Voting Against Euthanasia

We are a group of students that have decided to take the choice of pro-life and against Euthanasia. We debate that the value of life is much more important than taking an easy way out.

[usanationallanguage]

The United States of America should make English the official language spoken throughout the country. Although there are down falls to making an official language like taking away the diversity that the United States strives for (Smith). It would also be hard for those who are citizens but do not...

[golifelovers]

I loved the page overall, the way it was set up made it fun to look at read about. I thought that you had great information from your papers and I liked to read more about it. I thought that the videos also helped a lot with your side of the debate and as well as the pictures. But overall, it was a great blog! 

[noofficiallanguageyo-blog]

The Benefits of Bilingualism

[golifelovers]

Being bilingual makes you smarter and can have a profound effect on your brain.

I loved the page, it was really intriguing and fun to look at. It defiantly made me side with your dab ate because of the strong facts that you had, and strong points that were made. 

[noofficiallanguageyo-blog]

The Benefits of Bilingualism

[golifelovers]

I thought y'all made some very good points in your argument about why America should not be an only english speaking country. This was my favorite point that y'all made. Your papers very interesting and I enjoyed reading them. I also like the background picture at the top of this page! Great job (:

Being bilingual makes you smarter and can have a profound effect on your brain.

[golifelovers]

The Faults with Euthanasia

Since the first known philosopher, humans have debated on the significance and meaning of life. Whether someone is religious or not, there is no doubt that the existence of humankind is both mysterious and substantial. Although these beliefs of life and human existence are still prominent to this day, many today believe that there are exceptions to when and how life can be ended. The debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide has been increasingly argued ever since advanced technology has created more difficult medical situations. While pro-euthanasia arguments have relevant points containing the idea of dying with dignity and an end to suffering, the overall idea of euthanasia is a skewed and unethical practice. Just the idea of allowing respected medical physicians to aid a patient in ending his or her life should be considered a heinous violation to the medical practice as a whole.

There is no doubt that many people with serious illnesses often suffer a great amount of pain and trauma, especially when patients may be terminal. Family members have a hard time seeing their loved ones suffer for long periods of time when a second option is always hanging over their heads; if the suffering patient wishes for death to come sooner, there is always assisted suicide to end the pain. Dr. Maisie in her article about the pros and cons of euthanasia states, “In case of individuals suffering from incurable diseases or in conditions where effective treatment wouldn’t affect their quality of life; they should be given the liberty to choose induced death” (Maisie). This statement suggests that humans have the right to choose how they die, an idea which, to most people who support euthanasia, is the most compelling idea behind the practice. Supporters believe that when one chooses to die, there is dignity in death. Although this argument does sound reasonable, it contains many noticeable faults. No one can convincingly say that there is a dignified way to die, considering that death is most usually look upon as an unfortunate event. Additionally, most would not know if the ill patient is in the right state of mind to choose the day of their death; most patients who are on pain killers can become incoherent. Another argument toward pro-euthanasia is the idea that healthcare would be able to be distributed more equally if health services were not used so much on those who are terminally ill and want to die. One source states, “Allowing such people [terminally ill] to commit euthanasia would not only let them have what they want, it would free valuable resources to treat people who want to live” (Ethics Guide). This suggests that medical institutions should not waste any medical technology or medicines in order to stabilize ill patients who wish to die, but instead use these resources to save others who wish to live. This argument can also be deterred by the possibility that a terminally ill patient may feel obligated to be euthanized in order not to be a burden on medical institutions that could spend time and resources on patients that have an actual chance to live. This obligation would lead to involuntary euthanasia in patients and could become a regular event in patients who become severely ill (Ethics Guide). One of the most intriguing and substantial opinions on pro-euthanasia is the idea that humans have the freedom, under the Constitution, to choose death. “Nowhere in the Constitution does it state or imply that the government has the right to keep a person from committing suicide” (Messerli). The previous statement implies that it is a recognized freedom under the Constitution that one can take his or her own life without the government interfering. However, by openly allowing euthanasia to occur in medical institutions, this practice could lead to a whole new set of laws and regulations that could put pressure on medical professionals whose main job is to preserve life. There is no reason that the practice of euthanasia should interfere with the work and respect of healthcare professionals by forcing them to oblige to the unethical wishes of ill patients to assist them in suicide.        

