Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Miscellaneous Euthanasia5 Euthanasia5 In this term paper I have chosen to speak about euthanasia because this is a topic that provokes as much controversy as capital punishment, primarily because it is irreversible. The question of euthanasia being right or wrong is one that most would prefer left alone. My purpose here in this term paper is to show forth view points of both sides of the arguments and finally conclude with my views on the topic. Let me start by explaining what is the exact meaning of euthanasia. Euthanasia, formerly know as "mercy killing," means intentionally making someone die, rather than allowing them to die naturally. Euthanasia is one of the most important public policy issues being debated today. The outcome of that debate will profoundly affect family relationships, interaction between doctors and patients, and concepts of basic morality. Some cases exist in which euthanasia should be allowed, when done under the guidance of a medical doctor. Even suicide is starting to be accepted. About half of those with living parents think their mothers and fathers would want medical treatment stopped if they were suffering a great deal of pain in a terminal disease or if they became totally dependant on a family member. There are some people in this society that feel as if this really isn't a problem, but more of a solution. If someone wants to end their own life, then Those who oppose euthanasia argue that the medical profession must always be on the side of “preserving life”. Another reason is euthanasia will lead to the “devaluation of life”. Also they think it will force doctors and family members to “judge the value of a patient’s life”. Critics also say that acceptance will spread from the terminally ill to the less serious ill, the handicapped, or the mentally retarded. Opponents to euthanasia also claim euthanasia is a “breach of the laws of humanity”, what about the laws of nature? These laws were established long before mankind. Humanity breached the laws of nature, long before the “laws of humanity” were broken, with advances like respirators. People are the ones upsetting the balance of nature when they try to keep persons alive who are supposed to die. The planet has survived for a long time without the laws of humanity, so what makes them right? Opponents also claim that euthanasia is against God, therefore it is unethical. Yet passive euthanasia, or refraining from doing anything to keep the patient alive, has been in practice since four centuries before Christ; and in the centuries that followed neither the Christians nor the Jews significantly changed this basic idea. It was killing they were opposed to. How can anybody say mercy is against God? It would seem that God would want people to die in peace and without pain. If anything is against God it is trying to live longer than God had intended you to. One reason that those who favor euthanasia agree upon is that a person has the right to a death with dignity. Another reason is a person should be allowed a “natural death” instead of a prolonged death with medical equipment. Still another reason is that doctors are supposed to ease the pain of people not prolong it. Death is one of the few things that all people have in common. This means that there is a chance for anyone to face the decision of letting someone go. One of the bases people for euthanasia give is, a person has the right to die with dignity. People should be allowed to control their own deaths. Why should a patient be forced to live if they think their present standard of life has “degenerated to the point of meaningless”, when doctors can no longer help, and perhaps the pain has become unbearable? At this point, if the person is in a proper state of mind, they should have the choice to continue on or to peacefully die, even if they need If the person is not able to make this decision there should be a few options, a living will, the family’s choice, and the doctor’s choice. A living will should be allowed to control the outcome if the person is unable to. If there is no living will the family, consulting with a qualified physician, should be allowed to decide for the patient. The one situation that is most controversial is a patient with no family or no family member qualified to make the decision. Some think the doctor should be able to make the decision for the patient. The doctor should be allowed to decide if the patient has reached the point of only getting worse and in considerable pain. In any of these situations a doctor should be at least an advisor, they are the ones with the medical knowledge, and know the present condition of the patient and the alternatives. In some cases, like terminal illness, “death is often better than dying”, mainly due to the way that the person will die. They may have to go thorough a long period of pain and suffering. Ask yourself which you would choose, early or prolonged death. Even if one does not think that they are ending the life of themselves or another, personal views decide that it is not the right thing for another to do. Does any person have the right to control the choices of others? Another argument is that nothing should be done to preserve a life. The advances of technology have disturbed the natural balance of life and death. No longer does a person die when they are supposed to; life-support now prevents that. Opponents say doctors should not play God by killing patients, but do they realize that by prolonging death the medical profession is doing Christian Barnard, at the World Euthanasia Conference, was quoted as saying, “I believe often that death is good medical treatment because it can achieve what all the medical advances and technology cannot achieve today and that is stop the suffering of the patient”. A different version of the same argument is that doctors are not always responsible to do everything they can to save someone. If a doctor’s duty is to ease the pain of his patients, then why should this exclude the possibility of letting them die? If a patient has a terminal illness and is in great pain and the patient thinks they would rather die now than continue living with the pain, the doctor should be allowed to help. What about a person who is in a vegetative state for a prolonged period of time with no hope of Many believe that a doctor should do what he can up to a point. If a person is at the point where death is a blessing a doctor should not be forced to save a person if they go into cardiac arrest. Also it might be the patients decision for nothing to be done, in this case the doctor should do as instructed. Is euthanasia unethical? That is what the opposition argues. They preach that doctors too often play God on the operating tables and in the recovery rooms and doctors must always be on the side of life. The American Medical Association said, “Physicians dedicate their lives to the alleviation of suffering, to the enhancement and prolongation of life, and the destinies of humanity”. They clearly state the “alleviation of suffering” before “the enhancement and prolongation of life”. So if the reduction of pain would mean letting the person pass on, why would that be wrong and unethical? In some other parts of the world, euthanasia is viewed differently. In August of 1999, the Dutch government published plans to make euthanasia legal under some very strict guidelines. This plan would allow children as young as 12 to demand and receive the act of a “mercy killing.” Though these plans are not expected to receive parliamentary approval until 2000, the Netherlands is the first country to make strides at The issues related to direct euthanasia have raised many questions in my mind, to which I am still searching for answers. I believe it is necessary to consider arguments, both, for and against, in order to come to any conclusion. I believe it is an issue that society needs to address and confront. The question is, do we go that one step further and legalize acts of direct euthanasia? It is a question to which I am yet to find a satisfactory answer, however I believe it is an issue that needs to be shared by more than the health Moreover after showing the arguments for both sides of the scenario I think that euthanasia should be legalized so people will only have to think about the difficult decision of the present and not about the consequences of the future. Does euthanasia set a bad example? I would ask what kind of example are we giving our young by prolonging life at whatever cost to the person? Is quantity of life always the best option? Is the taking Bibliography: Bibliography: http://www.euthanasia.com/keyes.html “AMA: Anti-Euthanasia, Pro-Pain Control.” http://www.euthanasia.com/koop.html “Dutch Government to Legalize Euthanasia.” http://www.euthanasia.com/dutch99.html Dworkin, Ronald http://www.euthanasia.com/smith.html 19 Oct. 1999 “Survey on Euthanasia.” Survey http://hebron.ee.gannon.edu/~frezza/plae/encyc106.htm Bradley, J. Please Note: There were some arguments that have been commented by other individuals not listed here Word Count: 1536
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests