Struggling to Write Your Thesis Against Euthanasia? We Have the Solution!

Writing a thesis against euthanasia can be an arduous task. It demands meticulous research, critical
analysis, and eloquent articulation of arguments. The subject matter is deeply complex, touching
upon moral, ethical, legal, and medical dimensions. Crafting a compelling thesis requires a thorough
understanding of these intricacies and the ability to navigate through sensitive topics with precision
and empathy.

Many students find themselves overwhelmed by the weight of the subject matter, grappling with the
ethical dilemmas inherent in discussing end-of-life decisions. Additionally, the extensive research
required to substantiate arguments further adds to the challenge. It's not merely about presenting
personal opinions but about constructing a well-supported, logically coherent stance backed by
evidence and scholarly discourse.

Moreover, the emotional toll of delving into such a profound and contentious issue cannot be
overlooked. Writing a thesis against euthanasia often necessitates confronting deeply held beliefs,
engaging with opposing viewpoints, and addressing the human aspect of suffering and autonomy.

In light of these challenges, it's understandable why many students seek assistance with their thesis
writing endeavors. That's where ⇒ HelpWriting.net ⇔ comes in.

At ⇒ HelpWriting.net ⇔, we understand the complexities involved in crafting a thesis against

By entrusting your thesis to ⇒ HelpWriting.net ⇔, you can rest assured that your project will be
handled with the utmost care and expertise. We prioritize quality, accuracy, and originality in all our
endeavors, ensuring that your thesis meets the highest academic standards while reflecting your
unique perspective and insights.

