Essay Service Examples Health Medical Ethics
54 samples in this category
The NHS defines Euthanasia as “Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering.” The word “euthanasia” derives from the Greek ‘eu’ signifying ‘good’ and ‘Thanatos’ meaning ‘death.’ Countries such as Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, America, and the Neverlands have legalized euthanasia. However, at present...
The NHS defines Euthanasia as “Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering.” The word “euthanasia” derives from the Greek ‘eu’ signifying ‘good’ and ‘Thanatos’ meaning ‘death.’ Countries such as Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, America, and the Neverlands have legalized euthanasia. However, at present Euthanasia remains illegal in the UK. Euthanasia is intensely debated due to its moral, ethical, and emotional complexities. Due to modern medical advances, people can live longer, so the question of euthanasia becoming legalized is raised. There are various arguments supporting and opposing legalizing euthanasia within the UK. This essay will outline the differing arguments for and against euthanasia. Highlighting, the ethical and moral debates and the implications of euthanasia being legal.
“Many of us would like to have some control over the time and manner of our deaths, should we find ourselves in a condition so hopeless that there is no point in going on…” (Thomas Nagel, London Review of Books. 2011.) One supporting argument for legalizing Euthanasia is having the choice. “It’s important to give people with dementia choice and control over their life whenever possible.” (George McNamara, Head of Policy at the Alzheimer’s Society, 2013.) This argument suggests, a person should have the choice of choosing when they die. This argument is based on the principles of human rights. It is suggested that a person has the basic human right to live, they should also have the right to choose when to die. If it is your body, it should be your preference. Furthermore, it raises the question is it right to keep someone alive if they want to die due to excruciating pain?
Secondly, an argument often debated in favor of euthanasia is allowing a patient to die with self-respect. “In refusing dying people the right to die with dignity, we fail to demonstrate the compassion that lies at the heart of Christian values.” (Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Washington Post 2010.) The argument for authorizing euthanasia suggests Euthanasia gives a sense of control to a dying person consequently; they feel comforted that their wishes will be met. What is more, relatives feel comforted as the patient’s suffering and pain have ended. Euthanasia will enable a person to die with dignity. In addition, terminally ill people often become bedridden with terminal illnesses. Legalizing euthanasia in the UK would enable terminally ill people to die comfortably in a monitored environment. It offers a sense of control to the patient; it allows them to decide how they want to be remembered by relatives. Furthermore, patients no longer fear the pain and suffering they would endure without the option of euthanasia.
Additionally, Legalising euthanasia will enable the person to avoid caregiver guilt. For example, someone who does not want to continue to live with a debilitating terminal disease would opt for euthanasia to relieve themselves of being a financial burden or burden to relatives who would care for them. Euthanasia would also allow a patient to die in their own country without having to travel.
Furthermore, and conceivably the strongest argument supporting Euthanasia being legalized in the UK, is the ending of pain and suffering for the terminally ill. By enabling euthanasia to be legalized within the UK, it will enable a person to die without having to endure potential years or months of suffering. As Stephen Hawkins stated, “We don’t let animals suffer, so why humans?’
On the other hand, one counterargument for legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill is terminal diagnosis is not always accurate. The argument disputes it difficulty of determining a person’s life expectancy. In 2005 a study conducted by the Mayo Clinic found one in five people had an accurate diagnosis. Some people live longer. Therefore, legalizing Euthanasia it has the potential to end a person’s life prematurely.
In addition, the argument regarding consent is highly debated. This argument expresses the issues regarding a person’s frame of mind in order to give consent. For example, a person in extreme pain may opt for euthanasia without fully understanding and considering consequences and other options of care.
Moreover, the argument of the potential misuse of euthanasia is often conveyed. A disadvantage to legalizing euthanasia for the terminally ill is the potential for misuse and abuse of the vulnerable. This argument suggests a patient may be subject to pressure from the family or doctors to opt for euthanasia. Patients may feel as though they are a burden to family and doctors. Research conducted through Age UK has indicated that about 500,000 elderly individuals are mistreated each year in the UK. Consequently, the argument against Euthanasia expresses the point of protecting the vulnerable. Would patients feel protected?
Finally, Palliative care is an argument opposing euthanasia. It is disputed that a terminally ill person can have a good quality of life in their final months and weeks due to palliative care. In addition, a patient should not feel as though they are being persuaded into euthanasia. A doctor is meant to heal a patient and aid them in their time of need, to prolong and protect life not cut life short. The argument expresses that doctors should act in a patient’s best interests, but with a nation obsessed with the cost of the NHS would people be talked into Euthanasia to save money?
