Do My Essay!

Don't 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!!

Euthanasia Argumentative Essay Example

One of the greatest debate 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 supports its legalization while there are others that strongly condemn it terming it as killing a helpless patient. 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.

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. 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…’ (Saul, 2014). Ideally, the Bible heavily condemns murder in all its form through the sixth commandment of ‘though shall not kill.’ Therefore, mercy killing should be seen and treated as murder.

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. In Netherlands, for example, many patients die every year due to mercy killing whether it was without consent or not (Reichlin, 2001). A good example is where a doctor took advantage of his patient’s agony and ended up killing most of them to harvest organs for transplantation and experimentation  (Sulmasy, Travaline, & Louise, 2016).

Euthanasia 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 doctors should treat their patients to the best of their ability, alleviate pain, and protect life. Legalizing mercy killing would be going against the very oath that doctors are sworn in.

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 patient 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.

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. 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, suffering and sometimes out of concern on 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.

Euthanasia  Essay 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.

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

Saul, H. (2014, November 5). 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 One

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 Two

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 Three

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 Four

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 Five

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 Six

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.

 

"PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH GUDWRITER AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT"

Gudwriter Essay Writing

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


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