The Pros of Euthanasia @proeuthanasia - Tumblr Blog

Posts

Physician assisted suicide also referred to as Euthanasia has been a wildly controversial and to this day is still the topic of many debates such as should a person be put out of their misery and is it moral to end the life of a human being. According to Webster’s dictionary, assisted suicide is "suicide with help from another person (such as a doctor) to end suffering from severe physical illness." (Webster) Assisted suicide is right in the sense that human beings should be allowed to make the decision on whether they want to live or not. The idea is to essentially put the terminally ill out of their pain and suffering because they can no longer live a life of good quality. On the flip side assisted suicide is wrong because life is precious and man should do everything he can to preserve it. As well as life being precious it is also against current legislation to commit or aid in helping one commit suicide which is where the debate begins. Both sides of the assisted suicide argument are strong in that the argument for physician assisted suicide is more of a moral decision while the argument against physician assisted suicide is more of a legal argument and the following reflects the pros and cons of assisted suicide which will be covered in this argument. “The Right to Die, Patient Suffering at End-of-Life, Slippery Slope to Legalized Murder, Government Involvement in End-of-Life Decisions, Palliative (End-of-Life) Care, Healthcare, Religious Concerns, and Living Wills.” (ProCon.org) Legalization of physician assisted suicide, although viewed as wrong by some, would be the best course of action because it allows the suffering to stop suffering and allows the terminally ill to take control of what time they have left to live.

There are many reasons against euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. One of the main reasons is from a religious point of view. The United Stated Conference of Catholic Bishops states:

"As Catholic leaders and moral teachers, we believe that life is the most basic gift of a loving God- a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion. Our tradition, declaring a moral obligation to care for our own life and health and to seek such care from others, recognizes that we are not morally obligated to use all available medical procedures in every set of circumstances. But that tradition clearly and strongly affirms that as a responsible steward of life one must never directly intend to cause one's own death, or the death of an innocent victim, by action or omission...We call on Catholics, and on all persons of good will, to reject proposals to legalize euthanasia.

By saying this, the leaders of the catholic religion are expressing how it is religiously wrong for someone to cause their own death by means such as euthanasia. Life is given to humans by God and humans should not have complete control over it. Life is precious and should never be ended by anyone.

Another point is made by Doctor Edmund D. Pelligrino about the slippery slope to legalized murder:

In a society as obsessed with the costs of health care and the principle of utility, the dangers of the slippery slope... are far from fantasy... Assisted suicide is a half-way house, a stop on the way to other forms of direct euthanasia, for example, for incompetent patients by advance directive or suicide in the elderly. So, too, is voluntary euthanasia a half-way house to involuntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia. If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent? Why need we ask for consent?

This is the main reason that physician assisted suicide is illegal today as current legislation states. Anyone would be scared to go to the hospital if they thought their physician could just give them a euthanizing drug without their consent. The slippery slope that doctor Pelligrino refers to is society may translate this as a right for a doctor or the government to kill anyone for whatever justifiable reason they determine. Even such as someone who simply does not want to live anymore. This starts to lead into the basis of euthanasia, an opposing view can be that if this were socially acceptable it can become a loose cannon. There may be too many autonomous decisions causing the death of the elderly or disabled persons that are viewed as being useless burdens on society and its resources because there is always a large argument of concern of the added health care expenses to the elderly and disabled patients. Another danger would be to the mentally ill because if the courts eventually allow as assisted suicide they most unsurely would allow for the mentally ill to make a choice of death even though they do not have Mens Rea (guilty Mind) to understand what they are actually doing to themselves.

However, Based on the advocacy of Hemlock society and Doerflinger:

An individual should be able to seek one’s own determination in deciding whether they live or die and the argument is why should one be forced to remain alive when their existence is terminally erect with pain and suffering which is no life that anyone would cherish. Death is simply more preferable than the hardships than living a seriously ill life. One should be able to have the dignity as a human and an individual to have the ultimate control of their existence or nonexistence.”