In conclusion, Euthanasia is a highly passionate debate with many moral and ethical complexities. The debate on legalizing euthanasia is continuous due to the advances in medicine people are living longer with debilitating terminal illnesses. The question regarding legalizing euthanasia remains. The implications of legalizing euthanasia could be good or bad depending on your personal stance. The potential consequences of legalizing euthanasia in the UK for the terminally ill is hard to ignore. Safeguarding issues and protecting the vulnerable is one of the potential challenges. Nevertheless, it is near impossible to deny a person in pain the right to opt for euthanasia.
Arguments for euthanasia essay, assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia.
800+ verified writers can handle your paper.
Euthanasia: human rights to choose what to do with yourself, argument against euthanasia based on kant contentions.
Views on euthanasia in christianity and hinduism, buddhism perspective on euthanasia, euthanasia: christian deontological and utilitarian physician ethics, is euthanasia everybody’s right, euthanasia extreme question of moral judgment, the ethics of euthanasia: active and passive euthanasia, euthanasia pros and cons essay, essay on is euthanasia legal in canada, essay on when is euthanasia justified, essay on is euthanasia legal in australia, is euthanasia legal in egypt: informative essay, utilitarianism and euthanasia essay, essay on euthanasia in kantianism vs utilitarianism, analytical essay on euthanasia, euthanasia is right: persuasive essay, slippery slope of euthanasia: essay about both sides, j. gay williams on the wrongfulness of euthanasia: critical essay, infant euthanasia essay, euthanasia in animal shelters: debate essay, euthanasia and the catholic church essay, essay on types of euthanasia, essay on an objection to euthanasia and utilitarianism, dog euthanasia: pros and cons essay.
Top similar topics
Fair Use Policy
EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].
A Plus Topper
Improve your Grades
February 12, 2024 by Prasanna
Euthanasia Essay: The word Euthanasia, originated from Greece means “good death”. Euthanasia also is known as “mercy killing”, in the modern sense of the word, is the practice of ending a life to relieve suffering.
Legally request to end a person’s life prematurely voluntarily has been under a lot of debate. This debate focuses across complex and dynamic aspects like legal, health, human rights, ethical, spiritual, religious, psychological social and cultural aspects of the society. When talking about Euthanasia, we will discuss it in a neutral aspect, covering both the supporters and opponents’ perspectives on this complex activity.
You can also find more Essay Writing articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.
We provide children and students with essay samples on a long essay of 500 words and a short essay of 150 words on the topic “Euthanasia” for reference.
Long Essay on Euthanasia is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Unfortunately, there are people out there who are suffering from a long term illness or injury and find death to be their ultimate solution. They are in so much pain and suffering that they no longer find their quality of life to be at an acceptable level.
There are many forms of Euthanasia which include, people suffering from incurable disorders, newborns with severe congenital disabilities, and adults in their final stage of a terminal illness under medical life support.
Euthanasia is classified into passive and active Euthanasia; passive Euthanasia is when a patient stops taking essential medications which would eventually cause them to die. Active Euthanasia is when you are terminating a person’s life.
When it comes to passive Euthanasia the acceptance level among the masses is way more than active Euthanasia as it directly withholds the physician with the responsibility to insert a lethal substance into the patient’s body to help them die.
A strong ethical argument against the use of Euthanasia is that it could soon become a slippery slope, with the legalization of involuntary Euthanasia following it.
You can now access Essay Writing on Euthanasia and many more topics.
In the perspective of a person in support of mercy killing — one should have the right to self-determination, and thus be allowed to choose their fate. Pro-euthanasia activists often point at countries who have legalized Euthanasia like Belgium and Netherlands to argue that it’s mostly unproblematic.
But under the Indian constitution ‘Right to life’ is embodied in Article 21 euthanasia/suicide is an abnormal termination of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’. Supreme Court in Gian Kaur Case in 1996 has held that the ‘Right to life’ under Article 21 does not include the ‘Right to die’.
The right to refuse medical help is approved by law, including medical treatment that sustains or prolongs life. India legalized passive Euthanasia in 2011. Recognition of the ‘Right to refuse treatment’ gives way for passive Euthanasia.
Euthanasia in terminally ill patients provides scope for organ donation. This, in turn, helps many in need of an organ transplant. Thereby giving someone the ‘Right to die’ in return helps another with their ‘Right to live’.
However, several criticisms can be seen going against Euthanasia. For example, in some cases of Euthanasia, when the patient is verbally incapable, their guardian is responsible for making the decision, and that might not be in a person’s best interests—for example, getting old aged parents killed for property will.
The strongest argument against Euthanasia is that there is no way to regulate mercy killing properly. Allowing this undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives. Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill, and this will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for them.
We now know that there are strong arguments from both sides. There does not seem to be any cut and dry reasoning behind whether the practice of Euthanasia is good or bad. In one end, it can be used to release someone from suffering, but on the other end, it can be used to hide punishable criminal acts. This topic stands at a moral and ethical shaky ground, thus making it harder to be accepted and legalized.
