Skip Nav

Do You Agree or Disagree With Euthanasia or Mercy Killing?

It frees up hospital beds and resources

❶Thou shall not kill! Why should assisted suicide for terminally ill patients be any different?

Popular Topics

It ends the patient life because he/she is already terminally ill


Euthanizing a person based on the society aspect makes sense. With greater and greater emphasis put on managed care today, many doctors are at a financial risk when they provide treatments to patients who are in the dying process. These patients may also feel like not becoming a burden to the society at large, and choose to fulfill a duty — Euthanasia.

If the person is in a coma or is brain dead, that person is no use to himself or herself, or society anymore. Euthanasia is a viable method to end an otherwise futile attempt at recovery. The family of the person being euthanized may not want their family members in pain — to suffer.

It can be a family duty to do the right thing for the person and society. Depression, family conflict, feelings of abandonment, and hopelessness, are emotional burdens on family members seeing a person suffer. Committing euthanasia may be the humane act to do for the afflicted family member in this case.

The euthanized person may even be of use to society in This research report examines various characters in each of these works. Both the film and novel are explored and Ivan in Tolstoy' Free will, on the other hand, speaks to the concept of having full authority over ones aspirations and ultimate direction, reflect Net-savvy that instead of a generation gap, theres a "generation lap" in which older generations feel threatened by the N-Gens fac This 9 page paper examines the way in which three different directors approach Shakespeare.

It looks at Kenneth Branagh's producti The first two lines of the poem establish his thorough knowledge of the Lond This paper discusses the role of women in three Norse sagas.

The writer argues that "Njal's Saga" and "Laxdaela's S This research paper realtes the history and tremendous success of the Quaker Oats Food Company. In most cases euthanasia is carried out because the person asks to die, but there are cases where a person can't make such a request.

A person who undergoes euthanasia is usually terminally ill. Euthanasia can be carried out either by doing something, such as administering a lethal injection, or by not doing something necessary to keep the person alive for example failing to keep their feeding tube going. In my opinion it's not moral to kill a person even if they are terminally ill because this person need a chance to live along and see his life, but there are people that disagree.

I have a debate in my college about this topic and I'd like to hear if you agree or disagree with euthanasia. All the Yes points: All the No points: It is not moral to end the patient's life because he has the right to live longer It is murder Sanctity of life Making the decision for yourself, or others? Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments. You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.

It frees up hospital beds and resources Terminally ill patients, or those in a permanent vegetative state, can take up valuable hospital beds for those who do want to get better. If they do not want to live, then they should not be allowed to take the beds and care of those that do. Long term palliative care for the terminally ill is a huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources.

Why waste these precious resources on someone who has expressed a desire to die, when they could be improving the life of someone who wants to live? In addition, these resources could be re-allocated to further the research of the specific disease the patient is suffering in order to allow future generations to either not have the disease or increase the quality level of care for future patients of this disease by alleviating the symptoms of the disease at the very least.

In addition, if the patient is an organ donator and the organs are healthy, it may save up several lives which are ultimately invaluable. This is an awful disease which takes any quality of life away, One lady i know has been bed ridden for 5 years unable to communicate , move her limbs or anything if the nazis had done this to people it would be a war crime.

This is not about god or any other belief its about common sense. Everyone should have the right to say while they are still of good mind if they get this or another illness at a certain stage they have their life ended, What i see every day is slow often distressing painful deaths which is no more than cruelty,we really have to change the way we think No because Just because beds in hospitals are needed by others is no reason to allow a person to die!

Some can be cared for at home, or in special hospices. If we stopped caring for the terminally ill at all where would we draw the line? Is treating the elderly also a waste of resources because they are nearing the end of their lives anyway?

I think that to describe palliative care as a "huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources" is rather harsh! This means that the patient, unless an absolute miracle happens, will die eventually regardless of how many interventions it takes to prolong his or her life expectancy. This time and money could be used to help others or cure others who aren't mortally wounded or diseased. The rebuttal presupposes that an individual needs to wait for a hypothetical existence of a treatment being developed on an assumption that decisions that are finalized is not a justification for terminating a patient's life at one's explicit consent.

If decisions made in your life were to be stagnated each and every time in order for an opportunity to arise everytime, the basis for this principle would not be a good one at the very least. Wait one day, wait one week, wait one month, we'll stay back and see.

An indecisiveness for something which might not exist within one's lifetime would make a claim for which things ought to be reversible or decisions ought to be remade in order for things to be "controlled" in a manner.

