Euthanasia-Should+it+be+legalized?-Rough+Draft

Euthanasia: Should it be legalized?

Janelle M. Andonie

Escuela Internacional Sampedrana

Euthanasia: Should it be legalized?  Passive, active, voluntary, and non-voluntary euthanasia should not be legalized since all of them can be considered another way of killing and a rejection of the significance and value of human life. Euthanasia is “th e act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” (Euthanasia, 2010) and comes from the Greek word meaning good death **(**as cited in  Paquette,  2003**).** This definition and etymology can be somewhat controversial, since to some people it is neither a good death nor something that should be done. We can see this in Smith’s (2004)  point of view: euthanasia “is about using someone's suffering — and the pity it evokes — as a justification to kill.” Even in past times, important philosophers such as Pythagoreans, Aristotelians and Epicureans opposed the idea of physician-assisted suicide (as cited in Westendorf, P. J., Seminary, W. L., Mequon, & WI., 2005). We can see this in Hippocrates’s oath, a Pythagorean, in which he stated “ I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel  ” (as cited in Westendorf et al., 2005). Even though all kinds of euthanasia are seen as a merciful death, all have the same effect. This is supported by the contemporary philosopher James Rachels, “there is no moral difference between active and passing euthanasia, since both have the same intent and consequence: the death of a human being” (as cited in Paquette, 2003). If abortion is considered to be wrong since it kills a human being, why should we legalize euthanasia if it has the same ending results? (I would recommend to omit the idea about abortion)

I'll be interested to see how you can justify not allowing a person to remove their own feeding tube or respirator if that is indeed that person's wish, so that by removing the machine keeping him alive, that person may hasten his own death (passive, voluntary euthanasia). If this is unethical, then we'll have to lock up nearly every doctor or nurse who allows this. DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders are basically the same. Another question: if people are not allowed to remove themselves from machines that will keep them alive, how long will people be forced to be kept alive? These days, we can practically prolong the life of an ill person a tremendous amount of time -- and who would pay for that? The family? Society? Are you willing to argue that people ought to be forced onto machines that will keep them alive against their will?1268968408

Human beings should not use euthanasia since it is a rejection of the importance and value of human life and can be considered a form of killing and suicide. Some philosophers who rejected the idea of individuals taking their own life were Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes claims, in //Leviathan,// that natural law forbids every man "to do, that which is destructive of his life, or take away the means of preserving the same" (as cited in Philosophy of suicide - Wikipedia, 2010). We must respect our own value as human beings and should not end our lives just because it seems the most effective way of ceasing our suffering, since it shows disrespect to our natural worth ( BC - Ethics - Euthanasia: Arguments against euthanasia, n.d. ). The problem is, concerning voluntary euthanasia, that when ill people are in unfavorable and painful conditions, the only thing they worry about is the pain they feel. They aren’t thinking about any new medical alternatives; they have no hope whatsoever. Also, e uthanasia makes vulnerable people feel pressured to end their lives, which causes them to disregard how precious and valuable there life really is. There are other cases in which elderly people are pressured by selfish families who don’t care about their lives; they think he/she is a burden to their family. This causes the elderly person to feel despised and therefore have no other solution than to us euthanasia. Other patients are abandoned by their families and therefore may feel that euthanasia is the only solution ( BC - Ethics - Euthanasia: Arguments against euthanasia, n.d. ). The State of Alaska's arguments show that assisted suicide is dangerous and that "the terminally ill are a class of persons who need protection from family, social, and economic pressures, and who are often particularly vulnerable to such pressures because of chronic pain, depression, and the effects of medication" (Arguments Against Euthanasia, n.d.). Also, accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives (those of the disabled or sick) are worth less than others. This is why euthanasia shouldn’t be legalized, since such individuals might begin to view themselves as a burden on their family, friends and society or even as a strain on limited healthcare resources ( Euthanasia., n.d.).