This should all be balanced against what is already in the law books which is the constitutional right to die which was set by the Supreme Court in 1973. And thus, one should also have the option to extinguish his or her own life without any government interference. Being alive while suffering is not enjoyable for anyone (the person suffering or friends and family witnessing the suffering) and a person should have the right to end all suffering because there is no longer a good quality of life to be lived. Having this economy to make this decision would better serve the suffering individual while not making a statement that their life is just not worth living for no apparent reason of justification.

An argument can be made for physician assisted suicide based on a quote from the Declaration of Independence which states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (U.S. Declaration of Independence)

If specifically looking at freedom consider a slave and the fact that he or she being a slave does not have that freedom and for them to live is worse off than that of a copse under those conditions. Thus it is arguable that the freedom to have the choice of termination of one’s life is a form of freedom which is guaranteed of Americans and a freedom from pain and suffering. Also, it is noted that this freedom from a life of pain and suffering is another definition or form of the freedoms guaranteed. To further the argument of no freedom guaranteed to an American and an individual who is suffering from terminal illness does not have to guarantee freedoms to explore or pursue simple everyday tasks of life. They are in fact a slave to their terminal illness.

Living wills also play a major role in physician assisted suicide as pointed out by lawyers Pozzuolo, Lassoff, and Valentine:

"Living wills can be used to refuse extraordinary, life-prolonging care and are effective in providing clear and convincing evidence that may be necessary under state statutes to refuse care after one becomes terminally ill. A recent Pennsylvania case shows the power a living will can have. In that case, a Bucks County man was not given a feeding tube, even though his wife requested he receive one, because his living will, executed seven years prior, clearly stated that he did not want tube feeding or any other artificial invasive form of nutrition'... A living will provides clear and convincing evidence of one's wishes regarding end-of-life care."

This case in a way was a physician assisted suicide because the doctors did not put the feeding tube in as requested in the will by the patient. Although this specific case did not involve a euthanization drug, it involved a man whose life was ended with the help of the doctor, or in this case the lack thereof giving the patient exactly what he wanted and an easy way out of his pain and suffering. It is odd that this way of death, even while suffering is legal, but having a doctor prescribe a drug to end life is illegal.

A strong point for physician assisted suicide is the Palliative, or end of life care. As Doctor Kimsma and Doctor Leeumen say:

" Assisting death in no way precludes giving the best palliative care possible but rather integrates compassionate care and respect for the patient's autonomy and ultimately makes death with dignity a real option... The evidence for the emotional impact of assisted dying on physicians shows that euthanasia and assisted suicide are a far cry from being 'easier options for the caregiver' than palliative care, as some critics of Dutch practice have suggested. We wish to take a strong stand against the separation and opposition between euthanasia and assisted suicide, on the one hand, and palliative care, on the other, that such critics have implied. There is no 'either-or' with respect to these options. Every appropriate palliative option available must be discussed with the patient and, if reasonable, tried before a request for assisted death can be accepted... Opposing euthanasia to palliative care... neither reflects the Dutch reality that palliative medicine is incorporated within end-of-life care nor the place of the option of assisted death at the request of a patient within the overall spectrum of end-of-life care."

Patients with terminal illnesses often are depressed and in excruciating pain near the end of their lives. One option is to charge through the pain and suffering and wait to be consumed by the illness, or the patient could choose to be euthanized to avoid the excessive pain that is included with his or her illness. Not only will euthanization prevent pain and suffering, it can also help with hospital costs and help prevent loved ones from watching the patient deteriorate and struggle to survive before their very eyes. Along with that, the patients that spend weeks or months in the hospital often do not get suitable care from doctors or nurses and are then put through more of a struggle. The doctors and nurses assume that because the patient is going to die soon anyway there is no need to put extra effort into their care and the patient suffers even more making physician assisted suicide even more appealing.

In conclusion, both sides have compelling evidence to promote all sides of the argument. Religion and slippery slopes involved with unvoluntary assisted suicide are against physician assisted suicide while the hemlock society, the Declaration of Independence, living wills, and Palliative care are for physician assisted suicide. The argument for physician assisted suicide is much stronger than argument against it and the hemlock society truly only wishes to assist suicide with those who are actually diagnosed with a terminal illness and have no chance at life after the illness. The court systems would need to be relied upon heavily to prevent a wrong intent of the justification for assisted suicide as it would not be fair to these terminally ill suffering individuals to be denied terminating their lives based on supposed intentions by others. The whole goal of legalizing physician assisted suicide is to help give control to those that are suffering so that they might be able to end their suffering and leave this world in peace.

