Do My Essay!

Do not waste time. Get a complete paper today.

Our leading custom writing service provides custom written papers in 80+ disciplines. Order essays, research papers, term papers, book reviews, assignments, dissertation, thesis or extensive dissertations & our expert ENL writers will easily prepare a paper according to your requirements.

You’ll get your high quality plagiarism-free paper according to your deadline! No Bullshit!!

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Example

Introduction

One of the greatest debates surrounding the topic of euthanasia revolves around its legalization. The legality of euthanasia has spurred a lot of debate due to the rise in cases of terminal illnesses such as cancer. There are people who support legalization of the procedure while there are others who strongly condemn it, terming it as intentional killing. Despite the argument put across by both sides, euthanasia is legally and morally wrong since it disregards the value of human life.

Euthanasia should be condemned by all means necessary since it involves ending the life of a human being. Any country that upholds Christian or any other religious values should make laws that prohibit the practice. Upon the death of Brittany Maynard, the head of the Pontifical Academy for life asserted that “…suicide is not a good thing, it is a bad thing because it is saying no to life and everything it means with respect to our mission in the world and towards those around as…” (Saul, 2014). Ideally, the Bible heavily condemns murder in all its forms through the sixth commandment of “Though shall not kill.” Therefore, physician-assisted killing should be seen and treated as murder.

In the same breadth, by allowing euthanasia, medical practitioners are given too much power to kill. Doctors are given the right to kill in what is commonly referred to as playing God. In the modern days, doctors are taking self-centered interests in making money or making things go their way. In Netherlands for example, many patients die every year due to physician-assisted killing whether it was without consent or not (Reichlin, 2001). A good example, as narrated by Sulmasy, Travaline and Louise (2016), was when a doctor took advantage of his patients’ agonies and ended up killing most of them to harvest organs for transplantation and experimentation.

Gudwriter Essay Writing

Euthanasia also destroys the normal doctor-patient relationship. Frequently, a patient seeks a doctor because he or she knows that the doctor will do anything to save their life. However, if euthanasia is legalized, then patients may distrust the doctors. Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath that makes it clear that they should treat their patients to the best of their ability, alleviate pain, and protect life. Legalizing mercy killing would go against the very oath through which doctors are sworn in.

Further, euthanasia goes against the sanctity of human life. Moral ethics dictate that nobody should intentionally terminate the life of another person or their own life (Goligher et al., 2017). In this light, “assisting’ a patient to die would be to deliberately kill a fellow human and defy moral ethics about the sacredness of human life. On the same note, intentionally terminating a patient’s life contravenes medicine’s moral foundation. The foundation that the worth of the human person is both intrinsic and incalculable (Goligher et al., 2017). In line with this foundation, human life should only be lost naturally but not intentionally.

In essence, no matter the side of the debate one is, all can agree to the fact that euthanasia is a form of murder. Both parties to the debate may present arguments but what remains clear is that life will be lost. In the past, some terminally ill patients had survived even when medical reports indicated that they would not survive. Therefore, it would be selfish and wrong to end the life of a patient based on a medical report. Individuals who are for mercy killing agree that sometimes miracles do happen where terminally ill patients survive (Attell, 2017). Therefore, every patient no matter their level of pain should be given a chance to live or die in peace.

Sometimes a patient may consent to mercy killing due to the amount of pain that they are going through. However, in the recent past, there have been technological advancements that tend to help to ease pain. As a result, killing a patient on the basis of ending their pain is slowly becoming a thing of the past. No medical practitioner should play God by deciding who lives and who dies no matter the level of consent given. Individuals who are in a coma and had not indicated whether they wish to die or not, have the right to keep on going with their lives until they die naturally. It is unfair to get rid of any chance of survival against anybody’s will. That should be left unto God to decide.

Most of the times, patients who claim to be euthanized do so out of pain, suffering, and medical costs. Here, they may feel as if they are a burden to their relatives and therefore desire to die with an aim of cutting down on the expenses. However, the truth is every person desires to see their relative up to the last point of their life. In case such a patient is taken through mercy killing, the relatives will live with a guilty conscious wondering whether their loved one could have survived if they were not given the lethal injection. By all means possible, the life of a patient should be preserved and no person should decide when it ends.