Short Essay on Euthanasia is usually given to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Euthanasia or mercy killing is terminating a patient’s life who was previously suffering from a terminal illness. In recent years, there have been debates around the globe over the issue, whether Euthanasia should be legalized. Mercy killing can be active or passive.
Active Euthanasia includes doctors to administer lethal doses to their patients who voluntarily as for Euthanasia. This factor is a major cause of debate in most countries, including India, where this act is illegal. However, passive Euthanasia, under some circumstances, is acceptable where a terminally ill patient refuses life-sustaining medical treatment.
It is not out of context to mention here that one should not be confused Euthanasia with assisted suicide. Euthanasia comes with a lot of factors to follow through as this is an ethically and morally a complex issue.
Even though it can relieve someone’s suffering, but legalizing it can also lead to some serious crimes like murder and places too much power in the doctor’s hands. Thus, Euthanasia is a matter that requires a high moral compass and needs thorough analysis in each case under specific circumstances if legalized.
1. Euthanasia is the voluntary act of a patient suffering a terminal disease, of terminating their life. 2. Euthanasia is essentially divided into two types — Active and Passive Euthanasia. 3. In active Euthanasia, a person directly and deliberately causes the patient’s death with lethal drug dosage. 4. In passive Euthanasia, the patient refuses life-saving medical help. 5. Euthanasia is illegal in most countries except few countries such as Netherlands, Belgium etc. 6. Active Euthanasia is illegal in India as it goes against article 21, which advocates for “Right to live'”. 7. Many patients opting Euthanasia have been involved in organ donation. 8. Unfortunately, Euthanasia has also been misused to lead some serious organized crimes. 9. Euthanasia is an activity which involves several ethical, human rights, social, economic, moral, religious, spiritual and legal factors. 10. Euthanasia has been a topic of intense debate globally as it includes a fair share of both pros and cons.
Question 1. Where is Euthanasia permitted?
Answer: In 1995, Australia’s Northern Territory was the first jurisdiction to pass a euthanasia bill. As of early 2015, Euthanasia was permitted in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Colombia.
Question 2. Is there an ethical difference between switching off life support, withdrawing treatment and voluntary Euthanasia?
Answer: Yes. When life support is switched off, the person dies from their illness naturally. When Euthanasia is performed, a person dies from a lethal drug, deliberately given to cause death.
Question 3. What is the difference between ‘mercy killing’ and Euthanasia?
Answer: ‘Mercy killing’ is a euphemism for Euthanasia.
Question 4. Are doctors obliged to comply with requests for Euthanasia?
Answer: No. Doctors are not obliged to comply with requests for Euthanasia as it’s not a routine medical procedure. The option of refusing a request for Euthanasia guarantees doctors’ freedom of conscience.
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Andreas fontalis.
1 St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London SW17 0QT, UK
2 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki Greece
3 University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Infirmary Square, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK
Assisted dying is a highly controversial moral issue incorporating both physician-assisted dying (PAD) and voluntary active euthanasia. End-of-life practices are debated in many countries, with assisted dying receiving different consideration across various jurisdictions. In this paper, we provide an analytic framework of the current position and the main arguments related to the rights and moral principles concerning assisted dying. Assisted dying proponents focus on the respect of autonomy, self-determination and forestalling suffering. On the other hand, concerns are raised regarding the interpretation of the constitutional right to life and balancing this with the premise of assisted dying, alongside the impacts of assisted dying on the doctor–patient relationship, which is fundamentally based on trust, mutual respect and the premise of ‘first do no harm’. Our review is underpinning the interpretation of constitutional rights and the Hippocratic Oath with the premise of assisted dying, alongside the impacts of assisted dying on the doctor–patient relationship. Most clinicians remain untrained in such decision making, with fears against crossing key ethical divides. Due to the increasing number of cases of assisted dying and lack of consensus, our review enables the integration of ethical and legal aspects and facilitates decision making.
Assisted dying remains a highly controversial moral issue, with clinical, legal, political, religious and ethical considerations playing an important role. Lack of consensus and ongoing debate are features of modern life, while the law generally sustains a broader, pluralist outlook. Advances in both life-prolonging treatments and palliative care in recent years are inextricably intertwined with this complex topic, resulting in the continuing demand for amendments on current legislations. 1 This review presents an overview of the current status of this topical debate.