Works Cited

"Assisted Suicide." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.

"Top 10 Pros and Cons - Euthanasia - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2014.

Doerflinger, R. (1989). Assisted suicide: Pro-choice or anti-life? The Hastings Center Report, 19(1), S16-9. Web.18 Mar. 2014 Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/222364809?accountid=38769

Kimsma, Gerrit. Leeuwen, Evert van."Would Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Undermine the Quality of Palliative Care That Patients Receive?" ProCon.org. 11 Mar. 2009. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.

Pozzuolo, Joseph. Lassoff, Lisa. Valentine, Jaime. "Are Living Wills a Good Idea?" ProCon.org. 9 June 2008. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.

Frey,R.G. "Would legalizing voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide create a slippery slope to involuntary euthanasia?" ProCon.org. 14 Aug. 2009. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.

N.a. "Is the Debate over Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Primarily Religious in Nature?" ProCon.org. 5 June 2008. Web. 26 Mar. 2014.

U.S. Declaration of Independence

usanationallanguage

English, it is not just a language, but the foundation of this country. It is the language this nation was created and built on, and the language of The United States fundamental law. The United States, in a sense, is original and unique in its lack of an official language, but this concept may...

proeuthanasia

I am very impressed with your paper. It is very convincing and very well organized. It also proves your side of the argument with logic and reason without sounding biased, just informed. I also like the theme of the blog because it goes well with your argument. Though I think a few more pictures and videos would help your aesthetic appeal a bit.

noofficiallanguageyo-blog

Not having an official language

Language is what makes humans unique, and to confine a major country to one language could be the Achilles heel of that country. If a country decides to run the risk of limiting its people to one language, it is inevitable that it will surpass by a...

proeuthanasia

I agree with what you are saying and I think that your argument is convincing especially with the use of logos. However, I would make sure to reread your paper before posting it. There were a few grammatical errors that could easily be fixed. Also, make sure to use proper parenthetical citations and give credit when needed.

Pro Euthanasia

The topic of euthanasia has become extremely controversial within current society. One side argues that a person should not be forced to continue to live if they are suffering. The other side argues that a person should hold out for a medical cure that could possibly happen with the way that technology and science has skyrocketed in the previous decades. Though both of these are completely different viewpoints on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, it all comes down to a choice. Whether it be the person dealing with the illness in pain until nature takes its course, or if a loved one must decide if the person should stay on life support, its one small life or death decision, and it should not be taken lightly. The ability to be able to decide whether one wishes to pass on should be considered heavily in these cases.

Many believe that these doctors that aid in physician-assisted suicides, such as Dr. Kevorkian, are no better than common murderers and serial killers. One popular case that claimed the doctor was performing murder was the case of Terri Schiavo. “In 2005, efforts to stop artificial hydration and nutrition for Terri Schiavo, a young woman in a persistent vegetative state, resulted in a public controversy and were depicted in national media as murder” (Goldstein et al, 334). Although it was depicted as murder in the public eye, taking Schiavo off of life support was the ethical thing to do. By allowing Schiavo to survive off of these water and food lines, resources were being taken away from patients who had a chance at recovering from their illnesses. It is likely that Schiavo would not want to go on living her life without much purpose than to be a breathing human being, as claimed by her husband later on in her treatment. She was alive, but she could not walk, talk, interact with loved ones, or even feed herself. Schiavo had no purpose in life anymore, which is why the decision to remove her from life support was made. Schiavo was also brain dead, meaning that she had suffered such a massive amount of brain damage, and it was completely un-repairable. It was also shown in an autopsy performed on Terri Schiavo’s brain on April 1, 2005 that her brain weighed 615 grams, which is half of the expected brain weight for a full grown adult (Procon.org). This autopsy shows exactly how much brain damage she endured. Her life was simply being prolonged with the use of life-support machines, all because some people believed that taking Schiavo off of life support would be committing murder. Finally, she was allowed to be removed from her feeding and allowed nature to take its course.