As humans, most people value life and respect the fact that medical professionals must do anything in their power to save the lives of their patients. Such ethical and moral rules are found in the Hippocratic oath, which is what medical professionals swear by before entering the medical field. By allowing doctors to euthanize ill patients, these medical professionals would be breaking the Hippocratic oath: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” (Tyson). The Hippocratic oath is set in place to guide doctors morally and ethically in treating and dealing with patients; a weakening in the oath could lead to the disregard of the oath completely, making ethical reasoning in the medical field unclear. Another argument against euthanasia is the “slippery slope argument” that begs to ask the question of whether or not deaths will soon become involuntary due to the pressures of vulnerable patients, such as the elderly, weak, and distressed patients (Quill and Greenlaw). No patient should have to feel pressure to commit assisted suicide because it may become normal in society; instead, patients should feel comfortable with the fact that physicians are working hard to treat and care for them.  Another idea that has been brought to the light by many against euthanasia is the possibility that doctors will become too powerful if the government allows them to choose if they want to aid a patient in assisted suicide (Messerli). Physicians make mistakes like anybody else and sometimes misdiagnose patients with potentially terminal illnesses. If a patient were misdiagnosed with a deadly illness and requests to be euthanized, the doctor would be wrongfully killing a patient. The act of wrongfully killing a patient would be seen as unethical, and it is not only against the law but also against the Hippocratic oath. In theory, by allowing physician-assisted suicide, this practice could terminate the need for palliative care. The purpose for Hospice and other therapy institutions is to offer moral and physical support for patients that are terminally ill. Hospice institutions and other treatment centers offer guidance for family members and the ill while also offering comfortable living environments for patients to live out their final days. If euthanasia were to be legalized, palliative treatment centers might see a decline in business because health institutions may want to direct patients to euthanasia because it would be more cost effective and less time consuming (Ethics Guide). When looked at by all possible angles, the cons to euthanasia far outweigh any pros that can be said about the subject.

By not allowing euthanasia, society will continue believing that life is still something that is valuable and that ill patients can continue battling illness in the hopes that they may overcome it, instead of taking an easier way out by committing assisted suicide. Sick patients can always pull through with a miracle by overcoming illness, but they will never know they can if they decide to end their lives. Physicians will never have to deal with the overbearing idea of helping patients kill themselves, while also breaking the Hippocratic oath and moral boundaries. Ethical standards would stay in place at health institutions, allowing for patients to fully trust medical professionals with the caring of their lives. Ill patients will never feel pressure to commit assisted suicide because they feel they are a burden to their families or to health professionals. Hospice centers would stay open and would help terminal patients and families emotionally and spiritually, allowing patients to accept their life circumstances and stay comfortable throughout the remainder of their days. There are so many ways that life could remain valuable for the terminally ill by eliminating the option to kill themselves legally in a health institution.                                                                                                                   

The thought of having future generations of terminally ill patients living out their days in a comfortable and supportive environment, such as palliative treatment centers, without worrying about being a burden to society or medical professionals is a wondrous idea. No one can ignore that the medical field can also sustain ethical boundaries, and no medical professional will have the tough and immoral situation of assisting a patient in suicide, which goes against the Hippocratic oath sworn upon by medical personnel, if euthanasia were demolished. Instead, physicians can focus on giving care to patients in the best way possible without the worry of stepping over ethical boundaries by assisting with euthanasia. The abolishing of euthanasia will eliminate the wrongful killing of patients who may have been misdiagnosed with a deadly illness, and it can also eliminate patients committing assisted suicide because they feel medical treatment will be useful for someone else worth saving. The medical field may even see a huge turn around when it comes to the research of deadly illnesses with a new pressure of curing patients who have the will to live, instead of having patients who take the easy way out with euthanasia. This pressure to cure patients can mean a wave of newfound medical treatments for terminal patients, giving patients and their families hope for a brighter future. There are so many possibilities in the medical field for advancements, which can be made with the elimination of euthanasia, that it is obvious that society could easily benefit from making assisted suicide illegal. The new age of palliative care and the treatment of terminally ill patients are just around the corner if society begs to ask if euthanasia is moral and ethically right. Then the medical field will be able to abandon the practice of assisted suicide and work toward creating longer lives for terminal patients.

                                                Works Cited

“Ethics Guide.” BBC News. BBC, 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.

“Euthanasia.” New York Times, 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.

Greenlaw, Jane, and Timothy E. Quill. “Framing the Issue.” Physician Assisted Death.       The Hastings Center, 2014. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

Maisie, M. “San Juan Unified School District.” Pros and Cons of Euthanasia. San Juan     Unified School District, 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.

