal.

Many people argue euthanasia should be legal since it ends the suffering of terminally ill patients. But, whether the practice should be legal involves several factors. Individual rights, medical ethics, and the preservation of human dignity. Here’s a more in-depth look at these aspects.

What Is Euthanasia?

To understand euthanasia better, it means ending a person’s life to limit their suffering. For example, people who are terminally ill give their consent to a physician to euthanize them. The entire procedure is done in the presence of many medical professionals. It also involves ethical consideration, patient consent, psychological evaluation, and documentation.

College students often debate if euthanasia should be legalized, especially when writing research papers. Even specialists in the field don’t always agree on the issue. Students can prepare their euthanasia essays by using free examples provided by experts for submission in college. The samples include expert opinions both for and against the issue. You can familiarize yourself with each point in the paper and draw your own conclusions on the topic. After all, professors value undergraduates’ own opinions on the essays.

Forms of euthanasia

There are various forms of euthanasia:

• Voluntary:   A person wishes to end life due to suffering. It is considered a voluntary decision and should be respectfully carried out.
• Non-Voluntary: A family member or medical professional usually makes decisions on the patient’s behalf. Because the patient is in a state where they cannot provide consent.
• Involuntary: The most debatable and morally unacceptable form. It involves ending a person’s life against their wishes or without their knowledge.
• Active: Taking active steps to end a person’s life by administering lethal doses of medication.
• Passive: Allowing a person to die by withholding or withdrawing life support.
• Assisted: Prescribing a lethal dose of medication that the person can self-administer. It is considered a distinct form of active euthanasia and is legal in some jurisdictions.
• Physician-Assisted: A medical professional provides the means for a patient to end their life.

Understanding The Controversial Nature Of Euthanasia

The human euthanasia debate stems from various factors. Some of the key reasons that make it controversial include:

#1 – Ethical Dilemma

Euthanasia is about ending a person’s life. It raises questions about the value of human life, autonomy, and the balance between preserving life and alleviating suffering.

#2 – Religious Beliefs

Ending a life is morally wrong. Many religious traditions have strong arguments for physician-assisted death. They believe life is holy and gifted by God. It shouldn’t be taken away by human will.

#3 – Legal Implications

The laws surrounding assisted dying differ across states and countries. Some places allow various forms, while others prohibit the procedure entirely.

#4 – Societal Differences

People have different mentalities towards death, autonomy, and the role of medicine. It leads to contrasting opinions and arguments for euthanasia.

Examining The Debate About Euthanasia Legalization

The debate on whether euthanasia should be legal in all states sheds light on various perspectives. Those who support the notion focus on the right to refuse care, the burden on caregivers, compassion, and more.

A person has the right to refuse medical treatment, including treatment that prolongs life. For example, a person who has blood cancer can refuse treatment. It leads to passive euthanasia. Also, many people suffer from incurable, degenerative, and disabling conditions. Caregivers or family members file petitions about the huge financial, emotional, and social burden.

Essay examples about euthanasia legalization show a society’s empathy towards the sufferer. It emphasizes the essential requirement of comprehensive regulations. Laws are necessary to prevent potential abuses. It makes sure the practice proceeds over controlled circumstances. Some countries where assisted death is legal are the Netherlands and Belgium.

The Pros And Cons of Legalizing Euthanasia

Research papers on euthanasia involve both the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure. Here are the most vital points.

• It respects an individual’s right to make decisions about their life.
• It offers an option to relieve suffering and pain in the case of a terminal illness.
• Reduces the burden on families who can’t afford the expenses associated with prolonged end-of-life care.
• Encourages organ transplantation.
• Human life is gifted to us once. Religious people believe only God is entitled to take it back.
• The ethical responsibility of medical professionals is to preserve life and promote healing.
• Vulnerable individuals may be forced to end their lives.
• Legalizing euthanasia may divert attention and resources from developing better patient care.

Arguments In Favor Of Legalizing Euthanasia

The ongoing debate sheds light on compelling reasons why euthanasia should be legal . To begin with, it alleviates unendurable pain and suffering. For patients with terminal illnesses, it is a humane alternative to agony. Further, the procedure respects an individual’s right to their body. It forms the cornerstone of modern ethics. Euthanasia also preserves a patient’s quality of life. Individuals get to choose a dignified way to escape conditions that rob them of happiness.

