euthanasia Essay Examples

You need
exclusive work here

Published: Friday 25th of January 2013

How to Write an Argumentative Essay on Euthanasia

When you receive the assignment of devising an argumentative paper during your time as a student, you are required to use the rationalization abilities that you have acquired throughout your years of study. Your primary objective is to convey to the audience the reasons for which your arguments are accurate and to offer proof to substantiate your reasoning. There is a large number of problems encompassing the topic of euthanasia. A lot of these issues entail broad concepts. As a result, it is pivotal to conduct an investigation and devise an adequate thesis when you commence the writing work. Moreover, it is expected of you to exhaust a particular subject by making use of counter-arguments.

Carrying Out Your Research

The primary phase of writing an academic paper about euthanasia is researching this subject. If you search on the internet, you’ll come across a lot of materials that may offer you plenty of accurate information regarding euthanasia. The materials you select should be academic and highly applicable to the counter-argument you plan on introducing. This way, you’ll be able to familiarize yourself with the subject. The first step in writing an argumentative essay about euthanasia is to research the topic. There are many online sources out there that would give an adequate account of the topic in question. The sources need to be scholarly and relevant to the counter-argument you intend to use. This will get you familiar with the topic. Here are some of the newest arguments that have been raised with regards to the topic of euthanasia:
  • Is euthanasia permissible by law?
  • Do individuals have the authority to declare that the pain is too unbearable and that they ought to be liberated from that pain?
  • Name the appropriate methods that have the potential of being used to help physicians deal with the provocations entailed by euthanasia.
  • Is it right for active euthanasia to be classified as homicide?
  • Explain the reasons for which volitional active euthanasia has constituted a controversial problem in the US.
  • Delineate the reasonings that have been voiced in the course of time in favor or in opposition to euthanasia. Use powerful arguments to substantiate your assertions.
  • Talk about the probable future of euthanasia in the state in which you reside.
  • Discuss the reasons for which euthanasia is illegal in certain states.
Once the research phase is completed, devise a draft that distinguishes the primary idea that you plan on using in the essay. Concentrate on expanding on each section of this draft. Make sure you don’t omit any significant ideas. Devising a comprehensive draft will make it easier for you to write the body of your academic paper. This will help you organize your rational thoughts and include every significant piece of information. The organization of the draft is decisive to the success and objectivity of your paper.

Devising the Thesis Assertion of your Euthanasia Paper

The thesis assertion of any paper constitutes a synopsis of the primary ideas you wish to convey. In order for the audience to understand the meaning of your essay, the thesis statement ought to be comprehensive and accurate. This assertion needs to be introduced in the primary paragraph of your paper, which has the purpose of presenting the subject and clarifying its significance. Prior to devising the thesis statement, you should provide a brief context regarding the subject. This way, you’ll make it easier for the audience to comprehend the thesis. Your thesis assertion ought to concentrate on the subject. Last but not least, place the thesis statement in the last phrase of your introductory paragraph. Here is how the thesis statement of a euthanasia essay should look like: “Ending the existence of another person constitutes homicide, regardless of whether or not that individual gives their approval.”

Writing the body of your euthanasia argumentative paper

All of your body paragraphs ought to concentrate on approaching a crucial problem and aid in devising the reasoning of your thesis statement. It would be an excellent idea to create a separate paragraph for each of the materials you’ve gathered while researching the topic. This is where an adequate draft can be useful. Convey your arguments using strong proof to substantiate them. Another excellent idea would be to add a paragraph that discusses a philosophical argument that opposes your perspectives. Provide proof regarding this viewpoint by using the quoted material. Make sure you underline the reasons for which this argument is weak and irrelevant to the subject. By taking into account the viewpoints of an opponent argument, you’ll be able to consolidate your own argument. Furthermore, this sort of approach is regarded as well-mannered. The conclusive paragraph ought to sum up the motives delineated in the body paragraphs. When concluding the paper, reiterate your thesis assertion. After the paper is complete, you need to check it for errors and make sure that it features a formatting style that is adequate for an argumentative paper. Verify if you have linked your thoughts coherently and if you have organized your reasonings adequately. Watch out for sentences that might be contradictory! Last but not least, make sure the overall style of your paper is not an informal one.