Messerli, Joe. “Physician Assisted Suicide.” Balanced Politics. Balanced Politics, 7 Jan.    2012. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

Tyson, Peter. “The Hippocratic Oath Today.” PBS. PBS, 27 Mar. 2001. Web. 16 Mar.       2014.

[usanationallanguage]

The United States of America should make English the official language spoken throughout the country. Although there are down falls to making an official language like taking away the diversity that the United States strives for (Smith). It would also be hard for those who are citizens but do not...

[golifelovers]

This blog is very informative and it is very persuasive. After reading this, it makes me really want to agree with your side of the argument. Also, I really like the blog theme and the header on this page because it flows with your argument.

[golifelovers]

Religion... One of the many strong arguments of why people don't believe in euthanasia.

[golifelovers]

[golifelovers]

[golifelovers]

This lady is a clear example of she loves life and is willing to fight for it.

[golifelovers]

The Negative Sides of Euthanasia

The Negative Sides of Euthanasia

From the elderly to now children that have, disabilities, extreme pains from an illness, or just a terminal disorder now have the option to stop all the distress with the practice called euthanasia. Euthanasia, or assisted suicide, is commonly known as taking the life of someone due to them being extremely sick, and to relieve them from their punishing pain. Some people agree with treatment because they believe that it is a humane way to end a person’s misery from pain or disabilities, and allow for them to die with dignity. Also, from terminating someone’s life due to pain, it relieves family members, or those paying for treatments, from financial concerns. However, there are more underlings in this procedure then people do not know about. Places like the UK have made it illegal to help anyone kill themselves, for lawful reasons like; half of the cases of euthanasia have not been reported. And many were carried out without consent. Furthermore, on the religious side, communities believe that God has given the gift of life and should not be hindered by the natural course of a person’s death.  Additionally, euthanasia should not be supported because if this is a solution to one problem than it opens the idea to many more unneeded deaths. Physicians find that eventually they will have a list of patients to help them with an assisted suicide. Due to someone receiving euthanasia to relieve them from the stress of their aching discomfort, then other people with minor concerns think that they need it. Overall, there are many more wrong reasons of the use of euthanasia than saying “it relieves people from pain” and “allows for them to die with self-respect” to promote this procedure; it is accompanied with many more complications than people are aware about.

Those who agree with euthanasia believe that such problems such as; prober regulation should not be a problem to control. However, they do acknowledge that there will be some complications that will remain. Another argument that the pro-euthanasia opponents say is that, people have control of their own bodies and can do as they please with it. That includes that time that they think they should die, in what way, by who they want. From that emerges the idea that restraints on human rights is a bad thing, because human begins should be free to do as they please. According to BBC, people also argue that they have a right to die. If people have the right to live and make what is going to happen as good as possible, then people have the right to make their deaths as good as possible as well. The pro-euthanasia challengers base their arguments on their rights, and temporary results and not the more real future results of what can happen if euthanasia did become legal.

On other hand, the oppose side has different beliefs on Euthanasia and its effects on the upcoming results. When it comes to the religious opponents on topic, they completely disagree. This is because it is against the will of God. According to the Hufftingtonpost, 79 percent of the population believes that God was involved in creating life, and most religious individuals disagree that people should not kill ourselves or have assist in it. Their belief is that God gives the gift of life, and people are made in image of Him. Because God gifted people with life, birth and death should be respected and not interfered with the natural life process that He created. Therefore, no one should have the right to take his or her own life or have help in doing it, even with that person’s approval to do it. Moreover, on the religious aspects of the use of euthanasia, life should be preserved because it is believed that God made mankind, and people have a rational existence on earth to find what is good and want it. And through development of these abilities they begin to live a life that is closer to God’s love of life. Euthanasia stops this process and also gives an individual the right to judge whether life is worthwhile. By using procedure of euthanasia, it also stops the natural process of death. Many churches believe that the phase right before death is a profound spiritual time where the spirit moves toward God, and this natural process of dying should not be interfered. In Christianity, suffering is seen as part God’s plan to allow the person in pain to share and view Christ’s agony and his sacrifices. Ending someone’s with euthanasia challenges many of the views that religious people possess, and disrupts the process that God has created for from birth to death.