Assisted dying is a general term that incorporates both physician-assisted dying and voluntary active euthanasia . Voluntary active euthanasia includes a physician (or third person) intentionally ending a person’s life normally through the administration of drugs, at that person’s voluntary and competent request. 2 , 3 Facilitating a person’s death without their prior consent incorporates both non-voluntary euthanasia (when the patient is not capable of providing informed consent, e.g. vegetative state, young child) and involuntary euthanasia (against patient’s will). Physician-assisted dying is defined as follows: a physician intentionally helping a person to terminate their life by providing drugs for self-administration, at that person’s voluntary and competent request. 2 , 3 Consequently, in the first case a third person acts resulting in patient’s death, whereas in physician-assisted dying the action is undertaken by the patient who is given lethal medication by a physician. 2
Discussion regarding withholding or withdrawing treatment and requesting assisted death has emerged in association with the simultaneous expansion of palliative care across the world. The World Health Organization defines palliative care is an approach that
improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problem associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and impeccable assessment and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psychosocial and spiritual. 4
It intends to neither hasten nor postpone death. Nonetheless, in practice, terminally ill patients – often with full mental capacity – may develop a loss of self-determination as their condition deteriorates and express a desire for assisted dying to alleviate intractable physical symptoms.
Assisted dying is an emotionally and ethically challenging subject, which understandably receives varying degrees of acceptance among different global jurisdictions. Currently, there is legal provision for assisted dying (or variants) in only four European countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Luxemburg), Canada, Colombia and the United States of America (USA) states of Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, California, Colorado and Washington, DC, representing nearly 18% of the US population. 5 , 6 Switzerland is the only country which permits the act of assisted dying performed by a non-physician. Moreover, non-Swiss citizens can exploit the Swiss law by visiting Switzerland in order to access assisted dying. 7 In these more tolerant jurisdictions, palliative care is seen as an important link in the same chain as assisted dying in caring for terminally ill individuals, rather than an alternative. Elsewhere in the world, an assisted death remains a criminal offence, prosecutable through various legal routes. For example, in the UK, all forms of assisted dying remain illegal and can be considered under criminal laws of manslaughter or murder, or under the Suicide Act (1961), depending on the circumstances. 6 Prosecution guidelines were first issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2009 following House of Lords ruling in the case of Debbie Purdy, which stated that there was ambiguous guidance regarding when people would be prosecuted for encouraging or assisting suicide. The guidelines suggest that while each case will be assessed on its relative merits, individuals acting in the capacity of a healthcare professional are more likely to be prosecuted for assisting or encouraging suicide, although to date no report-providing doctor or accompanying individual has been prosecuted for helping patients to travel abroad from the UK to end their life. 8 In England and Scotland, three assisted dying bills have been proposed and debated, largely based on the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (1997) from the USA, which permits assisted dying; none were passed.
We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from conception to January 2018. The search terms used were ‘euthanasia’, ‘assisted dying OR death’, ‘assisted suicide’, ‘medical ethics’, ‘autonomy’, ‘end of life’ and ‘sanctity of life’. We also combined free text searching with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and no restrictions were set in publication date, study design and publication status.
Autonomy and right to life.
Beauchamp and Childress developed a standard approach to bioethics and advocated for four principles that lie at the heart of healthcare ethics and underpin decision-making. 9 , 10 Respect for autonomy is one of the fundamental concepts, in combination with justice , beneficence and non-maleficence .
In medical practice, autonomy describes the right of competent adults to make informed decisions about their own medical care, prior to any investigation or treatment taking place. For a physician, respect for autonomy includes acknowledging and preserving a patient’s right to self-determination and providing the necessary guidance, which would allow for an informed and independent choice, free of coercion.
However, autonomy is far from a straightforward consideration. Onora O'Neill, in an attempt to scrutinise the context of autonomy in her Gifford lectures, makes a clear and compelling distinction between the approach of John Stuart Mill and Kant regarding the subject of autonomy. 11 As O’Neill vividly describes, Mill stretches the bound of choice and ‘sees individuals not merely as choosing to implement whatever desires they happen to have at a given moment, but as taking charge of those desires, as reflecting on and selecting among them in distinctive ways’. 11 The Kantian version of autonomy is guided by a ‘practical reason’. Kant views autonomy as ‘a matter of acting on certain sorts of principles, and specifically on principles of obligation’ rather than a form of self-expression and supports that ‘there can be no possibility of freedom for any one individual if that person acts without reference to all other moral agents’. 12 O’Neill embraces the Kantian view and contextualises it as ‘principled autonomy’ compared to ‘individualistic autonomy’. O’Neill’s work vigorously illustrates the fragility of the concept of autonomy and its contingency on a number of other considerations, particularly the network of human relationships within which it features.
The greatest expression of autonomous self-determination is the right of ‘capacitous’ adults to refuse any proposed intervention (irrespective of rationality), even if this decision could result in harm or death, provided they are capable of freely reaching a decision in the above manner. For this reason, obtaining informed consent from a patient after they have been offered all the relevant information regarding their situation is of paramount importance. During the past decades, the development of liberal democracies has highlighted the significance of self-determination, with healthcare systems increasingly adopting more patient-centred approaches to care decisions. The right to bodily autonomy has also been enshrined under Article 8 ( Table 1 ) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life.
