FREE ESSAY ON ARGUMENT FOR EUTHANASIA

ARGUMENT FOR EUTHANASIA

An Argument for Euthanasia
Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person
suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the
ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to
help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the
practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die
groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and
present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the
stronger argument.
I will begin my by listing the arguments against euthanasia and my criticism of each
argument.
1. Euthanasia is a violation of medical ethics. The American Medical Association has
consistently condemned euthanasia as an unethical practice. Today, attitudes may be
changing. Recent surveys indicate that a majority of doctors in some areas, (60% in
Oregon, 56% in Michigan, and 54% in Great Britain.) favor euthanasia in extreme cases.
2. Euthanasia weakens the trust relationship between the doctor and the patient. We
expect doctors to heal and save lives, not to kill. I feel that I should be able to trust
my doctor to do what is best for me as an individual in any situation, including ending
unbearable suffering, even if it is my choice to die in order to end my suffering.
Doctors may lose the trust of their patients by not helping them to end their suffering.
3. Choosing the time and place of a person's death is God's decision. This argument
suggests that we should never intervene in any life-threatening situation. If a person is
having a heart attack, should we just stand by and watch them die? If we were to seek
medical attention in order to save his life, we would be interfering with God's will for
that person to die. This argument contains nothing that can be rationally argued against
because it does not tell us when it is okay to interfere with God's decisions.
4. The issue of euthanasia is a slippery slope. Pro-life groups contend that if we allow
any type of euthanasia, sooner or later, we would begin killing off not only the
terminally ill, but also the handicapped, the poor, the elderly and anyone else who
becomes troublesome. The view that we should not make a decision because it could lead to
other less prudent decisions later is not a reasonable foundation for setting policies,
unless later decisions are definite, and are absolutely wrong. I would hope that the
virtue of society would lead us to know where to draw the line between going far enough
and going too far. At the present time, it is not clear if where the line is drawn now is
where it should be drawn.
5. Euthanasia is killing. Most people believe that there are circumstances when killing
is allowed, such as self-defense. The only question is whether or not the killing is
justified under the circumstances. In the case of self-defense, killing is justified. The
same is true of euthanasia.
6. People who request euthanasia may be requesting it because they are depressed and they
may change their minds. I believe that psychological evaluation will detect the mental
condition of a patient, and depression, if it exists, can be treated. Patients can be
given counseling to determine if their decision is what they truly want. We must
determine whether or not patients should be able to be in control of their own lives.
7. Euthanasia violates the difference between passive and active and practices. This
argument contends that there is a moral difference between letting nature take its course
by terminating treatment when death is inevitable, and actively taking steps to make
death come quicker. The question that should be asked of this is What is the best thing
to do in a worst case scenario? The answer may be to terminate pointless treatment, or to
act in order to bring about a merciful, painless death, that brings to an end terrible,
needless suffering. The patient may ask for either one and we may morally grant their
request. In either case, death occurs and the patient's choice is involved in both.
8. Euthanasia is wrong because there may have been a misdiagnosis or there may be 
the development of a miracle cure. This argument is wishful thinking. Although these
instances are not entirely impossible, they only require that we be extremely cautious,
not that euthanasia should ever be performed.
9. Euthanasia to relieve suffering is against the role that suffering plays in God's
plan. The view that all suffering is sent from God is extreme in the sense that it
suggests that we should never do anything to relieve any kind of suffering. The majority
of people today believe that we should do everything possible to relieve the suffering of
others. To do otherwise is considered immoral. Since this is true, we can logically argue
that in some cases, when pain and suffering of a patient become intolerable, relieving
that suffering should take priority over extending life, if that is the patient's
choice.
10. A person's independence is not absolute. Today, society does not allow individuals to
do anything that they want to do. There are laws that prevent certain acts that harm
people, even if the harm comes only to them. For example, we don't allow people to sell
themselves into slavery. So the argument is that we don't have a right to ask someone to
kill us or help us to kill ourselves. Deciding what choices should be regulated by law is
difficult for any society. When a patient's pain and suffering becomes so intolerable
that they choose to end their life in order to end their suffering, society and or
government should not interfere with their decision. The choice to end their own
suffering should be entirely theirs, because no one can know their agony but themselves.
11. The consequences of euthanasia would be bad. This argument implies that guidelines
designed for euthanasia would at some point be violated, and mistakes would be made.