Accepting euthanasia will most likely lead (this is kind of weak -- how do you know that this will lead to an abuse of power -- has it happened in countries that have legalized euthenasia?) 1268968408 to an abuse of power from the doctors and/or relatives side. As we know, recently, there has been an increasing emphasis placed on health care providers to contain costs. With this emphasize on controlling expenses, euthanasia unquestionably can become a means of cost containment ( Arguments Against Euthanasia, n.d.  ), and we can see this case in the United States where thousands of people have no medical insurance. Studies have shown that the poor people and minorities are not given access to available pain control, and managed-care facilities are offering physicians cash bonuses if they don't provide care for patients ( Arguments Against Euthanasia, n.d.  ). “With greater and greater emphasis being placed on managed care, many doctors can be carried on into using euthanasia so that the facility doesn’t have to ‘waste’ so much money in a person’s medical care” (as cited in  Arguments Against Euthanasia, n.d.  ). It is easy to suggest that doctors find an advantage financially if a seriously ill or disabled person "chooses" to die rather than receive long-term care (  Arguments Against Euthanasia, n.d.  ). As Wesley J. Smith, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, points out "...drugs used in assisted suicide cost only about $40, but that it could take $40,000 to treat a patient properly so that they don't want the "choice" of assisted suicide..." (as cited in Arguments Against Euthanasia, n.d.  ). One example of doctor’s abuse of power can be seen in the Dutch doctors. They define voluntary euthanasia in a very limited way, “Euthanasia is understood [as] an action which aims at taking the life of another at the latter’s expressed request…it concerns an action of which death is the purpose and the result” (as cited in Euthanasia in the Netherlands, n.d.). The problem is that this definition only applies to voluntary euthanasia and it excludes non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, which they call “life-terminating treatment.” This distinction results as a benefit to them because instead of classifying a patient’s death as euthanasia, they classify it as “life-terminating treatment” (which in the end frees doctors from following the established euthanasia guidelines and reporting the death to local authorities). One such example, told by a physician from The Netherlands Cancer Institute, is of doctors who carried out approximately 30 cases a year where patients' lives “where ended after the patients intentionally had been put into a coma by means of a morphine injection” (as cited in Euthanasia in the Netherlands, n.d.). The Cancer Institute physician then stated that “the doctors didn’t report these deaths as "euthanasia" because they were not voluntary, and that they didn’t discuss the plan to end these patients' lives with the patients because it would have been "rude" since they all knew they had incurable conditions” (as cited in Euthanasia in the Netherlands, n.d.). Based on this evidence we can see that legalizing euthanasia can lead to an abuse of power where people might be euthanized when they don’t actually wish to die. This movement from voluntary to involuntary euthanasia would be like the “movement of abortion from only ‘only for the live or health of the mother,’ as was proclaimed by advocates 30 years ago, to today's ‘abortion on demand even if the baby is half formed’ ” (as cited in Arguments Against Euthanasia. n.d.). In the other hand, there can be an abuse of power from the relatives’ perspective since the killing of the patient can benefit them in an economical (like by inheritance) or other beneficial way. We can see this in the case of Brooke Astor’s death; she was an American philanthropist who was later diagnosed with dementia ( Huguenin, P. n.d.). After her death, her son was accused of not feeding and providing her with her medication which eventually caused her fatality.