In this respect, of the practice of "Euthanasia", death is the ultimate goal of avoidance and thus a finalized decision of upholding pain until the very last minute of life in respect to waiting for a treatment outweighs the ultimate outcome of death. The opposition makes a claim that reversibility of a decision that may be regretted later due to it being finalized is better on these grounds, however, if life was controllable in all aspects and under all possible circumstances, we were able to scroll back on our decisions, what meaningful would arise out of the circumstances for which our decisions are made on?

What would the product of our actions, time and energy be? Aren't these decisions philosophically what identify us as who we are even to the extent of a life or death situation? Also, even if a cure was possible, what complications will arise thereafter? What if the patient is of old age and will die anyways but has already lived a long healthy life? It cannot be justified to deem that waiting for something which might or might not exist in a future to occur outweighs the prospect of pain.

Wait for a miracle "cure", wait for a revolutionary science "discovery" to solve our problems, wait for a technological "innovation" The patient may be terminally ill but this statement aside from repeating other points discounts the possibility of new treatments being developed in time to cure the illness he or she is facing.

It relieves suffering If a terminal patient faces a long, slow, painful death, surely it is much kinder to spare them this kind of suffering and allow them to end their life comfortably. Pain medications used to allieviate symptoms often have unpleasant side effects or may leave the patient in a state of sedation.

They should have the right to avoid this kind of torturous existence and be allowed to die in a humane way. Appeal to "naturalism" is a very bad argument. We take medical pills, we put up an umbrella to avoid having rain fall on us, we try to not live in a tribal manner like our ancestors where we deem ourselves to live a civilized life where we do not simply kill eachother and rape eachother because its the "natural conclusion" of our actions.

Suffering may a part of the human condition and it can be argued to be useful in preventing us from self-destructive habits, physical dismemberment or physiological damage due to negligence of the body, etc. However, does that justify that we ought to endure a pointless pain just because it must be part of life's experience? Just because life is unfair doesn't mean we should start treating others unfairly, or just because sex is a part of the human experience, that we have an obligation to perform intercourse.

Also, if an argument of biological existence is made, then why is it limited to humans in the treatment of this manner? What is the difference between existence and living? Do people want to live in a state where they cannot progress, breathe, talk, hear, see, suffer from paralysis and slowly die?

People do want to live, and merely existing is not enough. If we just had to exist, then why do we need a spectrum of other human experiences? Why do not we just limit ourselves to sleep, eat, reproduce, etc? There is more to life than existing in such a state. There is a straight answer for this: Suffering is part of the human condition and part of life's experience.

Also medication can be improved to help a person's quality of life and make their deaths as humane as possible. Futhermore even if a person is in a state of sedation they are still biologically existing and still have what some would say an obligation to live their life until its natural conclusion.

Everything in this world happen for a reason that could be beneficial for that person but he or she may not realise it. You may say know that how if a person is suffering severly from ilness would that be a good thing for him or her??

Bu toyu never know. I mean that i take as murder. We all say and agree that murder is something really bad and is not allowed so how come killing a person is the right thing??

Even if that person is suffering. What would you call it? Wouldn't you call it killing. I will say that life is something complicated.

It is not something that we could ever realise and understand percent but each and every single person lives for a reason and when someone would die i definitly don't have the choice to choose whether to kill that person or not even if he or she is suffering.

Maybe yes a person would absolutely like to avoid suffering and have a relaxed life but sometimes and mostly always things don't always turn out to be exactly like what we want. So I think it depends on how a person believes in God if he or she have faith in God then they will know that this is the will of God and will take it. We can't say that there is a life with no suffering each and every person in his life have suffered in their life but it is how you deal with them that matters and not to run away because you're afraid to face them or afraid that you would suffer because they alwaus say that you will always face your biggest fears in your life.

So i would never kill a person and take the blame for it my entire life as i might someday sit alone and ask myself a question, did i kill my mother?? Right to choose Our legal system accepts that people have a legal right to choose when to die, as demonstrated by the fact that suicide is legal. This right is denied to those who are incapable of taking their own lives unaided. Legalising euthanasia would redress this balance. Our legal system also recognises that assisting a suicide attempt is a crime.

Human beings are independent biological entities, and as an adult, have the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves. A human being decides who they spend their life with, their career path, where they live, whether to bear children. So what is the harm in allowing a terminally ill patient to decide for themselves whether they die in a hospital or in their own home?