Anti-euthanasia activists argue that patients may choose death because they feel guilty
for staying alive and causing financial burdens on their families. Families may give up
too soon and encourage the death to end the suffering of their loved one. Doctors may not
try as hard to extend the life of a patient who is considered terminal. Society might put
less value on giving medical assistance for the disabled, the poor, and minorities
because death would be cheaper. Society may also become less sensitive to the needs of
the suffering and more insensitive about death.
These are dangers and measures must be taken to prevent them if euthanasia were to become
legal. Nothing is free form abuse. The allowed practice of withdrawing life-support,
already puts pressure on patients and family members. Doctors are currently permitted to
give heavy doses of pain medication that often makes death come quicker. The system as it
is today allows for secret acts of euthanasia, because doctors are able to also "doctor"
death certificates. Abuses of euthanasia may become less frequent if the practice was
regulated. The option of euthanasia could result in more effort towards making life more
bearable for patients, so that they would not want to die. The biggest abuse today is the
fact that we make people exist in lives that are terminally miserable and intolerable, by
not allowing them the choice of ending their suffering.
Killing someone in self-defense, killing the enemy during war, capital punishment for
horrid crimes, or killing a kidnapper who is murdering hostages are all examples of when
society views murder as morally legitimate. This tells us that ending a life is not
always considered wrong, depending on the circumstances. So, euthanasia, in certain
circumstances should be allowed.
My arguments for the regulation and legalization of euthanasia is as follows:
1. The patient's choice takes priority over other considerations in some situations.
Although we would want to provide counseling for individuals, so that every option could
be explored, the final decision to die should rest with the patient, whose incurable
illness or disability has made their life so full of agony and torment that they want to
end their suffering.
2. The doctor's role is to do what is best for each individual patient, and in some
instances, this may include ending life upon the request of a person who is suffering
unnecessarily. Many doctors insist that they are to save lives, not to end them
intentionally. The role of a doctor is to heal, to prolong life, to reduce suffering, to
restore health and physical well being. So, in extreme cases when it is no longer
possible to heal, restore health or physical well-being, or it is impossible to prolong a
life free from suffering, the best and most moral thing that a doctor can do is to
relieve the intolerable and unnecessary suffering of a patient by hastening their death.
3. Sometimes ending suffering takes priority over extending life. Euthanasia causes an
anguishing conflict between values. Life is a gift, but circumstances may turn it into a
deep hopelessness, filled with suffering and pain. We want to live happy joyful lives,
but sometimes death may be preferable to the continuation of a life of suffering and
agony. Morality does not allow us to kill, but it does require us to be compassionate and
merciful. Although we must make every effort to deter abuse of euthanasia, we must also,
at the patient's request, allow them to make the choice to end their suffering, rather
than to require them to endure a joyless, agonizing life.
4. When a person decides that they prefer death rather than life, everyone would benefit
if it were legal to show mercy. Charity and compassion demand that we legalize euthanasia
for the sake of the suffering patient and their families who have witnessed their
relatives forced to live in extreme agony. When doctors have done all they can do and
death has not yet brought an end to the patient's suffering, family members are helpless
and have to stand by and watch in horror and despair as their loved one is forced to lay
needlessly suffering, awaiting death. They find themselves hoping for their loved ones
death, so that the suffering will end. It would benefit all involved if death in these
circumstances were allowed under regulations that prevented abuse.
Families are sometimes forced to make agonizing decisions on whether to take actions that
are illegal in order to end the life of someone dear to them, who begs for death. Some
people out of desperation, use a gun or a pillow and do what they dread to do but are
forced to do to end the suffering of a child, parent, or spouse. These people face legal
prosecution. This kind of dreadful situation would not exist if euthanasia were legal.
Doctors are less apt to be accused of performing an illegal act because they are the ones
who fill out the death certificate. Some doctors admit that they have given heavy doses
of morphine to relieve the extreme pain of terminally ill patients, knowing that such
high doses will cause a quicker death. Because their primary aim is to relieve pain,
these acts are considered moral. It would not be morally right to give the same high
doses of morphine if their primary aim was to cause death. This is in my opinion wrong.
In either case, the ultimate end is death. 
I believe that it is immoral of society to force caring, compassionate people to lie and
go to such morbid lengths to help their patients and loved ones end their suffering.
These illegal acts would be entirely unnecessary if euthanasia were regulated and
legalized.
Value Premise: Everyone deserves to live a life free from suffering.
Factual Premise: Euthanasia ends suffering.
Conclusion: In order to end suffering euthanasia should be allowed.