Euthanasia Essay Example

The Legitimation of Euthanasia: Pros and Cons
The intention of willingly hastening the demise of a terminally ill individual, even if aimed at putting an end to his or her pain, has always been debatable. The famous British thinker Francis Bacon is the one who coined the term of “euthanasia." The philosopher used this word to refer to a smooth and painless demise, without anguish and agony. In spite of the ancient origins of the concept of euthanasia, starting with the days of Hippocrates, the long-established medical code comprises the prohibition of providing a lethal medicine or offering recommendations that might result in the death of a person. Euthanasia denotes any activity that has the purpose of ending the existence of a consenting individual, and it can only be performed by someone uninterested.
Notably, the 39th World Medical Assembly ratified the Declaration on euthanasia, which asserts that an action aimed at willingly ending the existence of a person at their own demand or that of their family is unacceptable. This refers to both active and passive euthanasia. The physician is compelled to alleviate the pain of the terminally ill patient using the entirety of the techniques that are accessible and lawful. Nowadays, there are a lot of individuals who believe that, in certain situations, euthanasia represents a more compassionate action than letting the person live (Piccirilli Dorsey, Inc.). However, one should investigate if human beings are within their rights to decide about the life or death of another person. This issue is of concern to both regular individuals and physicians. In addition to that, people will probably never find a unique approach to this issue. As a result, when it comes to the subject of euthanasia, the arguments are both in favor and in opposition. I will start by listing out the particular motives for the legitimation of euthanasia. First of all, this procedure allows people to fully exert their legitimate prerogative of disposing of their own existence. This right of disposition also entails choosing to die. Furthermore, an individual is acknowledged as a supreme value. As a result, their real prosperity, the necessities and the entitlement to self-determination, the entitlement to liberty, the entitlement to consideration and self-esteem need to be ensured in their entirety (Strinic, Visnja). Another argument is the fact that euthanasia ensures the application of the doctrine of humanism, which is amongst the most critical ground rules of law. Euthanasia represents a merciful action because it puts an end to the pain and anguish of a terminally ill patient. The government and population need to acknowledge this entitlement for the benefit of a restricted cluster of individuals who require it (Strinic, Visnja). Another noteworthy perspective is that of the European Court of Human Rights, which sustains an impartial stance regarding this matter, acknowledging the entitlement of the States Parties to autonomously decide on the legalization of Euthanasia (“The Right To Assisted Suicide In The Case Law Of The European Court Of Human Rights.”). By examining their resolutions regarding euthanasia, one can notice that, in the majority of situations, the European Court of Human Rights did not consider the concrete circumstances of the cases. Instead, its decisions were founded on infringements of the procedural norms. Nevertheless, one ought to remember that, as a matter of fact, in the entirety of advanced countries, homicides committed out of mercy still exist in practice, regardless of their legal or illegal status. As noted by many authors, 40% of the entirety of diseases of terminally ill patients originate in medical resolutions adopted by doctors regarding the termination of life, either by denying the administration of medicine or by administering substances that speed up its emergence. As a result, in states in which euthanasia is illegal and there are no lawful methods of defense against the wrongful use of euthanasia, the circumstances are even more unfavorable. The legitimation of euthanasia needs to be subjected to specific technological and judicial filters that will determine regulations, particular standards as well as situations in which this kind of entitlement may be exercised. The legalization of euthanasia was also discussed in an official document devised by PACE (the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) back in 2003, titled “Questions and Answers on euthanasia." According to this document, such a procedure needs to be regulated and limited by comprehensive norms and regulations. The only way in which the abusive framework implemented by a lot of European states can be terminated is by devising regulated methodologies (Assistance To Patients At End Of Life). Jonathan Van Maren makes reference to 20 different reasonings that oppose the legalization of euthanasia (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”). Firstly, the general opinion is that assisted self-destruction amounts to passing away with honor due to the fact that it takes place rapidly. This would mean that people who die a slow death pass away without honor. The second argument is that assisted suicide comes in contradiction with the purpose of hospitals, that of administering treatment, rescuing people and diminishing suffering. Turning murder into a service provided by hospitals would constitute a violation of the basic principles of medicine. The third argument is that euthanasia turns individuals who wish to be subjected to this procedure into inferior people (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”). Someone who is not diagnosed with depression cannot express their desire to stop living. On the other hand, the law practically acknowledges that the existence of a depressed individual is less precious. According to the fourth argument, as per the regulations of euthanasia, the government and hospitals are in charge of deciding if an individual ought to die. Consequently, disabled individuals are regarded as inferior citizens, due to the fact that their existences are not as precious as those of non-disabled individuals. The guardians of Belgian children suffering from disabilities are offered suggestions regarding subjecting their children to euthanasia. The term of “euthanasia” originates in a Greek word that means “good death” and is dependent on the eugenics, a term that is also translated from Greek and signifies good childbirth (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”). Same as abortion warrants the murder of fetuses diagnosed with trisomy 21 or different types of malformations, euthanasia is used for the purpose of murdering individuals who were born but are not as refined as other people. The fifth argument claims that