 Also, known as “mercy killing,” this practice has also has many practical arguments that include the difficulties of regulating euthanasia, and the given power of death to doctors. Those that oppose euthanasia believe that there is no way to regulate the laws and standards from abuse. However, those that favor euthanasia think that regulation should not be a problem, but those same people have the fear that euthanasia will be used for the wrong motives. Regulations can not stop people, especially the susceptible ones, from the pressure of death instead of living. Setting these laws and guidelines for euthanasia will only be placed for them to be broken in future anyway, just like many general laws are today. For example, according from a study on Belgium from Flanders in 2007, from the article “Euthanasia: We Can Live Without It,” nearly 47 percent of the cases already done have not been reported. Belgium is one of the few countries that allows for this enhanced death practice, however, even the leading promoter in euthanasia, Dr. Jan Bernhiem, admitted to the problems with Belgium’s laws. Other studies done that have been illegal include, using euthanasia without consent, and nurses are carrying out procedure to patients not the doctors. These illegal acts in Belgium begin to question the doctors and their duty to save a life. A person starts to undermine the commitment of doctors and nurses to find cures and treatments for those that are ill and therefor, weakens the trust that they can save lives. Questioning the trust that doctors can make patients healthy or save a life should not be an issue, but will be raised due to euthanasia. Physicians that do carry out this method of death are said to be given too much power. With those without faith, the argument is seen as, “doctors should not be able to play as God.” This is saying that doctors are there to provide information to patients to help them in making a decision, not to have the final choice in their death. When presented with euthanasia, the ruling should be from the patient and not the doctor.

Legalizing euthanasia in more countries causes for the door to open to give death to many other people that do not need it. Once a patient is determined in a terminal state, and requested to be put to death, doctors will find requests from the disabled, chronically ill, and then request from the those with psychological problems, and sooner or later the handicapped newborns without choice will be put to death. This called the slippery slope argument, if something or somewhat harmless is accepted today, then a trend would start and the results in the future would be something that is unthinkable. The opponents to this argument think that legislation can be enrolled to create a barrier through the slippery slope. Other forms of the slippery slope argument include that health care costs will cause the doctors to kill patients in order to save money and free up beds.  According to BBC, a study has been done in 1998 that shows that doctors that are cost – conscious and practice resource-conserving medicine are more likely to write lethal prescriptions to those terminal-ill patients. Thus, medical costs have a huge influence on the medical ethics behind euthanasia on the opinions of doctors. Another example of the slippery slope argument is that it could become easier to commit murder. It is easy for offenders to disguise the murder as active voluntary euthanasia. Furthermore, euthanasia promotes the idea of suicide. The idea that it is okay to give up on life and not fight would become more common in people and this would encourage suicide.

There is always a way to not use euthanasia as an option, even to the most complex cases. Ending the life of a patient is concluded not to be humane, the job of a doctor is to kill the pain and save a life, not kill the patient and give up. Doctors do not have a limit in assessing ways to relieve pain. In fact there are many ways and easy for doctors to obtain, and the medical world today is constantly developing ways to relieve pain. When it comes to those complex cases, extreme sedation can be used, this would put the patient only to sleep and save them from their suffering, until the natural course of death comes over them. Doctors need to understand the difference between relieving pain and using euthanasia.

As for the future of euthanasia, debates will still continue, and the current law is still confused weather to withhold or withdraw the treatment. Many doctors like the undecided rules of euthanasia. However, liberal democrats have called for a Royal Commission on this issue. The Conservatives and Labor parties are both opposed with the legalization of the mercy killings. Many doctors rather administer lethal doses of drugs to relieve pain, as long it the intention is not death. The British Medical Association has decided to present a public consolation exercise on withholding and withdrawing from terminally ill patients; this was called the twin track approach. They did this to start a view on issuing guidelines to doctors, nurses, and carers about what the deemed is now acceptable. From this they hope that these guidelines help protects doctors from the threats of the legal actions weather they decide to withdraw or withhold euthanasia.

To conclude, euthanasia presents endless complications. Opponents believe that they are doing good by promoting euthanasia to society because it relives them from pain, and gives them the dignity to die rightfully. From the slippery slope argument to the religious perspectives of this practice, there are clearly many unseen problems of the future results in the idea of euthanasia. Euthanasia to doctors is overseen as something else for their benefit, and at times crosses with the law. From the article “Euthanasia Debate Continues” a spokesman for the Conservative Party said, “Euthanasia is illegal. We believe that it should remain so and would not call for a Royal Commission” many people agree and will stand by this statement.

  Work Cited:

Fitzpatrick, Dr. Kevin, and The Opinions in This Commentary Are Solely Those of Dr. Kevin            Fitzpatrick."Euthanasia: We Can Live without It..." CNN. Cable News Network, 27 Nov. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.