Many of the sources that you cite have a strong bias against euthanasia, which is not bad in and of itself, but if you are only using sites that have such a bias, then your paper lacks credibility. I suggest some more research on sites that argue in favour of some form of euthanasia to provide a more balanced list of sources. Not that your opinion has to be balanced, you are doing a good job arguing your thesis. 1268968408 Legalizing euthanasia might also lead to the beginning of the slippery slope argument. “There are fears that allowing euthanasia would encourage the practice to become the norm,” since it is easier to administer euthanasia than to provide healthcare (as cited in Euthanasia. n.d.). According to Wesley J. Smith (2004): //T// //he// //Netherlands// //has allowed euthanasia for more than 30 years, supposedly under strict guidelines to protect the vulnerable from abuse. But the list of those "eligible" has steadily lengthened, to the point that it now includes depressed people without organic illnesses. And now, the Dutch government has opened the legal door to killing patients with Alzheimer's disease. In doing so, the nation sent a powerful message to Alzheimer's patients and their families: The lives of those with this dreaded disease are so burdensome and undignified that they are not worth maintaining or protecting.// Apart from this concern, there is also another one that consists in the government’s abuse by saving money. The government could diminish the payments for treatment and care and replace them with the "treatment" of death. An example of this can be seen in Oregon’s situation: //For example, immediately after the passage of Measure 16,// //Oregon////'s law permitting assisted suicide, Jean Thorne, the state's Medicaid Director, announced that physician-assisted suicide would be paid for as "comfort care" under the Oregon Health Plan which provides medical coverage for about 345,000 poor Oregonians. Within eighteen months of Measure 16's passage, the State of// //Oregon// //announced plans to cut back on health care coverage for poor state residents. In// //Canada////, hospital stays are being shortened while, at the same time, funds have not been made available for home care for the sick and elderly. Registered nurses are being replaced with less expensive practical nurses. Patients are forced to endure long waits for many types of needed surgery.// (Arguments Against Euthanasia. n.d) We can see how the government can take advantage of the use of euthanasia to limit good health care and attention in hospitals to cease ‘unnecessary’ costs. After this has happened, euthanasia will continue doing more damage; it will weaken the motivation doctors and governments have to provide good care for the dying, and good pain relief. Allowing euthanasia will also undermine the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives and will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill. As Dr. Kenneth Steven, a professor of radiation oncology at Oregon Health Sciences University, says, "There is not one case in Oregon of assisted suicide being used for actual untreatable pain…pain can be treated..assisted suicide has been used for psychological and social concerns" (as cited in Ling, J. n.d.). This is why doctors should opt for proper palliative care (and try to improve it) so euthanasia could become unnecessary in the eyes of people. Some people may consider that euthanasia should be legalized because human beings have the right to choose whether they want to use it or not and becuase it is part of the human being’s autonomy. An example of this is Sue Rodriguez, who had a Lou Gehrig’s disease and knew that she would suffer a slow, painful death. She asked the courts to grant her the choice of when to die, but she wasn’t granted with her wish. This is why she planned her own death with the help of a doctor. She argued that “her life was her own and that it was therefore her right to choose when to end it” ( Paquette, P. 2003 ). This way of thinking is incorrect since our life isn’t something insignificant which we can end just like that. Also, using euthanasia can be considered another way of killing and a rejection of the significance and value of human life. Humans should value and be grateful for the life they have instead of thinking of ways to end it. As the Irish Counsel of Bioethics states (n.d.), some opponents to euthanasia believe that ‘individuals don’t get to decide when and how they are born, therefore, they should not be allowed to decide how and when they die.”

Others may consider that euthanasia should be legalized since it is the only way out of suffering and it will allow those with no hope of recovery to die with dignity. Proponents of euthanasia “argue that euthanasia allows terminally ill people to die with dignity and without pain and state that society should permit people to opt for euthanasia if they so wish and that forcing people to live against their wishes violates personal freedoms and human rights and that it is immoral to compel people to continue to live with unbearable pain and suffering” (as cited in Euthanasia. n.d.). This way of thinking is not correct since euthanasia is not the only way out of suffering. Throughout the years, there has been an improvement at providing effective palliative care and hospice care is more widely available ( Voluntary Euthanasia, n.d.); there is also the hope of a new medical cure. Others might think that euthanasia should be legalized since it enhances more patient-doctor trust and confidence and this way people will be able to receive the right guidance. This way of thinking is incorrect since eventually its use will get out of control and doctors will start to abuse of their power and people might be euthanized when they don’t actually wish to die. As Dr. Heifetz, in his book //The Right to Die// (1975) says, "This traditional tie between doctor and patient has a unique character that exists no where else in human experience..its remarkable quality, lies in the amazing strength of the empathy that develops between them [patient and doctor]." Unfortunately, the legalization of euthanasia will destroy such bond, since society will eventually distrust doctors and start to wonder whether they are giving them the right treatment (El-Haggan, R. n.d.). We can see this in Netherlands, where “1000 lives a year are being terminated deliberately without the consent of the patient” (as cited in El-Haggan, R. n.d.). (I remember that you were concerned about your essay's length, you could make the three objections into a more brief single paragraph)

We can conclude that although euthanasia can be a way of ceasing pain, it is not the only way out. If we think about the consequences it would bring to our society, we can see that it is more of a weakness than a progress. If it were to be legalized, the results might be genocide as it happened when it was legalized under the Nazi regime in Germany. The Nazis started using it with terminally ill people, then they used it with the wound, then the retarded, then the elderly, and finally all these deaths resulted in the holocaust of 6 million Jews. No matter what one’s view of euthanasia, it would be morally wrong to ignore the pain of the patient. However, easing that pain should not be the start of a new set of problems, like abuse of power or slippery slope. Therefore, we can conclude that there is no way of properly legalizing euthanasia, since there will always be a drawback.

References Arguments Against Euthanasia. (n.d.). Euthanasia suicide mercy-killing right-to-die physician assisted suicide living wills research. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.euthanasia.com/argumentsagainsteuthanasia.html

BC - Ethics - Euthanasia: Arguments against euthanasia. (n.d.). //BBC - Homepage//. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http: //http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml// // Cavalie, R. (n.d.). Euthanasia. //CMU Philosophy Department Web Server//. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http:// http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/Forum/euthanasia/background/euth/Euthanasia.html

El-Haggan, R. (n.d.). Legalizing Euthanasia. Welcome to the Wonders of Islam. Retrieved March 11, 2010, from http://rasha.adderpit.com/euthanasia.html Euthanasia. (2010). In // Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary //. Retrieved March 05, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euthanasia

Euthanasia. (n.d.). //Euthanasia//. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://www.bioethics.ie/uploads/docs/Euthanasia.pdf

Euthanasia in the Netherlands. (n.d.). International Task Force. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/fctholl.htm

Heifetz, Milton D. (1975). //The Right to Die//. New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Ling, J. (n.d.). Euthanasia suicide mercy-killing right-to-die physician assisted suicide living wills research. Euthanasia suicide mercy-killing right-to-die physician assisted suicide living wills research. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.euthanasia.com/page4.html

Huguenin, P. (n.d.). Brooke Astor dead. New York News, Traffic, Sports, Weather, Photos, Entertainment, and Gossip - NY Daily News. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.nydailynews.com/news//2007/08/13/2007-08-13_brooke_astor_dead.html

Paquette, P. (2003). Ethics in the World.// Philosophy Questions and Theories //(p. 291). Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill. Philosophy of suicide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2010, February 25). // Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia //. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http: // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_suicide

Smith, W. J. (2004). Wesley J. Smith on Reagan and Euthanasia on National Review Online. National Review Calls Home - National Review Online. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/smith200406170902.asp

Voluntary Euthanasia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). (n.d.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/ Westendorf, P. J., Seminary, W. L., Mequon., & WI. (2005). Historical Look at Euthanasia .//Christian Life Resources :: Clearly Caring!//. Retrieved March 5, 2010, from http://www.christianliferesources.com/?library/view.php&articleid=280

You included good citations, sources and examples for each idea that you presented. These makes your essay very credible and very strong. There is almost no grammar or sentence structure errors. I enjoyed reading your essay. 1268790321

Your essay is very complete. The strength of your essay relies on the numerous quotations and situations that support your claim. The weakness, maybe that it’s a bit too long, not a biggy. The only thing I could do is revise some of your sentences:”This is supported by the contemporary philosopher James Rachels, “there is no moral difference between active and passing (passive) euthanasia, since both have the same intent and consequence: the death of a human being””…“Also, using euthanasia can be considered another way of killing and a rejection of the significance and value of human life. Humans should value and be grateful for the life they have instead of thinking of ways to end it.”user:gabriv