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. |
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. |
Taking the above into consideration, Article 8 encompasses inter alia the right to personal development. In a technical legal sense within the jurisdiction of Swiss law, it includes a patient’s choice to avoid what they consider an undignified and severe end to their life. 14 Proponents of this highly contentious argument claim that seriously ill patients should have a choice in whether or not they wish to continue living with a condition that undermines their inherent dignity and personal identity, 15 without violating the principle of sanctity of life. Therefore, it can be argued that respecting autonomy inherently involves the prima facie right of a patient to control the circumstances and time of death by requesting help in dying. This could minimise the suffering of an individual or their family and improve the quality of the end of the patient’s life, as their wishes would be respected and dignity would be preserved. 16 , 17
A further dimension that can be considered is the treating clinician’s ethical beliefs and values. During their training, most practising clinicians have not experienced the concept of assisted dying as an expected duty in the context of patients’ autonomy. 18 Nevertheless, it is important to consider the magnitude of patients’ autonomy within modern society. Individual liberty ought not to be viewed as absolute and exceptions to Article 8 should be provided in favour of preservation and reverence to life. 17 , 18
The right to life is guaranteed by Article 2 ( Table 2 ) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 2, the State is enjoined to abstain from the deliberate and illicit taking of life, as well as to protect vulnerable people against actions by which they could jeopardise their lives. The principle of sanctity of life emerges frequently in modern discussion, particularly in Anglo-American bioethics, surrounding public controversy about end of life and abortion issues. Yet, its moral foundation is rarely unriddled and understood. The sanctity of life position asserts that life has sanctity and its value prevails all other values. No individual’s life deserves priority, and sanctity is attributed to life regardless of the physiological status, imminence of death, suffering or individual’s wishes to live or die. 19
Article 2: Right to life.
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. |
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: |
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; |
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; |
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. |
This argument is often associated, but not fully equated, with religious and cultural traditions that generally object to assisted death, because human life is viewed as God’s sovereign creation. From a religious perspective, God is considered the only one who can determine the beginning and end of human life. The sanctity of life is a value also clearly mirrored under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which refers to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 13 It is notable, though, that Article 2 does not encompass assisted dying, i.e. in situations where a person’s decision to end their life has been taken independently and with absolute perception of what it implied.
The crucial issue is therefore one of balance . Patient autonomy has to be balanced against the principle of sanctity of life. It should be acknowledged though that the autonomy argument is secondary in its applicability on whether assisted dying is ethically permissible and cannot solely guide decisions on what is morally impermissible, as it constitutes only a piece of the puzzle. The right to end a life that an individual finds intolerable has to be considered in association with its resulting impact on other rights, regulations and the responsibilities of healthcare professionals in facilitating assisted dying. 18
As discussed, justice constitutes one of the main four fundamental principles of medical ethics. All individuals in a society should be treated equally and impartially. One of the arguments that has monopolised the debate concerning assisted dying is the ‘slippery slope’. According to this, should assisted suicide be established, then it might be applied in circumstances that fall outside the scope of morally permissible cases, such as in patients who may not be fully competent. 17 Furthermore, if a person is motivated by means other than his own will, for example through external coercion, then patient autonomy is infringed.
In this regard, concerns are raised about vulnerable populations, such as the terminally ill, the mentally incapacitated and the elderly. There remains the understandable fear that assisted dying could potentially lead society toward an attitude that suffering should not be a part of life, interdependency is a burden and the lives of disabled of terminally ill individuals are not worth living. 20 The implications of such an attitude on vulnerable populations is clear, with individuals potentially forced or coerced into assisted dying for reasons other than their own free will.
The slippery slope argument is inordinately complex and controversial evidence exists in the literature in favour of both sides. Cases of assisted dying in the Netherlands grew from 1882 in 2002 to 5306 in 2014. 21 Eight-one cases were concerned with dementia and 41 with mental health-related reasons only in 2014. 6 In the light of data from Holland, the slippery slope argument is supported in a number of respects, e.g. concerns about legislation ‘creep’, lack of availability of good palliative care and fears in the vulnerable and elderly. Early data published from Oregon were also concordant. The number of physician-assisted deaths progressively rose from 16 in 1998 to 71 during 2011; loss of autonomy (88.7%) and ability to participate in enjoyable activities (90.1%) were the two most commonly reported end-of life concerns. 22 In increasingly financially constrained health and social care systems, fears have also been raised regarding the impact of budget-cutting trends and their potential impact on terminally ill individuals for whom the alternatives are only high-cost life-prolonging or quality-enhancing (rather than curative) treatments.