  "Euthanasia and Assisted Dying." BBC News. BBC, 08 Mar. 2009. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.

  Nitschke, Dr. Philip, and The Opinions Expressed in This Commentary Are Solely Those of Dr.    Philip Nitschke."Euthanasia: Hope You Never Need It, but Be Glad the Option Is There."          CNN. Cable News Network, 27 Nov. 2013. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.

  "Quebec Life Coalition." What Euthanasia Is, and Nine Arguments for Why It's Always Wrong.     N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.

  "Anti-euthanasia Arguements." BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2014.

  "Pro-euthanasia Arugements." BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.

                                                  Hafiz, Yasmine. "Evolution And God: Only 21% Of Americans Believe Humans Evolved            Without Divine Guidance." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 July 2013.     Web. 15 Apr. 2014.

[golifelovers]

                                        Down With Euthanasia

            Euthanasia can be looked at as either a positive or negative view in the medical field. There has been an ongoing debate over the subject on whether or not it is right to use this method of medical technique to end one’s life. Life is a precious entity that people should not take for granted. There have been several medical advancements in the world that have been curing all kinds of diseases. There has been such a technological progression over the last decade. As the world becomes more and more high tech, the more cures doctors and scientists will find for diseases and cancer. One should not be given the option to take their life away just because times are getting tough. Even though it is looked down upon to use euthanasia it does have a few benefits. Some benefits would be that if a person were in excruciating pain they could end that pain with a quick visit from the doctor, the person would no longer have to suffer, and it would be and easy pain free way to go. However, it is strongly believed that it is a bad thing because of religious reasons, the doctoral oath, it promotes suicide and that if patients had the right to die it would give doctors a reason to kill.

            Although, people who argue for euthanasia and that it should be used would start by saying that people have the right to their own life. America is a country that revolves around citizens having the right to do and say whatever they want too. If a person is suffering from a terminal disease, he or she should have the right to choose to stay alive or not. A person should not be forced to live in constant pain and suffering if there is an easy and painless way to die. A recent statistic found in an article called “U.S. Support for Euthanasia Hinges on How It's Described,” on GallupPolitics showed that 70% of people agree with euthanasia being a way to end a person’s life painlessly. Also, 51% of people agree that there should be an assistant for the patient to commit suicide (Saad). Since the majority of America is in favor of using euthanasia as a way to gently put somebody out of their misery, then it should be accessible. If a person wants to die, let them die. It would just be more suffer for them if they had to live when they did not want to. It is their life so it is their choice. Since people say they have the right to their own body they also have “the right to privacy and freedom of belief include a right to die. This is the idea that the rights to privacy and freedom of belief give a person the right to decide how and when to die” (Pro-Euthanasia Arguments).

            Another benefit of legalizing euthanasia is helping families with financial issues. If a family member needs constant assistance, medicine, and doctor visits it can get very costly. Money can then cause more problems within the family. Financial problems can cause fighting, breakups, and can make living very stressful. If doctors were able to use euthanasia to quickly end a person’s life, then the family could save their money and not be in the poor house.

            Life is spontaneous and unknowing. Nobody knows what is going to happen at every second of every day. When a close friend or family member passes away, it is a very emotional time for everyone. With a terminal disease there is no telling when someone will die. Using euthanasia could help families get through those emotional times much easier; if the family were to set a date of when their loved one or friend is planning on getting euthanized people could prepare themselves and their emotions so when the day comes, it would not come as a shock and they would be ready for it.

            People who argue that euthanasia is bad would firstly state that in Christianity and in other religions, it is said to be going against God and his will for a person’s life when suicide is committed. Even when being assisted by a doctor or any other certified practitioner, it is still considered suicide. Euthanasia is “opposed by most Christians, who account for eight in 10 Americans, and especially by evangelical Christians, who oppose assisted suicide by a 2-1 margin" (Is the Debate over Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Primarily Religious in Nature). Christians are a part of a community and their decisions impact other people of that community. If someone were to use euthanasia, it would leave the others in the community sad and in grief over the loss of their fellow community member. Euthanasia would also cause other people in the community that are going through tough times or pain to feel pressured into trying euthanasia to solve their problem; but, in actuality it would not solve their problems because they will be sent to hell. Not everyone believes in a god or even in religion, but since the majority of Americans believe in some sort of religion they should realize that euthanasia is going against what they believe in. Making the decision to take one’s life away is going against the top religion that people practice in the world today.  