There is a slight difference between both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. “Euthanasia is defined as ‘the administration of drugs with the explicit intention of ending a patient’s life at the patient’s explicit request’” (Siu, 169). However, on the other end of the spectrum, “physician-assisted suicide is defined as ‘the prescription or supplying of drugs with the explicit intention of enabling the patient to end his or her life by an overdose’” (Siu, 169). The minor difference between these two is the person who is administering the drug. Some believe that a doctor should not be the one to administer the drugs, and some believe that they should not be allowed to aid in these suicides at all. If a patient is turning to one of these alternatives, it is most likely that their pain and suffering has become so unbearable that the patient no longer wishes to live their life, in a sort of call for mercy. When these patients are suffering so much that they have no other choice but to end their lives, then their last wish should be allowed to be fulfilled. Brain dead patients who are also in a permanent vegetative state are not able to speak on their behalf whether they would want to be removed from life support or not, unless they previously mentioned this to someone while they were healthy before they reached this state. If the individual has not previously stated what they would want in this particular situation, then a family member or a spouse are able to make a decision based off of what they knew about the patient. However, sometimes these loved ones tend to make biased decisions because they do not wish for the patient to pass on.

It is questioned whether or not if a patient is actually dead if they are considered brain dead. Brain damage is permanent and cannot be fixed from medical advances in coming years, one of the reasons families choose to keep their loved ones alive. According to current sciences brain death is terminal and there is no chance of recovering from this state, therefore the patient is doomed to live in a persistent vegetative state for the rest of their lives. “The concept of brain death dates to 1959 with the introduction of ‘coma dépassé,’ a state beyond coma indicating loss of life functions such as reflexes, consciousness, and mobility” (Arbour, 27). It is important to note that this describes brain death as the loss of life functions, meaning that when a patient is pronounced brain dead, the patient is no longer capable of fulfilling everyday tasks. If a human being is no longer able to live out their daily lives normally, and is not even in a conscious state, there is no point to living. Not only are these patients occupying spaces for patients who need treatment in order to get better, but they will never be able to interact with their family members again. They are not truly living; the machines are giving them life. It should be a person’s right to die, and it is cruel to keep someone alive when they cannot enjoy life the way they should be able to.

Physician assisted suicide is more controversial than passive euthanasia. In these cases, the patients are alive and functioning but their diagnoses are also considered terminal. These are the cases where the patients are in excruciating pain and are close to their death bed. However, these patients are in so much pain that they just wish it would all end. This is where doctors, such as Dr. Kevorkian step in. “No one should choose to die from suffering that could have been relieved if clinicians had the will and expertise” (Quill, 58). This shows that to resort to physician assisted suicide, the patient must have no other hope in medical treatment, and need to end their pain and suffering. Many physicians when asked to assist in this task will simply prescribe a pill to the person who no longer wishes to live because of the amount of agony they are in. This allows the patient to be in control of their death and allow them to make the final decision. This also does not violate the Hippocratic Oath that many medical professionals are required to make because they themselves are not committing murder, but simply providing the patients with the means to end their own lives. Although many conservatives argue that this is demeaning and dehumanizing to human life; it comes down to a choice. A person deserves to make the choice about whether they are ready to end their lives or not.

In America, it is wrong to not allow a person their freedom to choose for themselves. Some Americans want to make it illegal for a person who is terminally ill and suffering to determine when their time to pass on is appropriate. Not only this, but they believe that keeping a patient alive in a permanent vegetative state is saving humanity. However, there are many individuals who are for Euthanasia. The California Pro-Life Council claims to have 155,000 members of their council in just the state of California (Holden, pg. 521). Euthanasia is not transforming beloved and trusted physicians into murderers. These doctors offer this as the last solution because they understand the pain and hardships endured by these patients. Many pet owners would not blink an eye to euthanize their dogs or cats if they believed that these animals were suffering from pain so. This same principle should be able to be applied to the human race as well. These deaths are performed in a mercy for the patient. Terminally ill patients are in such pain, depending on what illness they suffer from, that it is a relief to no longer be in that pain and to leave Earth feeling freed from their horrid bodies that caused them such distress. This power is also not to be abused. These mercy killings are currently not used within the mental health community, where patients who feel suicidal may be treated. It is only available to patients, who previous to their illness had not been suicidal, who feel as if they have nowhere else to turn. This debate also makes a full circle to the point on whether the patient should be able to make a decision on whether or not to accept this offer from their physician. The patient should be able to accept or decline just as if it were any other treatment opportunity. As for patients who cannot speak for themselves and have not previously made a statement about what they wish to be done should they end up in this situation, the family should, to the best of their ability, decide what their loved one in question would have wanted. In any case, it comes down to the removal of the life support or whether the patient decides to take the pill or not. It’s all a matter of choice.