However, recent data summarising the 20 years’ experience in Oregon suggest the opposite. According to the authors, patients requesting an assisted death allegedly belong to a higher than average socioeconomic class and have a higher than average education level. 23 Oregon, the first state in the US to allow assisted dying, employed strict criteria that had an influential role in other jurisdictions. 5 The criteria comprised the agreement of another doctor, the assessment of the patient’s mental capacity and the presence of a terminal illness with less than six months to live. 24 Additional measures to ensure an informed and unforced decision involved adequate pain relief and access to end-of-life care. 25 Assisted dying proponents support that safeguards and regulations in place are very powerful since only one in 50 terminally ill patients have a discussion about the process with their doctor and even fewer complete it. 26
Rhetoric from opponents has raised concerns of whether such safeguards could ever be adequate, which appears to be a key argument in the debate in some jurisdictions as well. Consequently, any future legal permissibility of assisted dying should be developed in conjunction with clear regulatory safeguards to ensure the abuse of assisted dying and protect vulnerable individuals from coercion. 3 . Such safeguards must also preserve societal justice and ensure equitability and availability of healthcare is not a deciding factor in assisted dying decision-making.
The principles of beneficence and non-maleficence , plainly described in the Hippocratic Oath, have been the foundation of medical ethics for many centuries. Beneficence states that a doctor should act in the best interest of the patient. Non-maleficence states ‘first, do no harm’ – ‘ primum non nocere ’. 27 Conformation to these fundamental principles is enshrined within Hippocratic Oath, which involve aiming to benefit, or perhaps most importantly, not doing any harm to a patient. Moreover, modern medical education in most countries follows legal and cultural opposition to an assisted death. Healthcare professionals are therefore currently not adequately trained to participate in assisted dying. Professional opinion also remains divided on whether further involvement would benefit or damage public perception of the profession, given the potential conflict between these two ethical principles. The UK’s medical representative body, the British Medical Association (BMA), has acknowledged this lack of consensus, but clearly concludes with their view that assisted dying should not be made legal in the UK. 28
However, the evolution of decision-making processes in modern medicine, particularly regarding end-of-life decisions, and with patients increasingly at the heart of shared decision-making (e.g. the UK NHS’ ‘no decision about me, without me’ policy), have applied pressure on clinicians to reconsider their collective professional stance on assisted dying. Indeed, an increasing number of legal challenges from patients and assisted dying representative organisations are taking place worldwide to challenge local legislation against an assisted death.
Assisted dying therefore challenges the conflict faced between the ultimate purpose of modern medical and social care and its founding ethical principles. Relief of suffering through an assisted death can be argued as a distinct entity to palliative care, with the former – if safely and carefully considered – potentially an important way of fulfilling a clinician’s duty to preserve autonomy and do good for a patient – for example, in cases where alternatives are treatments which provide no benefit or do not prolong or improve the quality of life of a terminally ill patient. 27 , 29 A further consideration is that of an individual doctor’s ethical and moral beliefs, which are also an important factor should a patient request an assisted death; indeed, the British Medical Association has proposed that should assisted dying legislation be derived, then there should be a clear demarcation between those physicians who do and do not offer this option. 30
A further controversial issue is raised by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Its impact on the assisted dying debate centres on whether requesting an assisted, dignified death constitutes a manifestation of belief, therefore falling within the remit of Article 9. Several European Court decisions have determined that individual views are entitled to protection only if they ‘attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance’. 31
Seriousness and importance are undoubtedly justified when considering an individual’s decision to end their life. On the other hand, an informed desire to die with dignity may well constitute a coherent and cogent view. For instance, it remains debatable whether approaching death through a solely palliative care lens constitutes a less dignified way to die than assisted dying. 31 Article 9 may therefore provide a preferable framework for decisions relating to the right to die with dignity than Article 8, which focuses on a patients’ autonomy; while the former aims to protect truly coherent and cogent decisions, it may be argued that the latter in isolation could potentially open a bigger door to a broader attitude towards assisted dying. 13
Furthermore, Article 3 should also be considered as a safeguard, as this prohibits torture and degrading treatment. 17 Ultimately, each potential assisted dying case is unique and its various facets should therefore be approached carefully under the scope of relevant legislation (e.g. European Convention on Human Rights Articles 2, 3, 8 and 9), and individual/societal ethical and moral perspectives ( Tables 1 1 to to4 4 ).
