Bruno+Tome

FIRST OF ALL LINK IT TO THE "ROUGH DRAFTS" PAGE AT THE BOTTOM LEFT... Euthanasia, is it moral?

Euthanasia. One of the most delicate moral debates now days. (TRY TO MAKE IT ONE WHOLE SENTENCE, EVEN THOUGHT IS SOUNDS CATCHY, BUT YOU NEED MORE FORMALITY ) It is translated as “good death” in Greek, but the majority of people aware of what euthanasia is all about consider it to be morally wrong. Switzerland is a country in which active euthanasia is practiced; this meaning that the patient desires to die and commits suicide assisted by a doctor .(STATISTICS? SOURCE?) Cases like this are what bring up debates causing controversy among both sides, whether it is right or wrong, moral or immoral. Euthanasia has cons and pros, as any other moral dilemmas, and even though just thinking about premeditated death might be considered repulsive, the pros have much more weight than what cons could ever do. (STATE POSITION IN A STRONGER WAY) Euthanasia offers liberation to someone who experiences excruciating pain, and is actually going to die because of a terminal disease, such as Sue Rodriguez did in 1994 after she was diagnosed Lou Gehrig’s disease. She knew she was going to be a dead woman __walking__ (CHOICE OF WORDS, WOULD SHE BE REALLY WALKING?) if she decided to actually wait until the disease ended her life; euthanasia was a relief in this case. A person who decides that what is best for him or her is death, should be acknowledge the right to end with his or her life assisted by a doctor. Not permitting this would be considered censuring (NICE) a person’s freedom of choice, which is what allow S us to make our own decisions, whether they are for good or harm (WC). Euthanasia gives an opportunity for people who believe they have nothing else to do in this life to end things for all. It is preferable to commit medical assisted suicide than looking at a smashed body in the pavement, over subway tracks, self-directed gun shot, hanged, or overdosed. Also, in cases in which a patient has over three months of no brain activity and is still connected to machines that keep him/her alive, it is better to let that person go, instead of keeping him/her alive and watching how their relatives suffer knowing he/she might be in that state for ever, and if he/she ever wakes up, he/she will never be the same, which would crush their souls. Euthanasia relives family members economically and emotionally in cases like this. The person who experiences euthanasia, either wants to die, or is in a state in which he/she cannot decide for him/herself, and a relative decides that what is best for him/her is to let him/her die. Euthanasia is a process in which the patient suffers no pain at all, rather than if the patient decides to continue the medical treatment of a terminal disease, the patient would suffer. Also, being connected to machines makes a person worthless, knowing they will never fully recover. These reasons are why euthanasia should be morally accepted, it is an extra opportunity for those whose best choice is to simply stop living. (QUOTES AND SOURCES) There are two types of euthanasia, and both of them can be processed in two different ways. The first type of euthanasia is voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary Euthanasia is when it is conducted with consent, the patient knows exactly what he is going throw and decides to proceed with euthanasia. The second type of euthanasia is involuntary, in which the patient is in no state to be able to decide whether to live or to stop living, meaning the patient is under aged (in some cases), physically disabled (cerebral palsy for e.x.), or in a comatose state. (SOURCES) Both involuntary and voluntary euthanasia can be conducted in two different ways, passive or active. Passive euthanasia is when a patient knows he/she is suffering from terminal cancer for example and knows he/she is going to die, so he just stops taking medical treatment and waiting for his death. Another case of passive euthanasia would be disconnecting a comatose patient who requires machines to keep on living. Active euthanasia would be considered when lethal substances are used in order to end a life. Voluntary/active is the most common case of active euthanasia, involuntary/active would be considered murder in some of the cases. The principle of double effect, (which is derived from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Double-Effect treatment on homicidal self-defense), is the main element that stands up for euthanasia, when certain criteria is met, such as affecting a family’s economy by sustaining a person who might never recover, or a person who is going to suffer and die within months, is when euthanasia is morally accepted. Objections such as “euthanasia is playing god” are constantly present in the “right” side of this moral debate, but there is an answer for every cons or objection made. 1. Euthanasia devalues human life. This could be easily responded, devaluing human life is letting a person suffer, whether it is emotionally because the person has a poor perception of him/herself, or because the person is passing through hell while they experience excruciating pain because of a terminal disease, that is demeaning human life. Also not allowing a person to do what they believe what is the best for him/her is devaluating human life. 2. A slippery slope effect is played in euthanasia, first only in terminal patients, and now involuntary. The response to this objection would be that letting other relatives to decide whether the patient lives or dies should be a right, because it might affect the family economically, and not in every case the family is able to economically support medical treatment for involuntary patients, so there can be exceptions in these cases. 3. Doctors shouldn’t be involved in assisting or conducting euthanasia. The response for this might be that if a person actually wants to perform assisted suicide means that this person actually wants to die, so it is preferable that the person dies in hands of someone who knows how to perform this kind of procedures, rather than the person throwing him/herself into train tracks, cars, buildings, shooting him/herself, hanging themselves, etc. It is less traumatic for family members, and for people who might presence the act of suicide. ( AFTER THIS HUGE PARAGRAPH, DIRECT QUOTES SHOULD BE INSERTED, AS WELL AS THE SOURCES WHERE THEY CAME FROM. WITHOUT THIS YOUR ESSAY WILL NOT HAVE CREDIBILITY AT ALL. REMEMBER YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE YOUR AUDIENCE.) Euthanasia is more a relief than pain to others, even though it is considered morally wrong, it should be accepted because it is up to people to do whatever they feel like it is the best for them, even if it is deliberately killing themselves in any ways or/and means. BIBLIOGRAPHY? yOUR ESSAY TOPIC AND THE ACTUAL ESSAY WERE VERY INTERESTING AND VERY GOOD. HOWEVER, YOU NEED SOURCES TO BACK UP YOUR POSITION. YOU SHOULD ALSO BE CLEARER ON THE COUNTERARGUMENTS AND THEN STATE WHY THEY ARE NOT "CORRECT" OR "RELIABLE." TRY TO DIVIDE YOUR PARAGRAPHS, TO SHOW MORE ORGANIZATION AND FLUENCY. BY FIXING THESE MISTAKES, YOUR FINAL COPY WILL BE A TOTAL SUCCESS. REMEMBER TO LINK THIS ESSAY TO THE ROUGH DRAFTS PAGE AND WRITE YOUR NAME LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. :) GOOD JOB AND GOOD LUCK ON YOUR FINAL ESSAY, I BET IT WILL BE AN EXCELLENT PIECE OF WORK! 1268981095SHEILA SIERRA 1269039676Bruno Tomé 