Works Cited

Arbour, Richard B. "Brain Death: Assessment, Controversy, And Confounding Factors." Critical

Care Nurse 33.6 (2013): 27-48. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.

"Euthanasia: Did You Know?." Procon.org. Procon.org,

<http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000128>.28 Sept. 2010.. Web. 22 Apr. 2014

Goldstein, Nathan E., et al. "Prevalence Of Formal Accusations Of Murder And Euthanasia Against Physicians." Journal Of Palliative Medicine 15.3 (2012): 334-339. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.

Holden, J. "Demographics, Attitudes, And Afterlife Beliefs Of Right-To-Life And Right-To-Die Organization Members." Journal Of Social Psychology 133.4 (1993): 521-527. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Apr. 2014.

Quill, Timothy E. "Physicians Should 'Assist In Suicide' When It Is Appropriate." Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40.1 (2012): 57-65.Academic Search Complete. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.

Siu, W. "Communities Of Interpretation: Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide Debate." Critical Public Health 20.2 (2010): 169-199.Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.

"Just as I shall select my ship when I am about to go on a voyage, or my house when I propose to take a residence, so I shall choose my death when I am about to depart from life."

-Seneca

This page sets out the arguments in favour of allowing euthanasia in certain cases. Should we accept that euthanasia happens and try to regulate it safely? Do people have the right to arrange their own deaths?

"Yes, we need euthanasia, for certain cases where people are in comas or too immobile to even press a button."

-Dr. Jack Kevorkian

"I believe there are people who are healthy and mentally competent enough to decide on suicide. People who are not depressed. Everyone has a right for suicide, because a person has a right to determine what will or will not be done to his body. There’s no place for people to turn today who really want to commit suicide. Teenagers, and the elderly especially, have nowhere to turn. But when they come to me, they will obey what I say because they know they’re talking to an honest doctor."

Dr. Jack Kevorkian

"I'm not afraid of being dead. I'm afraid of what you might have to go through to get there."