Article 3: Prohibition of torture.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. |
Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. |
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. |
As discussed, a key concern of the medical profession remains the impact of legalisation of assisted dying on the doctor–patient relationship. This relationship is fundamentally based on trust. Although aspects of assisted dying may be considered in conflict with certain underlying ethical obligations placed upon doctors, considering a patient’s autonomous wishes, alongside the moral perspectives of the doctor, is also an important aspect of this relationship. 32 , 33 This quandary is recognised by the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences in their ethical guidelines, which acknowledges that ‘in certain special cases a doctor’s personal decision to assist a dying patient to commit suicide is in accordance with his or her conscience and has to be respected’. 18
The delicate balance between the views of patients, doctors and society can pose an ethical dilemma, with the potential to serve a disruptive influence on the sanctity of the doctor–patient relationship and negatively distorting how society perceives the role and motives of healthcare professionals. For example, as previously considered, particularly in healthcare systems where doctors play the role of gatekeeper to healthcare, a doctor’s support for an assisted death for a terminally ill individual might be negatively interpreted as a conflict of interest, with a desire to help relieve the social and economic burden of a patient’s illness upon society overriding the patient’s individual interests. Ultimately, should appropriate safeguarding measures be deployed alongside relevant legislation, assisted dying may risk eroding doctors’ professional integrity. 34
As expected, the discussion around adopting assisted dying has caused much controversy among the doctors’ professional groups and bodies. Several professional organisations in the UK have clearly expressed their opposing views to assisted dying such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Surgeons of England, whereas others maintain a neutral position including the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. 5 The Royal Society of Medicine has no policy on the issue since ‘its remit is the education of doctors and health professionals and the promotion of debate, not the making of policy’. 35
In the US, the American Medical Association, representing nearly 250,000 members, vehemently opposes legalisation of assisted dying as does the American College of Physicians with more than 150,000 members. 6
The debate surrounding assisted dying is never far from the headlines, particularly while its legal status in most jurisdictions remains inadequate and discursive. However, alongside the evolution of palliative care, there appears to be an increasingly vocal desire for legislation to support assisted dying in selected cases. 21 Developing a sensitive balance between established cultural norms and a progressive, well-balanced, transparent and safe attitude towards assisted dying is key. 24 More patient-centred attitudes towards health and social care increasingly place patients – quite rightly – at the heart of everything health professionals do. Patients’ needs, attitudes and beliefs must be therefore at the forefront of decision-making. However, when considering these alongside the fundamental principles of bioethics as well as legislation and doctors’ own beliefs, conflict can arise, thereby leaving the assisted dying debate in a state of limbo. Whether assisted dying should be legalised (albeit with stringent controls) remains controversial; as considered in this essay, even the basic moral principles can conflict when considering the arguments for and against supporting an assisted death, making consensus building far from straightforward.
Ultimately, individual patients’ autonomy should be balanced with a fundamental right to life, impacts on the individual doctor–patient relationship and wider society and the safeguards required to prevent misuse of any assisted dying regulations. The challenge remains for society to decide where this balance lies, guided by regional religious, cultural and legislative perspectives.
Developing the required ethical competencies among medical professionals is also key; given the current absence of legal support for assisted dying in most jurisdictions, most clinicians remain untrained in such decision-making. Indeed with understandable fears against crossing key ethical divides, physician support for an assisted death tends to be lower than that of patients. 36 Dying is a natural part of human life. With growing demand worldwide, the assisted dying debate will increasingly come to the fore – something healthcare professionals, politicians and legislators cannot ignore.
Competing interests.
None declared.
Ethics approval was not required for this review.
AF and EP conceived, designed the study and performed the literature search. All authors analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Not commissioned; peer-reviewed by David Misselbrook.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: 19 Aug. 2024]
"Arguments For and Against Euthanasia." PapersOwl.com, Mar 13, 2019. Accessed August 19, 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: 19-Aug-2024]
PapersOwl.com. (2019). Arguments For and Against Euthanasia . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia/ [Accessed: 19-Aug-2024]
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
Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Euthanasia — Persuasive Essay Pro Euthanasia
About this sample
Words: 692 |
Published: Mar 14, 2024
Words: 692 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read
Let us write you an essay from scratch
Get high-quality help
Verified writer
+ 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!
3 pages / 1552 words
2 pages / 684 words
1 pages / 619 words
5 pages / 2356 words
Remember! This is just a sample.
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.
121 writers online
Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled
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 [...]
Euthanasia, the practice of ending the life of a suffering patient through the use of barbiturate or paralytic injections, remains a highly controversial medical procedure. While it is legal in the majority of European Union [...]
The debate surrounding euthanasia is complex and multifaceted, involving considerations of ethics, religion, personal autonomy, and the value of human life. While advocates argue that euthanasia provides relief to those [...]
Euthanasia, the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve pain and suffering, has been a topic of debate for decades. Whether it's voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary, euthanasia presents complex ethical and [...]
Battin, M. P., Rhodes, R., & Silvers, A. (2015). The Patient as Victim and Vector: Can Ethics Abandon the Ideal of the Autonomous Patient? The American Journal of Bioethics, 15(3), 3-14.Pereira, J. M. (2011). Legalizing [...]
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 [...]
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!
We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .
IMAGES
COMMENTS
49 essay samples found. Euthanasia, also known as assisted dying or mercy killing, remains a deeply contested ethical and legal issue. Essays could delve into the various forms of euthanasia, such as voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary euthanasia, discussing the moral and legal implications of each.
Essay on Euthanasia: Euthanasia refers to the act of killing a person without any emotions or mercy. Euthanasia is an ethnically complex and controversial topic, with different perspectives and legal regulations on different topics. School students and individuals preparing for competitive exams are given assigned topics like essays on euthanasia.