Furthermore, mercy killing reduces the burden on families. Prolonged treatment might be costly in some instances. Legalizing physician-assisted death alleviates the burden of caregiving. It reflects a compassionate response to the plight of those in insurmountable pain.

Final Thoughts

The topic of legalizing euthanasia is a complicated and ethically charged one. A clash of values, principles, and beliefs happens. Supporters argue legalization upholds the ideals of compassion, personal autonomy, and relief from extreme suffering. But reasons to be against euthanasia focus on the sanctity of life, the potential slippery slopes, and the ethical obligation of medical professionals.

Deciding to legalize the procedure involves analyzing the pros and cons. The different cultural and religious points of view should be carefully considered. It will be a balancing act between safeguarding individual autonomy and protecting vulnerable individuals.

By: BOSS Editorial

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recommended for you

Elevate Your Engagement with Easypromos’ Exciting Voting Contest!

Are you glad to take your digital adventures to the next level? Look no further than Easypromos, the ultimate venue for making giveaways, contests, games,...

Discovering the Beneficiaries of Botox in San Jose

Transforming Lives and Confidence

How Omri Hurwitz Media is Taking Modern PR to the Next Level

Organizations all over the world have fully adapted to the technological advancements in the digital landscape and this emerging era has given the public relations...

The Terry Law Firm: Insights on Sevierville Slip and Fall Lawyers 

The Terry Law Firm are much experienced in slip-and-fall injury attorneys. They tend to offer great representation for people who’ve been injured in accidents in...

Tips and Tricks for Maximizing Your Car Wash Experience at Spark Car Wash Locations

Spark Car Wash, with its legacy of quality and customer satisfaction, is a trusted name in the world of automotive care. When you visit a...

Understanding the Flexibility of Tic Investments

Tic Properties, or Tenant-in-Common Properties, have been gaining attention for their unique features and benefits. As an investor looking to diversify your portfolio and explore...

Greensboro: Distracted Driving Accidents 

   Ward Black Law explains about the concept of distracted driving. It is one of the deadliest behaviors motorists can engage on roads. It is...

Don’t Make These Common Business Mistakes With Workers’ Compensation

Business owners won’t always get it right. They can make many mistakes with operations, employees, and even their own business practices. However, workers’ compensation claims...

Why the Mudgee Region is Perfect for Cyclists and Bike Enthusiasts

The Mudgee Region boasts a wealth of natural beauty and cultural treasures that entice travellers near and far. While it’s known for its vineyards, restaurants...

3 Reasons Retailers Should Start Accepting Crypto As Payment

Staying ahead of the curve is essential to success, especially in retail. Today, one of the most significant trends in the industry is the growing adoption...

Winter Riding Trips: Safety Tips Every Motorcycle Rider Should Follow

Motorbike riding is an exciting adventure, regardless of the season. However, the fresh air and snow-dusted scenery add a special touch to the ride in...

Web Accessibility Audits: What to Expect

A website accessibility audit assesses your website and identifies potential issues that you need to resolve to allow users with disabilities to engage with your brand successfully.

• Best-in-Class
• Collaboration
• Construction
• Food & Drink
• Manufacturing
• Supply Chain

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS

Digital Ink 5050 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad California 92008

: 1 (760) 848-0609

Copyright 2022 © BOSS Magazine ( a Digital Ink brand ) All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Terms of Use

Euthanasia – For Legalizing

There are many arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia. It has ethical benefits as well as downsides. Should euthanasia be legalized? Essay samples like this one will help you understand the issue.

Introduction

There is no respect for autonomy, justice is denied, sympathy for the suffering of others, individual liberty vs. state interest, the voice of the u.s. public.

The legality issue of Euthanasia has been a subject of heated debate since long. On the global scene, the Netherlands was the first country to legalize Euthanasia in April 2002, followed a month later by Belgium.

Switzerland legalized the practice in December 2005 (Reuters U.K). In the U.K where public support for legalization of Euthanasia rose from 69% in 1976 to 82% in 2004, it is widely expected that Parliament will soon legalize the practice (News-medical.net).

In the U.S, many states have been debating the legality issue of Euthanasia but only Oregon has legalized it since 1997 (Reuters U.K). It is my contention that Euthanasia should be legalized all over the country.

The word ‘Euthanasia’ comes from the Greek word ‘Euthanatos’ meaning ‘good health.’ Euthanasia is defined as the deliberate ending of a person’s life by anther person at the specific request of the former. Euthanasia is not the same as other practices such as Physician-Assisted Suicide, Terminal Sedation or Withholding/Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatments.