Paula Bone

Pro Euthanasia

Pro Euthanasia or Physician Assisted Suicide Euthanasia, also known as, physician assisted suicide "basically means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering" (Nordqvist). There is an ongoing debate on whether euthanasia has more advantages than disadvantages. Many Americans, such as myself, believe that euthanasia should be legalized. If euthanasia becomes legalized it will help put many people that are suffering at ease. There are many people in America that are suffering from painful diseases and most of the times that person is going to want to be put out of the constant state suffering. "Legalizing euthanasia would help alleviate suffering of terminally ill patients. It would be inhumane and unfair to make them endure the unbearable pain."(Maisie). A person terminally ill has the right to put an end to the suffering that the person is going through. There are many people who point out the cons of euthanasia such as, that a patient could easily be influenced into choosing the path of euthanasia by a family member or a corrupt doctor looking for personal gains. Another issue is that every doctor takes a hippocratic oath: that the doctor will never intentionally bring harm to the patients. In the court case Washington V. Glucksberg they ruled that "The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause" (Maisie). Others say that euthanasia is basically murder in a hospital, because of the fact that doctors are supposed to save lives, not end them.: "In 2005, of all deaths in the Netherlands, 1.7% were the result of euthanasia and 0.1% were the result of physician-assisted suicide. These percentages were significantly lower than those in 2001, when 2.6% of all deaths resulted from euthanasia and 0.2% from assisted suicide. Of all deaths, 0.4% were the result of the ending of life without an explicit request by the patient. Continuous deep sedation was used in conjunction with possible hastening of death in 7.1% of all deaths in 2005, significantly increased from 5.6% in 2001" (Heide). Although many will say even if that is a small percentage of people it is still people being murdered, but, one must also think of the bigger percentage of the people and what they want, which is to be put out of the suffering. Also many people are questioning whether legalizing voluntary euthanasia in Belgium and Holland has created a "Slippery Slope" to involuntary euthanasia.: "The critics who rely on this slippery slope argument often omit two important elements, thereby using flawed logic. First, the argument is only effective against legalization if it is legalization which causes the slippery slope. Second, it is only effective if it is used comparatively, to show that the slope is more slippery in the Netherlands than it is in jurisdictions which have not legalized assisted suicide or euthanasia. Since these questions have not been addressed by critics, little attention has been paid to available evidence on causation and comparability There is no evidence demonstrating that the Netherlands has a greater rate of non- voluntary or involuntary euthanasia than other Western countries. Indeed, there is a significant amount of evidence demonstrating the prevalence of both voluntary and involuntary active euthanasia in various jurisdictions in which euthanasia has not been legalized, looking at criminal prosecutions, admissions by doctors and anonymous surveys of medical professionals" (Heide). Nancy W. Dickey, MD, President of the Texas A&M Health Science Center, was quoted that "Neither Oregon nor the Netherlands appear to have started down a slippery slope. Also, physicians have become better equipped to offer a wide variety of palliative care, leading them to become more effective at it and very rarely having to resort to assisted death. The passing of the law was a formalization of a practice that the Netherlands freely admitted occurred on a less-than-rare basis" (Dickey). With all of that being said, legalizing euthanasia has many advantages that come with it. For example, if someone is going through a horrible illness and is suffering terribly knowing that one will die soon due to this terminal illness anyway, an ill patient has the right to be put out of the suffering by using euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, if one wishes to do so. : "In an attempt to provide medical and emotional care to the patient, a doctor does and should prescribe medicines that will relieve the patients suffering even if the medications cause gross side effects. This means that dealing with agony and distress should be the priority even if it affects the life expectancy. Euthanasia follows the same theory of dealing with torment in a way to help one die peacefully out of the compromising situation" (Maisie). A physician assisted suicide is no different than any normal suicide, both groups of people should have the same equal rights to end ones own life if one chooses to do so. Although euthanasia goes against some religions, such as, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, but not everyone believes in the same ethical laws, even with people that are practicing the same religion. There are many pros to legalizing euthanasia, a few examples are,: "health care costs can be reduced, which would save estates and lower insurance premiums, some patients want to die with dignity rather than have the illness reduce the patient to a shell of ones former self. Vital organs can be saved, allowing doctors to save the lives of others, also without euthanasia, a physician's assistance suicide, many people may commit suicide in a messy, horrifying, and traumatic way that can be prevented with the practice of euthanasia. Reasonable laws can be constructed which can prevent abuse and still protect the values of human life" (Messerli). These can all be very beneficial to not just the ill patient but also to anyone who might become sick in the future, and it will give that sick a better outlook at the choices that one will be able to have. There are many arguments that are used to support the legalization of euthanasia, and many arguments that are against the practice of euthanasia."One of the most brought up arguments against euthanasia is that it is not reversible, Once the patient is gone no one will ever know know if a recovery was just around the corner, or if the patient might have gone on to lead a full and happy life despite the illness"(Morris). Although this may be true it is not always true, but if that person at the time had the choice of whether to take ones own life one will do that knowing that there could have been a tiny chance that that person would have recovered and lived a happy life. However, the argument most brought up: "ignores the data that shocks most people. The fact is that all the nations where euthanasia is legal, it is the near-exclusive preserve of the terminally ill. Terminal illness is usually exactly that: the final step before death. In 1991, a Dutch report into euthanasia found that in eighty-six percent of cases, euthanasia shortened life by a maximum of a week and usually only a few hours. It is a last resort- an escape used by patients in unbearable agony who would rather that agony ended now rather than in two days' time" (Morris). Another argument often made is that euthanasia can save many peoples lives. For example,: " In the Netherlands, where progressive laws on euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, have been put in place for over a decade now. In 2005, a study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 0.4 percent of all euthanasia procedures were carried out without the patient's explicit permission. A report in 1991, written over a decade before euthanasia was legalized, put the number at 0.8 percent. In other words, giving a nationwide go ahead for doctors to legally end their patient's lives actually halved the number of unwanted deaths" (Morris). People will most likely use euthanasia whether it is legal or not, so to make it safer and to have the procedure done easily, legalizing euthanasia would be the way to go. Most of the citizens of the United States believe that euthanasia should be legal, but voluntary, not forced upon someone or done without the consent of the patient or the patients family. "Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are not ends with intrinsic value, but are means to realize the end of a good death or, more accurately, a quality dying experience" (Emanuel). There is a huge debate going on about whether the public believes that euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide is right or is it considered cold blooded murder. "Seventy percent of the United States believes that ending the patient's life by some painless means should be allowed, while twenty seven percent believe that this should not be allowed to happen, and three percent had no opinion on this topic. But, fifty one percent of the United States believes that assisting the patient to commit suicide should be allowed, while forty five percent believes that this should not be allowed, and four percent of the public had no opinion on this topic" (Saad). This shows that more of the United States public believes that euthanasia should be legal, than the people who believe it should not be allowed. "Death is a form of happiness for those who choose it. Euthanasia should be legalized for the benefit of terminally-ill patients. The current policy need to be reviewed for two reasons. Firstly, in a practical sense, governments should help the terminally-ill patients so that the patient can escape from unbearable pain and die with dignity. Under the status quo, patients suffer from pain twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. In the cases of terminal cancer, when cancer cells reach your bones the cancer cells continue to damage the patients bone, and tissue, and it causes throbbing pain for the patient. The second reason is philosophical. The right to death should be regarded as important as other values. Generally speaking, people believe that ones right to life is an absolute value, and to live as long as possible is an overriding good in every circumstance. Life is now treated as if it is a sanctuary and nobody should violate it and choose death until nature ends your life. However, life is not an ultimate value. The weight of life varies from one person to another. In other words, life is just a relative value and thus the right to death can be one of the options for the citizens" (Debatewise). The terminally ill have a right to die peacefully if one chooses to do so, whether it be because of ones pride or just for the fact that one is tired of fighting. Euthanasia is something that a person should have the choice of doing. No one knows the pain that the person that is terminally ill is going through or the kind of pain that is being endured, except that person, and if that person thinks it is best to be put out of the misery by the performance of euthanasia than that is that persons choice alone and no one else. Who is the government to decide who gets to suffer in pain for who knows how long rather than just be put to rest by choice.