Surely a terminally ill sufferer is better qualified to decide for themselves whether they are better off dead or alive? Their disease makes them so crippled they cannot commit suicide alone. Human beings should be as free as possible and unnecessary restraints on human rights are strongly discouraged.

The opposition makes an arguement of inclination. However, it ought to be rejected that people, intuitions or legal entities should advocate the death of an individual. The life an individual rests in the considerations of the consequences of an individual's actions. If we deny them this right, we make a claim that we own their life.

We own the product of their time, energy and utility. This is something we must never fall into. Although it may be said from a financial sense, things aren't good; we do attempt to put human life in an invaluable scale.

It may be said that human beings are precious for various reasons, but the value of an individual's life can never be determined by the state, another individual or entity. Even though life insurances are in place, the individual's self-assigned worth is what gives the individual its own worth for its very own existence. The right to choose is not something which our legal system has "accepted" we all have. This is far from the truth. Suicide was decriminalised in the UK solely for the reason that it is not a punishable offence — it is of course impossible to punish a dead person.

This is by no means a reflection of the general opinion of society. Furthermore the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Diane Pretty that a person does not has a recognised right to die as stated in this quote: If Euthanasia is allowed in some cases these people whose treatment may be costing relatives or the state a lot of money may well feel that they are not worth the cost of keeping them alive.

This is not something we would want anyone to feel as in essence it takes away their freedom of choice on the matter. Relatives spared the agony of watching their loved ones deteriorate beyond recognition A person dying from cancer feels weak; exhausted and loses the will to fight.

Muscles waste away, appearance changes and the patient starts to look older. A cancer patient becomes confused, no longer recognising family and friends. Motor neurone disease causes the sufferer to lose mobility in the limbs, having difficulty with speech, swallowing and breathing. Involuntary movements, difficulties with speaking and swallowing, weight loss, depression and anxiety may also occur. Families of individuals suffering with such diseases see their bright, happy relative reduced to a shadow of their former self.

Their loved one suffers a slow and painful death. Surely, it is kinder to put a mother, father, brother or sister out of their misery and allow them to die a peaceful death, as is their last wish. Even if their relatives may be suffering from watching their loved one's condition detiriorate, they have no right to either decide or put pressure on a person to end their own life because of their own sufffering.

Just as it may be the individuals right to die it is also the right of the individuals right to "rage against the dieing of the light" with their support of their family so to speak. While it may be an 'agony to watch a loved one deteriorate' many will also want to spend as long as possible with their loved ones, and more than likely a family will be split on the matter meaning that the views of the family would have to have no impact on the matter.

It reduces the spread of diseases When a person is sick, there a chance that a contagious agent exists within the host. The longer the duration that the individual is kept alive, it may increase the risk of others being affected by the disease if the individual is not handled properly. This is not a reason for not keeping them alive because what if they actually get cured and got the chance to start a new life. I don't think that it will REDUCE the spread of diseases becasue there are other people in the hospital that may suffer from different diseases which may be contagious right?

The relationship between Law and Medical Ethics At the core of a legalized physician assisted suicide PAS system is the principal that medical ethics should be governed and regulated by the professionals instead of lawmakers.

A PAS system puts the expertise of the doctor and the experience of the patient at the forefront of the issue and views both perspectives rightly as the most credible in a given situation. The law cannot adapt to the specificity and multitude of ethical problems that arise on a situational basis. The law can only take into account circumstances that it foresees and can elaborate on. The highly personal and situational nature of this issue deems it insufficient for legislation, which exists outside the realm of the personal.

The foundation of medical ethics relies upon the understanding of the consent when applicable of the patient to the procedure and the discretion, judgment, and experience of the medical profession to whom the patient has entrusted their care. The basis of good and ethical health and health systems relies upon the integrity of this.

Laws are codifications of what morals exist in a society. Side Opposition wonders how exactly 'Medical Ethics' would be defined in the status quo anywhere in the world if these things were not defined through the law. Furthermore, most nations have ways in which the law can in fact be changed, thus giving law the ability to adapt to the specificity and multitude of problems that do exist in regards to health care.

Also, without the law then attempts to even test a society with PAS wouldn't exists anyway. Simply put, the law is what safeguards patients, doctors, and everyone else in the medical field, anywhere. And still, any change in health care can directly affect not just what humans can do, but how humans think about being human and, therefore, what rights and obligations humans should have. As issues of between medical ethics and the law come into play the importance of prudent use of law to protect health and safety becomes central.