Physician-Assisted Suicide takes place when a physician, responding to specific request from patients, gives information {for example, a prescription for a fatal dose of sleeping pills}, and/or the means {such as a supply of carbon monoxide gas} of committing suicide to patients so that they can easily hasten their death (Religious tolerance.org).

Terminal Sedation occurs in cases where the physician administers sufficient sedatives to cause a terminally ill, competent patient to become unconscious, then permitting the patient to die of starvation, dehydration and the disease which has been contracted (Braddock et al.).

Withholding/Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatments takes place where a competent patient refuses to continue taking on-going life-sustaining treatment (Braddock et al.) such as the use of ventilators, dialysis, intravenous fluids and feeding tubes.

There are 3 kinds of Euthanasia. Active Euthanasia takes place when a person is put to death as a direct consequence of a request from him or her.

A famous example is the 1998 case involving Jack Kevorkian who caused the death {by lethal injection} of a patient suffering from ALS {Lou Gehrig’s Disease} who begged for a swift and painless death. Passive Euthanasia occurs when the death of a person is speeded up by changing some type of life-support being administered to him or her, thereby paving the way for nature to take its own course.

Examples of Passive Euthanasia include unplugging a respirator, ceasing administration of medications or not performing CPR {cardio-pulmonary resuscitation} on a person whose heart has ceased functioning. Involuntary Euthanasia involves putting to death persons who have not specifically asked for assistance in dying.

This usually occurs in case of those who have slipped into a Persistent Vegetative State and will in all likelihood never regain consciousness (Religioustolerance.org).

Taking decisions about the time and method of one’s death is considered very personal and confidential. Persons who are terminally ill patients with deadly diseases like ALS, AIDS, Alzheimer’s or Multiple Sclerosis know they will soon die and simply want to exercise control over the process. They cannot tolerate the loss of personal dignity as they are no longer self-sufficient, but have to constantly depend on others for care (Religioustolerance.org).

Secondly, such terminally ill persons do not wish to reduce their financial assets by having to constantly pay massive hospital bills as their death draws nearer; they would prefer to die quickly so that their inheritors of their assets will benefit to a greater degree by way of savings of such heavy hospital expenses.

Heavily underlying these reasons is the inescapable fact that they are living in excessive, chronic pain fully knowing that there is no cure for their ailment and that death is inevitable (Religioustolerance.org).

The Constitution of the country dictates that all persons have the freedom of choice. The freedom of choice in this case refers to the right of all persons – whether in good health, slightly ill or terminally ill – to choose if they want to go on living or if they are restrained so heavily by circumstances such as terminal illness to take the decision that they do not want to continue living and that they would be better off dead.

By not legalizing Euthanasia, terminally ill patients are denied the right to court speedier death by taking matters into their own hands. For some of them, death does not come as speedily as they wish, with the result that they have only one option left – death (Braddock et al.). By denying them the right to escape a life of pain that will anyway end in nothing by death, the State is denying terminally ill persons their Constitutional right

Some illnesses, besides causing intense physical suffering, also cause unbearable psychological burdens to patients (Braddock et al.). A classic example is AIDS. Sufferers of this disease endure horrific suffering as the disease progresses. Their bodily resistance steadily deteriorates, weakness sets in and they literally wither away to death.

Their physical anguish is accompanied by extreme mental suffering as they know that even with the best treatment, their burden of physical and metal suffering will at the most be slight, and that too temporarily, relieved but the onset of death is inevitable.

If these patients may request Euthanasia hasten death, do their loved ones not have the moral duty to end their physical and metal suffering? The key word in this scenario is ‘inevitability.’

The persons who have been entrusted by the patient to administer Euthanasia knows that death is inevitable, therefore, if such death is allowed to come in earlier than scheduled, it is a matter of showing sympathy for the suffering of the patient. In this context, Euthanasia is seen as a compassionate reaction to intense suffering.

There is no doubt that the State has a strong interest in preserving the life of its citizens. It is understandable and widely expected as a sign of a well-run State because such interest stems from the responsibility entrusted to the State.

Therefore when the State takes precautionary measures to safeguard its citizens such as apprehending thieves and muggers, or interning drug dealers and human smugglers, or punishing rapists and wife batterers, or sentencing serial killers to life imprisonment or capital punishment, these actions are viewed as signs of a government correctly doing the job that it was elected to do.