Here are some examples of euthanasia essay topics and titles we can suggest: The benefits and disadvantages of a physician-assisted suicide. Ethical dilemmas associated with euthanasia. An individual's right to die. Euthanasia as one of the most debatable topics in today's society.
An original and well-structured essay title on euthanasia should give an idea of what to expect in the body paragraphs. It simply gives them a reason to read your essay. 3. Decide on the Best Thesis Statement for your Euthanasia Essay. Creating a thesis statement for a euthanasia essay does not deviate from the conventions of essay writing.
3. Evolution of euthanasia and assisted suicide: digging into historical events. To understand the evolution and relevance of these concepts should analyze the history of euthanasia and assisted suicide; from the emergence of the term, going through its first manifestations in antiquity; mentioning the conceptions of great thinkers such as Plato and Hippocrates; going through the role of the ...
Persuasive Essay Pro Euthanasia Essay. Imagine facing a terminal illness with no hope for recovery, only prolonged suffering and pain. In such situations, the concept of euthanasia, or assisted suicide, becomes a controversial but increasingly relevant topic.
The most popular arguments against euthanasia include the derogation of human life and disregard for an individual's right to live. The most heavily criticized of all such similar actions is involuntary euthanasia which bears the brunt of all severe protests against the issue, with involuntary euthanasia being dubbed as the deprivation of an ...
An Euthanasia Controversy Essay is a type of essay that explores the contentious issue of euthanasia, also known as assisted dying or mercy killing. Euthanasia is a highly debated topic, as it involves the deliberate ending of a person's life to relieve their suffering due to a terminal illness or an irreversible medical condition.
Get a custom essay on Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia. 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.
As a medical doctor I have, with some worry, followed the assisted dying debate that regularly hits headlines in many parts of the world. The main arguments for legalisation are respecting self-determination and alleviating suffering. Since those arguments appear self-evident, my book Euthanasia and the Ethics of a Doctor's Decisions—An Argument Against Assisted Dying 1 aimed to contribute ...
The Netherlands was the first country to allow legal euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2002, totaling 1.7-2.8% of total deaths. Euthanasia is generally illegal in the United States, but in a nationwide 2017 American poll, 73% of the public were in favor of euthanasia, and 57% said euthanasia is morally acceptable. These numbers are nearly ...
This essay will explore both the advantages and disadvantages of euthanasia, as well as counterarguments and rebuttals, ultimately providing insight into the ongoing ethical debate surrounding this topic. Advantages of Euthanasia . Euthanasia may have several advantages for individuals facing unbearable pain and suffering, as well as the healthcare system as a whole.
Assisted dying is a general term that incorporates both physician-assisted dying and voluntary active euthanasia.Voluntary active euthanasia includes a physician (or third person) intentionally ending a person's life normally through the administration of drugs, at that person's voluntary and competent request. 2,3 Facilitating a person's death without their prior consent incorporates ...
It has been a pertinent issue in human rights discourse as it also affects ethical and legal issues pertaining to patients and health care providers. This paper discusses the legal and ethical ...
Protection of Personal Choice: Preserving Individual Freedom. The argument for euthanasia also revolves around the protection of personal choice, particularly in matters as profound as life and death. Advocates assert that individuals should have the right to decide when and how they want to die, especially when facing a terminal illness or ...
Essay topics. The NHS defines Euthanasia as "Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person's life to relieve suffering.". The word "euthanasia" derives from the Greek 'eu' signifying 'good' and 'Thanatos' meaning 'death.'. Countries such as Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, America, and the ...
Euthanasia Essay: The word Euthanasia, originated from Greece means "good death". Euthanasia also is known as "mercy killing", in the modern sense of the word, is the practice of ending a life to relieve suffering. Legally request to end a person's life prematurely voluntarily has been under a lot of debate. This debate focuses across ...
Definition and current legal framework. Assisted dying is a general term that incorporates both physician-assisted dying and voluntary active euthanasia.Voluntary active euthanasia includes a physician (or third person) intentionally ending a person's life normally through the administration of drugs, at that person's voluntary and competent request. 2, 3 Facilitating a person's death ...
Essay Example: 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
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 arguments in favor of euthanasia and how it can provide a means for individuals to end their lives with dignity while respecting their autonomy and the principles of ...
This essay is going to address the importance of euthanasia to both the victims and the family members. The audience readers to which this essay is meant for are the faith groups which may include the Christians, Jewish, Muslim and other religious groups who consider life to be given by God and therefore say only God should take it away.
This essay will delve into the complex moral, legal, and social implications of euthanasia, ultimately arguing in favor of its legalization in certain circumstances. By examining the principles of autonomy, compassion, and quality of life, we will explore how legalizing euthanasia can provide a humane and merciful option for those facing ...