Finally, issues of social justice and resource allocation are presented more starkly in the medical care context than in any other context. The Ethical Safeguards of PAS To ensure that a system maintains the highest ethical standards, numerous safeguards will be implemented. Secondly, Euthanasia can only be undertaken at the request or with the permission of the patient Oregon provides a good example by requiring two written requests at least 15 days apart, an oral request and other safeguards to ensure the capability of the patient to make such a serious decision.

Also, two doctors must verify the decision-making capability of the patient. Lastly, Doctors must perform the task of providing means and administering but only if necessary, otherwise the patient will self-administer.

In the medical profession, there is an unavoidable problem dealing with the prognosis of 'terminal' patients.

Many problems arise when physicians try to diagnose a disease that will be terminal or try to recognize the terminal phases of an illness. Cardiac disease is the leading cause of death in the United States [34], but persons with atherosclerotic disease are not considered to be terminally ill even though their deaths may occur at any moment.

This has much to do with why PAS is very hard to implement. These definitions will differ not just in the US, but in other nations around the world. At the point we recognize this to be true, proposition would be granting the right to PAS for some people, and yet not for others. This is why we look to palliative care, because, at the very least, the standards are clear. The prognosis will alter as the patient makes decisions about treatment of the primary disease or intercurrent illnesses.

But let's talk about Oregon: However, only four of the candidates had psychological or psychiatric consultations. Eleven others did not. Since the way in which PAS has been provided in a current system has not been shown to be systematic, it has shown to not be fair either.

Surgeons don't operate without informing a patient of all their options, or doctors do not prescribe prescriptions without allowing for other options, yet PAS physicians have been able to let some patients undergo consulting while others don't have as much help. Because of this, PAS is inherently unfair on the basis that some patients will have access to more knowledge than others - this is important because all patients are attempting to make the same choice.

Discrimination in Palliative Care and how PAS can end it Those who have terminal disease that are less common often face more suffering. Without the lobbies and charities behind diseases like lung cancer, brain cancer, etc. They are denied basic analgesics because of their economic situation. Though physicians may be available, long-term palliative care is often ineffective as the physicians must respond to a large area of need and the constant support is left up to the family of the patient, who are limited in resources and training.

Minority groups are less likely to be given palliative care. Dalits, African Americans, and other minority groups are systemically given poor health care coverage and treatment. The result is that they face more emergency care rather than preventative and more inpatient non-palliative deaths. Without the option for PAS, minority groups often face alienated deaths in the institutions that have alienated them.

In the case of the Roma people, both an ethnic and a lifestyle minority are discriminated against without access to PAS.

Because of their nomadic way of life, the European healthcare system allows them to fall through the many cracks. The European healthcare system, like many worldwide, is inherently biased to those who have a lifestyle of the majority, i. A inequality in palliative care in places around the world is not enough to justify its circumvention. If anything, the option of PAS not only decreases the growth of the success some palliative care has been able to prevent, but it will prevent it's growth in the future as well.

Legalizing physician-assisted suicide is merely a part of the debate about improving end-of-life care. It cannot be viewed as a quick and easy fix, or a way to protect patients from inadequate care arrangements.

Too many people still suffer needlessly, often because doctors and families just do not know how to serve people who are dying. The main problem lies with a lack of knowledge.


Main Topics

Privacy Policy

Mercy Killing essays Imagine a body slowly and excruciatingly being broken down by an unseen and uncontrollable invader. Now imagine that there is a law preventing anyone from ending that suffering. Welcome to the argument over euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as "the act or practice of k.

Privacy FAQs

- Euthanasia Essay - Mercy Killing Not Necessary "Mercy Killing" as Euthanasia is also known, has been outlawed within the United States. The definition of mercy killing is where someone is terminally ill with a disease, and an accomplice helps to end the misery of that victim's life.

About Our Ads

2. Mercy Killing Essay SocX Killing Us Softly. Justine Slater Professor Greene November 4, Soc – X Killing Us Softly The lecture “Killing us Softly” gave focuses on how women are portrayed in advertising and our role in society. Euthanasia, "Mercy Killing"? Euthanasia is often called “mercy killing”. It is intentionally making someone die, rather than allowing that person to die naturally.

Cookie Info

Essay on Not Permiting Euthanasia the Mercy Killing Words | 6 Pages Euthanasia is an issue that has been in the center of many heated debates for several years. Euthanasia, commonly known as “mercy killing”, is an act by which a person’s life is ended in order to relieve him or her of the pain and suffering caused by an incurable disease or terminal illness.