However, when it turns into a matter of private {as opposed to the above various forms of public safeguards}, the intensity of such State interest does not match the interest of terminally ill individuals who opt for death to end life. This lopsided {against the State} level of interest, if strengthened by prohibition by the State, is seen as an infringement on the personal liberty of the individual (Braddock et al.).

Perhaps the greatest U.S President of all time, Abraham Lincoln, described democracy as a rule “by the people, of the people and for the people.” It therefore follows that in this great democracy called the United States of America, it is the voice of the people that is paramount.

It also therefore follows that the voice of the people in case of legalizing Euthanasia should be treated with the greatest of importance. The voice of the people states that Euthanasia should be legalized.

While almost all the U.S states may have been intimated by the 1997 U.S Supreme Court landmark ruling against Euthanasia, the U.S public certainly has not been similarly affected. A 2005 Harris Poll involving 1,010 adults in the U.S discovered that as many as 64% of them disagreed with the 1997 Supreme Court ruling.

It was therefore not surprising that the same poll also found that 70% of them were in favor of legalizing Euthanasia. The greatest support was reserved for Involuntary Euthanasia with an overwhelming 72% of respondents declaring that they would go to the extent of expressly authorizing the administration of Euthanasia against themselves in their last wills and testaments (Taylor).

In addition to the above cited arguments, hard facts show that the most potent argument against legalizing Euthanasia {that it will increase the number of deaths of terminally ill persons} has been soundly refuted. Data from areas that have legalized Euthanasia do not show any marked changes as a result of this action. A good example is the U.S state of Oregon.

Ever since the passing of the Death with Dignity Act, the number of Euthanasia cases has hardly registered any noticeable change as compared to data of previous years. But what did change however, in Oregon as well as all those nations that have legalized Euthanasia, is the great relief that was made available to terminally ill patients – much needed relief that was cruelly denied to them before such legalization.

Their relief has been well articulated by Professor Torbjorn Tannsjo: “They [terminally ill patients] would know that, if, when their turn comes, and things turn out to be terrible, they have a way out” (News-medical.net).

Braddock C.H. & Tonelli M.R. “Physician-Assisted Suicide.” University of Washington. 2008.

“ British Medical Journal Publishes Euthanasia Opinions .” News-medical.net. 2005.

“ Euthanasia & Physician-Assisted Suicide .” Religioustolerance.org. 2002.

“ FACTBOX – Legal Status of Euthanasia around the World .” Reuters U.K. 2007.

Taylor, H. “Poll: U.S Adults Favor Euthanasia & Physician Assisted Suicide.” Death with Dignity National Center. 2005.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, June 10). Euthanasia – For Legalizing. Retrieved from https://studycorgi.com/euthanasia-for-legalizing/

StudyCorgi. (2022, June 10). Euthanasia – For Legalizing. https://studycorgi.com/euthanasia-for-legalizing/

"Euthanasia – For Legalizing." StudyCorgi , 10 June 2022, studycorgi.com/euthanasia-for-legalizing/.

1. StudyCorgi . "Euthanasia – For Legalizing." June 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/euthanasia-for-legalizing/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Euthanasia – For Legalizing." June 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/euthanasia-for-legalizing/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Euthanasia – For Legalizing." June 10, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/euthanasia-for-legalizing/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Euthanasia – For Legalizing'. 10 June.

This paper, “Euthanasia – For Legalizing”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language.

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Euthanasia — Why Euthanasia Should Be Legal

Why Euthanasia Should Be Legal: Analysing The Most Controversial Debate

• Categories: Controversial Issue Ethical Dilemma Euthanasia

About this sample

Words: 999 |

Published: Feb 11, 2023

Words: 999 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Personal arguments on why euthanasia should be legal, possible outcomes of legalizing euthanasia, works cited.