Conclusion

The existence of palliative care and technological advancements in the medical industry proves that euthanasia is wrong. Although there are both sides of the debate on the practice, a common agreement between the two groups is that it involves killing a patient. In such instances, doctors decide to play God and administer a lethal injection that ends the life of a patient. Although a patient may decide to receive the lethal dose, they do so out of pain and suffering, and sometimes out of concern for the medical costs involved in their care. No matter the argument put across by any group, euthanasia remains what it is: killing an innocent patient. It is morally wrong.

References

Attell, B. K. (2017). Changing attitudes toward euthanasia and suicide for terminally ill persons, 1977 to 2016: an age-period-cohort analysis. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 0030222817729612.

Goligher, E. C., Ely, E. W., Sulmasy, D. P., Bakker, J., Raphael, J., Volandes, A., … Downar, J. (2017). Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the intensive care unit: A dialogue on core ethical issues. Crit Care Med., 45(2), 149-155.

Reichlin, M. (2001). Euthanasia in the Netherlands. KOS, (193), 22-29.

Saul, H. (2014). Vatican condemns Brittany Maynard’s decision to end her life as ‘absurd’.

Sulmasy, D. P., Travaline, J. M., & Louise, M. A. (2016). Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The Linacre Quarterly, 83(3), 246-257.

Argumentative Essay on Euthanasia Outline

Introduction

Thesis: Despite the argument put across by both sides of the debate, euthanasia is legally and morally wrong since it disregards the value of human life.

Body

Paragraph 1:

Euthanasia should be condemned by all means necessary since it involves ending the life of a human being.

  • Any country that upholds Christian or any other religious values should make laws that prohibit euthanasia.
  • The Bible heavily condemns murder in all its form through the sixth commandment of ‘though shall not kill.’
  • Upon the death of Brittany Maynard, the head of the Pontifical Academy for life maintained that, ‘…suicide is not a good thing, it is a bad thing because it is saying no to life and everything it means with respect to our mission in the world and towards those around as…’

Paragraph 2:

Through allowing euthanasia, medical practitioners are given too much power to kill.

  • Doctors are given the right to kill in what is commonly referred to as playing God.
  • In the modern days, doctors are taking self-centred interests in making money or making things go their way.

Paragraph 3:

Euthanasia destroys the normal doctor-patient relationship.

  • A patient seeks a doctor because he or she knows that the doctor will do anything to save their life.
  • However, if euthanasia is legalized, then patients may distrust the doctors.
  • Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath that makes it clear that doctors should treat their patients to the best of their ability, alleviate pain, and protect life.

Paragraph 4:

Euthanasia goes against the sanctity of human life.

  • Moral ethics dictate that nobody should intentionally terminate the life of another person or their own life.
  • “Assisting’ a patient to die would be to deliberately kill a fellow human and defy moral ethics about the sacredness of human life.

Paragraph 5:

In essence, no matter the side of the debate one is, all can agree to the fact that euthanasia is a form of murder.

  • Both parties to the debate may present arguments but what remains clear is that life will be lost.
  • In the past, some terminally ill patients had survived even when medical reports indicated that they would not survive.
  • It would be selfish and wrong to end the life of a patient based on a medical report.

Paragraph 6:

Sometimes a patient may consent to mercy killing due to the amount of pain that they are going through.

  • In the recent past, there have been technological advancements that tend to help to ease pain.
  • No medical practitioner should play God by deciding who lives and who dies no matter the level of consent given.

Paragraph 7:

Most of the times, patients who claim to be euthanized do so out of pain, suffering, and medical costs.

  • Here, patients may feel as if they are a burden to their relatives and therefore desire to die with an aim of cutting down on the expenses.
  • The truth is every person desires to see their relative up to the last point of their life.
  • By all means possible. The life of a patient should be preserved and no person should decide when it ends.

Conclusion

In summary, the existence of palliative care and technological advancements in the medical industry proves that euthanasia is wrong. Although there are both sides of the debate on euthanasia a common agreement between the two groups is that it involves killing a patient.

Gudwriter Essay Writing


gudwriter

Gudwriter.com is a leading academic writing service that is dedicated to providing extra support and help to students all over the world. Through our website, students can request for help in a diverse range of subjects and disciplines. We understand that studies are the foundation of success; yet they can be quite a challenge without extra help. Ours, therefore, is to pick up where your lecturers stop by providing you with a reliable process for meeting your academic needs