Doctors could take advantage of being able to use euthanasia because it would give them the right to kill patients. If there were an “assumption that patients should have a right to die” then that “would impose on doctors a duty to kill” (Arguments For and Against Euthanasia). They could misuse it and instead of trying to help save a person’s life, they could insist their patient to get euthanized and just die. It would also weaken the confidence people have in doctors to actually cure people who have serious illnesses or pains. This is because if euthanasia were legal, then the doctors would not have to work and try as hard to find a cure for their patient or stop the pain that their patient has. They could just use euthanasia as an excuse to end their worries with their patient.  A lot of people already do not trust doctors because they feel like they are just out to get money, so this would just be another thing to add to people’s suspicion that they already have about doctors. Since euthanasia is not legal, it has encouraged the works of finding cures for cancer.

 Euthanasia promotes suicide in a way. Normally doctors would help and aid patients who are thinking about committing suicide or have already attempted it. It should remain this way instead of them helping patients commit suicide because they are going through pain and suffering.  All pain is temporary and doctors should be sure to remind and instill that in their patient’s minds instead of having the option of using euthanasia. Being positive about the situations and having a positive mind set even when times are tough could help get one through the rough times. Thinking positively and spending time with family could be other things that patients can do to possibly help them with their pain and suffering that they are going through. If Euthanasia was legal, then once someone does find out they have a terminal disease or cancer, the doctors would “get requests of patients with psychological problems and then with the fate of severely handicapped new-borns—who have not asked to die” (Quebec Life Coalition). Once there is something that allows people to kill themselves and not be looked down upon, people could easily use it as a suicidal method. It would surely kill them and do it quickly.

The Quebec Life Coalition brings up another good point about when a baby is born and the baby has immediate health problems. Babies have no way to say they would rather die, neither do little kids. Doctors and parents would be able to control that aspect of a life that is not theirs; which is not right for the baby or child. Even if they have a voice, they are too young to actually understand what it would do to them. Using euthanasia on babies or children is not good whatsoever. There is no argument that could help support using euthanasia on babies or children. They should have the chance to live and get through the live that was given to them. In a CNN news report, Christiane Amanpour speaks with Professor Robert George about the ethics of euthanasia and if he thinks doctors should be practicing euthanasia. Professor Robert George served on the U.S. President’s Council of Bioethics. He goes into great detail about why he thinks doctors should not be practicing with medical killing, euthanasia. Using the medical world as a way of killing is not a good way to go.

There has been this ongoing discussion of whether or not euthanasia should be legalized. There are several factors on both sides about why it should and should not be legalized. The good things of euthanasia could help end people’s suffering very quickly and painless, it would help financially for the family, and it could also help the family emotionally get through it. The bad things of euthanasia are that it goes against religion and the beliefs of majority of America, it goes against the doctoral oath to help and save us, and it also promotes suicide. In this circumstance, the bad outweigh the good. Euthanasia should not be legal and people should not be able to use it to kill themselves. It gives doctors too much power and would allow them to start being lazy with their job; scientists would stop looking for cures for cancer. Allowing euthanasia would create a domino effect in our day-to-day life. There is so much technology in the world; doctors and scientists should be able to figure out another way to help relieve excruciating pain instead of death. Even though statistics show that more than half of the public agrees that euthanasia should be used, it is not a good thing. Life is a very precious thing. It is very complex and nobody can choose to have a specific life. One should not take life for granted. Euthanasia is an easy way out of a difficult situation, but getting through that difficult situation makes people who they are. People gain experience by going through difficult things. Down with euthanasia and welcome in more life!

                                                Works Cited

"Arguments For and Against Euthanasia | CARE." CARE Arguments For and Against       Euthanasia Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Mar. 2014

"Is the Debate over Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Primarily Religious in        Nature? – Euthanasia- ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 17       Mar. 2014

"Pro-Euthanasia Arguments." BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.

"Professor: Doctors Should Not Be Killing." CNN. Cable News Network, 27 Nov. 2013.  Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

Saad, Lydia. "U.S. Support for Euthanasia Hinges on How It's Described." U.S. Support  for Euthanasia Hinges on How It's Described. N.p., 29 May 2013. Web. 31 Mar.         2014.

"Quebec Life Coalition." What Euthanasia Is, and Nine Arguments for Why It's Always      Wrong. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

[golifelovers]

This video is a good example of why people should vote against euthanasia!

[golifelovers]

Voting Against Euthanasia

We are a group of students that vote against euthanasia, and believe in pro-life. We debate that life is worth living instead of taking the easy way out.

[golifelovers]