• Battin, M. P. (2016). The ethics of euthanasia. Oxford University Press.
• Chambaere, K., Bilsen, J., Cohen, J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Mortier, F., Deliens, L., & van der Heide, A. (2015). Physician-assisted deaths under the euthanasia law in Belgium: a population-based survey. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 187(10), E322-E329.
• Emanuel, E. J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., Urwin, J. W., & Cohen, J. (2016). Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Jama, 316(1), 79-90.
• Humphry, D. (1991). Final exit: The practicalities of self-deliverance and assisted suicide for the dying. Delta.
• Keown, J. (2017). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: An argument against legalisation. Cambridge University Press.
• Levene, M. I. (2017). Terminal sedation, voluntary palliated starvation and euthanasia: An analysis of the comparative ethical and legal aspects in Israel and the UK. Journal of Medical Ethics , 43(6), 373-377.
• Lewis, P. (2017). Assisted dying and the English courts: recent developments. Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(6), 353-356.
• Pabst Battin, M. (2015). The least worst death: Essays in bioethics on the end of life. Oxford University Press.
• Rodriquez, R. A. (2016). Argumentative essay on euthanasia. Free samples of argumentative essays. Available at https://www.wowessays.com/free-samples/argumentative-essay-on-euthanasia/
• Sulmasy, D. P. (2016). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Jama, 316(5), 545-546.

Cite this Essay

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

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

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!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1796 words

1 pages / 498 words

1 pages / 1084 words

3 pages / 1298 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Euthanasia

Euthanasia, the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve suffering, has been a topic of intense ethical and practical debate. While proponents argue for its legalization as a compassionate end-of-life option, this [...]

Euthanasia, a topic fraught with moral and ethical complexity, stands at the intersection of personal autonomy, suffering, compassion, and empathy. In this in-depth exploration, we will delve into the profound moral and ethical [...]

Euthanasia, the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve their suffering, has been a topic of ethical debate for decades. This essay explores the nuanced and multifaceted arguments in favor of euthanasia, delving [...]

In general, suffering is not only a medical problem but also an existential problem that extends beyond physical pain. It is influenced by many factors such as psychological, cultural, and spiritual factors and we can deal with [...]

This review covers the current legal and ethical perspectives of scholars in the field of bioethics concerning physician-assisted suicide (PAS). It covers the development of new arguments for or against PAS that have been [...]

Physician-assisted suicide is a topic that has been at the forefront of bioethics for many years now and yet no real consensus has been made on whether it should be a right afforded to all patients. Cases can be made for either [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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

Euthanasia should be legal

Euthanasia is among the issues that have aroused intense debates over time such that it is recognized as a pertinent issue in the human rights discourse as it also has impacts on the ethical and legal issues related to patients and healthcare providers (Mrayyan, Majd, and Bilal, 1). People possess different views concerning the issue where others argue that euthanasia should be considered as an option for terminally ill patients while others perceive that it should not be considered at all. Euthanasia is obtained from a Greek word which means good death (Wright, 84). It is defined as the practice of assisted suicide which is committed with the intention of relieving pain and suffering. The issue of assisted suicide has of late been one of the most researched topics in modern bioethics, and surveys conducted in the U.S. show that 46 percent of the physician population consent to voluntary euthanasia for certain situations while 41 percent of them disagree to the issue (Pereira, 1). When morally analyzed, legalization of euthanasia gives the terminally ill patients the right to a dignified death and the right to end intolerable suffering.

To begin with, people should recognize the fact that everyone has a right to die. In most cases, various discussions carried out concentrate on the right to life. Those who are against euthanasia claim that it trespasses an individual’s right to live. However, these proponents fail to realize that our lives signify death and that in its absence, we do not possess human life. This, when critically analyzed indicates that human life cannot exist without death and in this case, death is considered imminent. Therefore, for those who hold on to the notion that human beings have the right to live, they as well agree that all human beings have the right to die. This argument proves that the sole self-determining capability that we possess provides us the right to decide the nature of our death. Further, it is vital to note that that the right to life has no direct association with the right to die, both of these sides are considered mutually exclusive such that the right to live relates itself only with self-determined life and comes to an end with the right to die.

Another significant factor to consider is that people have an explicit right to choice. In this case, everything that human beings do are determined by their explicit rights. For instance, an individual has a right to choose what they will have for lunch, what they believe, what their opinions are and what they like to do with their lives. All human beings deem to be found on the right of choice which seems to evolve considering that the intrinsic nature is assessed. However, irrespective of the repercussions, no individual has a right to question human being’s right of free will. In this case, it can be argued that man has a fundamental right to chooses and this applies to all human life aspects including the right for a man to decide how they die.