Works Cited "Debatewise." Debatewise. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. Emanuel, Ezekiel J. "Euthanasia or Physician Assisted Suicide." JSTOR. N.p., Apr. 1999. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. Heide, Agnes. "Has Legalizing Voluntary Euthanasia in Belgium and Holland Created a "Slippery Slope" to Involuntary Euthanasia? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., 10 May 2007. Web. 15 Mar. 2014. Messerli, Joe. "BalancedPolitics.org." - Physician Assisted Suicide (Pros & Cons, Arguments For and Against, Advantages & Disadvantages of Euthanasia or Doctor-Assisted Suicice). N.p., 7 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. M. Dr. Maisie. "Pros and Cons of Euthanasia" Buzzle.com Buzzle.com 23 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 March 2014. M, Maisie. "Pros and Cons of Euthanasia."SanJuanUnitedSchoolDistrict". N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2014. M, Morris. "10 Arguments For Legalizing Euthanasia." Listverse. N.p., 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2014. Dickey, Nancy W. "Has Legalizing Voluntary Euthanasia in Belgium and Holland Created a "Slippery Slope" to Involuntary Euthanasia? - Euthanasia - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. Health Day News, 9 May 2007. Web. 19 Mar. 2014. Nordqvist, Christian. "What Is Euthanasia (assisted Suicide)? What Is The Definition Of Assisted Suicide Or Euthanasia?" Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 19 Mar. 2010. Web. 14 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. 13 Mar. 2014.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

The Pros of Euthanasia