euthanasia eliminates frontiers. If that an individual is suffering from a mental disease and wishes to call a suicide hotline, which is governmentally financed, doctors would not be sure how to proceed. This is due to the fact that they’d have to decide whether or not to stop an individual from exercising their right to die. Consequently, the doctor would find it hard to establish if this would constitute an infringement of the entitlements of human beings in a country that authorizes homicide. In the end, after granting women the entitlement to abortion, individuals who attempted to make females reconsider this decision were accused of infringing their lawful right of having an abortion. Furthermore, the legalization of euthanasia also renders individuals with suicidal tendencies considerably more powerless, seeing as the legitimation of the choice of a human being of ending their own life amounts to a confirmation that such individuals ought to die. According to the seventh argument, euthanasia brings about a novel meaning of the word “medicine”, which encompasses lethal drugs, administered by a doctor with the obvious premeditation of murdering a human being (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”). The eight argument states that euthanasia gives rise to a new, false entitlement, namely the entitlement to dying. This threatens the entitlement to living, which no one should be allowed to renounce. The entitlement to dying constitutes a juridical nonsense. Granting governments and tribunals the entitlement to decriminalize homicide represents a highly hazardous action that comes with an extensive array of negative outcomes. For instance, a lot of Dutch citizens die as a result of forced euthanasia (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”).
In addition to the aforementioned arguments, granting doctors the legitimate entitlement to murder, regardless of the situations, is absurd and hazardous. Medical professionals may use this entitlement to conceal malpractice or inappropriate conduct. Such cases have already occurred in states in which assisted suicide is permitted. The 11th argument presented stipulates that descendants may push their parents to profit from this service. These kinds of precedents have taken place in both American and European states. When individuals benefit from longevity and start spending their economies, an egotistical descendant may resort to such actions to secure their inheritance. According to the 12th argument, those in favor of assisted suicide disregard the fact that certain individuals might feel coerced to demand to be euthanized due to an array of motives. For instance, the decriminalization of assisted suicide for children in Belgium disregards the fact that youngsters may be forced into this. (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”) The next argument claims that the manner in which the ultimate phase of assisted suicide ought to be executed has not been discussed enough. The inappropriately named preventive procedures have been deceitful and unproductive in the entirety of countries in which assisted suicide is permitted by law. Statistics show that a lot of people feel happy after they fail to commit suicide. However, those who are assisted in committing suicide have no opportunity of ever feeling sorry about their resolution. Furthermore, euthanasia relies on a non-religious doctrine. Once a person dies, everything ends; self-destruction does not have any impact. This belief is opinionated. According to the Christian convictions, death is not the end and committing suicide has tremendous spiritual outcomes. Furthermore, euthanasia as an ethical matter has never been appropriately examined yet. The voices who sustain its legitimation appear to have adopted an axiomatic perspective that this type of suicide constitutes an entitlement without ever trying to devise a coherent doctrine to justify this viewpoint. The 16th argument states that the entitlement to assisted suicide is misused and exploited in all countries in which it is permitted. For instance, Dutch judges have permitted certain individuals to demand assisted suicide for their old parents who were suffering from mental illnesses. In doing so, they have ignored the fact that those parents have never demanded to be killed and that there was not enough proof to attest to their desire to stop living. Saskia Fry, the leader of the Exit branch in the German part of Switzerland claimed that those who are against euthanasia think that elders are not capable of expressing their free will (“20 Reasons Why Euthanasia Corrupts Everything It Touches, And Must Be Opposed”). However, old individuals think and autonomously make decisions. Furthermore, their family and friends are attempting to dispute the option of an individual to die. Notably, elders are considerably more knowledgeable, independent and self-reliant than they were in the past, and they pointed out to their reluctance regarding the expertise and skills of individuals who assist with suicide. Furthermore, in states in which assisted suicide is legal, the fees for euthanasia are growing. An enormous number of Belgian and Dutch citizens pass away annually as a consequence of assisted suicide. According to the 18th argument, experts in morality support the decriminalization of forced euthanasia, which has already occurred in Holland (Jotkowitz, A B). In addition to this, assisted suicide trivializes the existence of human beings, seeing as physicians are ready to murder a patient in pain same as they would slaughter a wounded critter. Finally, in countries where euthanasia is legitimate, those in favor of it exploit it to the maximum. Their so-called preventive procedures and restricted conditions represent blatant deceit. Their final objective is to offer assisted suicide without any expression of regret. One could say that assisted suicide solely has one significant drawback, namely its dismal reputation amongst people, which is founded on spiritual beliefs that displease the atheists. Furthermore, a lot of individuals base their opinion on weird and pointless parallels to the old days when people thought that death and suffering were natural processes that everyone had to endure (Piccirilli Dorsey, Inc.). Society had an obsession with worshipping life as a universal asset and refused to think about dying. The act of committing suicide is not something brutal. Brutality is when a terminally ill patient of the third millennium passes away in pain like an animal due to people’s preconceived ideas. In conclusion, people ought to face the fact that the issue of assisted suicide needs to be appropriately regulated by the law. Once this is done, the fate of a lot of individuals who are suffering from pain and desperation could be improved.