Furthermore, it should be recognized that euthanasia is not immorality. For an action to be termed as immoral, it should be proved to be against the laid down norms and laws. Considering that life must be preserved and protected, the proponents of euthanasia argue that the issue is immoral. What they fail to recognize is that the preservation of life is a matter of making a personal choice and not that of the physician. For instance, a person’s right is said to be infringed in case of murder, where choice is taken away in the person’s death. Moreover, when a person chooses how to die, there is no infringement of rights in such cases. In instances where a health physician denies an individual his or her right to die when under severe pain and suffering is said to denying the person the freedom of choice. In essence, it is considered a life of misery and ultimate death particularly in cases of terminally ill patients. Though the physician might be having good intentions, it should be noted that no one owns the right to force one to live a miserable life. In fact, it is considered immoral because such intentions deny an individual his or her right to choose.

Another reason supporting the realization of euthanasia is that it does not harm others. Naturally, human beings have diverse interests though it is not uncommon to have conflicting interests. In case of a conflict, the civilized society and the state have the mandate of ensuring determination of such engagements without infringing individual rights (Cholbi, Michael, and Jukka, 250). Human rights are always secured, and in case of violation, severe punishments are imposed on those who go against such rights. With this information’s, euthanasia as a choice does not infringe anyone’s fundamental rights. In this case, therefore, death is considered a personal and private affair that imposes personal harm and destruction of life to the person who demanded it. No person should call for euthanasia on behalf of another. Otherwise, this will be treated as a murder case. Euthanasia does not harm anyone since the process of euthanasia has no restrictions and infringement on anyone’s fundamental rights.

Moreover, every individual has a right to good death, and therefore, this must not be denied to those who demand one. Every individual desire a good death, nobody wishes for an extremely painful and horrible death (Govier, 355). Human beings often have a desire to have a good end following a successful life. Most life circumstances may not always be in favor of an individual these may range from a terminal disease to a freak accident that puts one in unbearable pain. Though these circumstances may not be desired by any individual, individual that have been misfortunate and analyzed with such conditions in most cases must have a choice out of it. We do not have a right to judge other’s state when we have no knowledge about it as well as no right to compare their experiences regularly, having no experience in them and conclude that they do not deserve to die with dignity. In general, we possess no right to deny other people a dignified death that we wish for and this points out why euthanasia should be legalized.

On the contrary, other proponents argue that euthanasia should not be legalized because alternative treatments exist. Most people believe that patients suffering from terminal illnesses have two major options of either receiving euthanasia or die while suffering. Recent studies carried out in palliative medicine indicate that most of the severe symptoms experienced by terminally ill patients can be alleviated by the available techniques (Cottone and Villa 153). This, therefore, refutes the legalization of active euthanasia given that the terminally ill patients, who are considered the main subjects of euthanasia can now receive treatment by use of existing techniques. Another aspect of opposing legalization of euthanasia is that active euthanasia gives many powers to doctors. The legislation of active euthanasia leads to minimal doctors’ accountability and gives doctors more power. In most cases, patients make their decisions based on the information they receive from doctors such that it becomes difficult to resist any course of action suggested to them by doctors. These factors indicate that active euthanasia imposes more powers on healthcare practitioners which in turn can be misused.

In conclusion, the issue of Euthanasia has aroused intense debates over time such that it is recognized as a pertinent issue in the human rights discourse as it also has impacts on the ethical and legal issues related to patients and healthcare providers. The various arguments brought fought for the legalization of euthanasia include recognition of the fact that everyone has a right to die, every individual has a right to good death and therefore, this must not be denied to those who demand one and people have an explicit right of choice. On the contrary, other proponents argue that euthanasia should not be legalized because alternative treatments exist and that active euthanasia imposes more powers on healthcare practitioners which in turn can be misused. However, when morally analyzed, legalization of euthanasia gives the terminally ill patients the right to a dignified death and the right to end intolerable suffering.

• Mrayyan, Majd T., and Bilal SH Badr Naga. “Legal and Ethical Issues of Euthanasia: Argumentative Essay.” Middle East Journal of Nursing 7.5 (2013): 31-39.
• Cholbi, Michael, and Jukka Varelius. New Directions in the Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. , 2015. Internet resource.
• Govier, Trudy. A Practical Study of Argument. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print.
• Wright, Christopher J. H. Truth and Spirituality Today. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print.
• Cottone, R R, and Vilia M. Tarvydas. Ethical and Professional Issues in Counseling. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill Prentice Hall, 2003. Print.
• Pereira, José. “Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls.” Current Oncology 18.2 (2011): e38.
• ☠️ Assisted Suicide
• Affordable Care Act
• Breast Cancer
• Genetic Engineering