Argument Analysis: Euthanasia and the Right to Die Essay
1035 Words5 Pages
The right to die and euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, have long been topics of passionate debate. Euthanasia is simply mercy killing while the phrase “physician-assisted suicide” regards the administering or the provision of lethal means to aid in the ending of a person’s life. The right to die entails the belief that if humans have the governmental and natural right to live and to prolong their lives then they should also have the right to end their life whenever desired. Articles such as Gary Cartwright’s “Last Rights” and Margaret Somerville’s “The Role of Death” provide the life support for these two topics will likely never fade away. Both articles cover physician-assisted suicide and the right to die.…show more content…
It’s impossible to know what came before or after this statement without further research by the reader. Another example is when Somerville says, “Euthanasia and assisted suicide involve extinguishing human life. Research shows that humans have a basic instinct against killing other humans, which might be a source of the widely shared moral intuition that it's wrong to do so.” This seems to be a solid statement but when looked at closely it can easily be dissected and found to be very weak. Somerville says that “research shows…” What research? Who or what organization or school conducted the research? When was this research done? Where was the research done? Somerville also says that the idea that euthanasia is “widely spread.” According to whom is this idea widely spread? Is it spread across the world, North America, or just Canada? Another weak point in Somerville’s article is when she assumes that social seclusion is a key reason for people to make requests for physician-assisted suicide. Again some of the same question can be asked just like above. According to whom is this true? Was there a survey done for this conclusion to be made?
Although Somerville’s article does have some weak points, she does provide several solid points when trying to prove the slippery slope theory. The
Euthanasia is one of the subjects that have faced intense debate over time, the legalization of euthanasia have been debated for many years with different views presented in terms of ethical and legal consideration for both patients and health care providers. Healthcare providers are faced with ethical dilemmas when caring for terminally ill patients. They are forced to make tough decisions by using their moral reasoning to overcome some of the ethical dilemmas related to euthanasia.
Euthanasia is viewed as murder, however, ethically; physician has the moral obligation to comply with patients’ decisions. Making such decision to either withhold or withdraw treatment for any patient is not an easy decision to make based on the cultural, religious and legal factors. Death resulting to euthanasia is different between countries. Patients who experience extreme pain due to the nature of their illness are permitted to die with dignity in several countries while other countries totally condemn the use of euthanasia. Therefore, such individuals are among the few cases that continue to convince stakeholders to legalize euthanasia.
From a religious perspective; religious leaders see euthanasia to be unnecessary because for them, pain and suffering are not only a medical problem it is more than physical pain. Pain and suffering are as a result of several factors; these include psychosocial, cultural and spiritual. Such views have changed the perspective of the debate about euthanasia. The other aspect of euthanasia that has been ignored. It is a fact that the doctor has an obligation to fulfill patient’s request.
By not legalizing euthanasia is viewed as violating patient rights as the doctor refuses to help patients die. Even though many people are against euthanasia because it is viewed as murder, those who advocate for its usage view euthanasia from a different perspective. For them, the issue of cost and violation of human rights are the two most important arguments presented during euthanasia debates. Even though those who support Euthanasia argue that it helps patients die with and help in containing the overall cost of treatment, others view Euthanasia as an immoral act. Other people view euthanasia as patient’s choice, not a physician; therefore, killing patients even when physicians have signed the code of ethics, is in line with the healthcare standards because the patient has the final say. The physician does not violate human rights.
I believe that there are valid reasons for patients to consider euthanasia because it saves both the patient and their family members from many financial burdens associated with terminal diseases. Euthanasia is the choice, and an alternative for patients who suffer immensely and their decision should be respected to help them alleviate suffering. In many countries where euthanasia is permitted health care cost have been significantly contained. Patients with chronic illnesses do not have much choice but to die peacefully and with dignity. Terminally ill patients are permitted to request from euthanasia to stop suffering.
Euthanasia remains one of the hot topics among many interest groups; some people believe that it is the only humane way to end suffering. Christians believe that humans have to undergo suffering because it’s part of God’s plan. In this debate considering the political, religious, legal and personal views all these people want to justify their reasons as to why euthanasia should be legalized or not. Euthanasia remains a debatable subject because of the varied views that might be valid to a certain point.