Don't let the challenges of writing a thesis against euthanasia deter you from pursuing your academic
goals. With ⇒ HelpWriting.net ⇔ by your side, you can overcome obstacles with confidence and
achieve academic success. Place your order today and experience the difference our expert assistance
can make.
In other words, there is no doubt that in law there is a fundamental difference between giving a
patient a lethal injection (an act) - which is unlawful - and withdrawing or withholding treatment (an
omission) - which is lawful. Even if someone wanted Argument in Favor of Euthanasia choose
euthanasia as a way to end their existence, their wish may not be carried out, unless they live in the
state of Oregon, or the Netherlands, where Physician Assisted Suicide PAS is protected under law.
Medical ethics argument postulates that attempts to legalize euthanasia infringe on one of the major
principles of medical care, which states, “a doctor must always bear in mind the obligations of
preserving human life from conception” (Dunnet, 1999, 162). Therefore, authorizing the sick
individual to end his or her life is an act of mercy. I find it sickening that people have to go through
this and it could be stopped if more people were in favour of euthanasia. A farmer in Holland is
living proof that miracles do happen in real life. Each school of thought will tackle situations in
different ways. Right now there are only two places in the world that it is legal to have an assisted
suicide, or a physician assisted suicide where a medical doctor assists in directing the suicide of a
dying patient. To kill oneself, or to get someone else to do it for us, is to deny God. Since doctors
give patients the essay on which they will base their decisions about euthanasia, any legalisation of
euthanasia, no essay how against regulatedputs doctors in an unacceptable position of power. Some
societies have regarded people with disabilities as second-rate, or as a burden on society. A classic
example of the whole reason as to why euthanasia should be legalised is Sue Rodriguez, a mother in
her early thirties. This is another of those arguments that says that euthanasia should not be allowed
because it will be abused. It starts out by telling the definition of an advanced directive. An
alternative to the years of suffering and pain, is an assisted suicide. This is the same argument that
was used against surgery only a hundred years ago. In very broad terms one can say that in relation
to patients who are dying or incurably ill the legal duty to act in a patient's best interest means
preventing or retarding a deterioration in their condition, and the relief of pain and suffering. Our
heroes are not those who have given up but those who have suffered. Shortening this period through
euthanasia could be seen as a way of relieving pressure on scarce medical resources, or family
finances. We would all agree that every human being has the right to life; it is the most basic and
fundamental of all our rights, and with every right comes a choice. In around 40 percent of
Americans, this is possible because by just knowing that euthanasia or PAS is a possible alternatives
if they perceived their Euthanasia Vs. References Boonin, D.(2000). How to argue against active
euthanasia. Therefore, allowing euthanasia is tantamount to playing God, a serious offence in most
religious doctrines. Therefore, an individual has the ability to decide and determine the course of his
or her life, including choosing when to terminate it, so long as it does not cause harm to another
individual (Thomasma, 1996, p63). For some patients this means the right to choose their own death.
There should be no law or morality that would limit a clinical team or doctor from administering the
frequent dosages of pain medication that are necessary to free people's minds from pain that shrivels
the spirit and leaves no time for speaking when, at times, there are very few hours or days left for
such communication. To end a patient's life, a doctor must have fairly good guarantee of his
prognosis. In opposition of euthanasia, critics of its legalization present four main arguments, namely
religious, slippery slope, medical ethics and alternative argument. If there was 'ageism' in health
services, and certain types of care were denied essay those over a certain age, euthanasia could be
seen as a logical extension of this practice. Religions that subscribe to this view of human life
include Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic faith (Boonin, 2000, 159).
Similarly, there is no reason to believe that legalizing assisted suicide with parameters will lead to the
horrific consequences its opponents imply and suggest. They believe that their quality of life is
nonexistent, and, therefore, see no benefits in draining money for their unending care from either
Arvument loved ones or their care provider. Please find our free samples below with the best ideas
for your works. Kappel (2007) argues that patients with severe medical conditions could become
suspicious of their physicians attempts to treat them, misinterpreting them as effort to kill. Against
the will of God Religious essay don't argue that essay can't kill ourselves, or get others to do it.
AIDS patients who have been totally abandoned by their parents, brothers and sisters and by their
lovers. Have you met people who could have benefited from euthanasia. Another reason this
violation of human rights is often not recognized is the gradual nature of the increasing power of
medical technology to maintain a semblance of life longer and longer. Those two places are the State
of Oregon in the U.S., and the Northern Territory of Australia. Every one deserves respect, freedom
and the power to control their own destiny. Basically, euthanasia means killing in the name of
compassion. There are strict guidelines on determining whether a person is under law able to have an
assisted suicide. Non-maleficence requires you not to harm patients intentionally. Since the process
of aging and the course of disease is a natural process it becomes a challenge to decide when enough
is enough. It is in these kinds of situations that the distinction between foreseeing and intending
death - the so called double effect principle - may be relevant. The House of Lords decided that
discontinuing treatment, including ventilation, nutrition and hydration, was an. A competent,
terminally ill adulthaving lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest
Euthznasia choosing a dignified and humane death rather than being reduced at the end of his
existence learn more here a child-like state of helplessness, diapered, sedated, and incompetent. We
use cookies to create the best experience for you. Some societies have regarded people with
disabilities as second-rate, or as a burden on society. For instance, a patient who is born deaf and
blind. This principle requires you to respect your patient's rights to make their own decisions about
their care and treatment. Those two places are the State of Oregon in the U.S., and the Northern
Territory of Australia. Right now there are only two places in the world that it is legal to have an
assisted suicide, or a physician assisted suicide where a medical doctor assists in directing the suicide
of a dying patient. All human beings should be valued equally, regardless of age, sex, or race. The
value of suffering Euthanasia people sometimes argue against euthanasia because they see positive
value in suffering. This is the most common reason to seek an early end. Part of the problem is that
able-bodied people look at things from their own perspective and see life with a disability as a
disaster, filled with suffering and frustration. There are six different types of euthanasia which are
usually recognised. In summarising the legal position the judge said 'the doctor is entitled to relieve
pain and suffering even if the measures he takes may incidentally shorten life' following this advice
the jury acquitted Dr Adams. Inequality in health care is a harsh reality. When legislation was passed
providing rights to these groups of people, each topic was extremely controversial.
This means that competent adults have the right to refuse life saving treatment. Finally, refusal by a
mentally astute individual to take life saving treatment is not considered as euthanasia because the
physicians cannot compel an individual to take medication against his or her will (Care, 2010). Every
one deserves respect, freedom and the power to control their own destiny. It is in these kinds of
situations that the distinction between foreseeing and intending death - the so called double effect
principle - may be relevant. Thus, in one of many studies that have been carried out over the last few
years - both on attitudes to and the practice of euthanasia - it was revealed that 22 out of 750 doctors
admitted to having actively ended the life of a patient on request and a surprising 46% said they
believed they should be legally permitted to do so (Mason et al. 2002). Nevertheless very few
doctors who have taken part in some form of euthanasia are prosecuted for murder. Some fear that
the introduction of euthanasia will reduce the availability of palliative care in the community, because
essay systems will want to choose the most cost effective ways of dealing with dying patients.
Palliative care is fairly new, but has been increasingly used in the recent years. It would be difficult,
and perhaps impossible, to stop people using persuasion to get people to request euthanasia when
they don't really want it. This euthanasia often appears as 'doctors against not be allowed to play
God'. In todays world, medical technology has advanced so much that it is now possible to sustain
life through formerly life ending injuries or illness. The legalization of abortion has not undermined
our commitment to life generally; nor, as some predicted, has it led to widespread infanticide. She
lived several years with the knowledge that her muscles would eventually waste away until the day
came when fully conscious, she would choke to death. Part of the problem is that able-bodied people
look at things from their own perspective and see life with a disability as a disaster, filled with
suffering and frustration. Hence, if appropriate care and environment is provided to such patient, he
or she could have a painless and dignified natural death (Care, 2010). The last few months of a
patient's life are often the most expensive in terms of medical and other care. Every human life has
inherent value and worth, and the decision to end a life, regardless of the circumstances, is a grave
one that should not be taken lightly. Doctors might also start killing people in order to reduce health
care costs, and to free up beds. Euthanasia should not be legalized in society because there are other
more humane medical interventions to guarantee a respectable death to a patient. This means that
generally they are keen to put enormous resources into prolonging a person's life irrespective of the.
There are also many of those who, having lost their independence and a sense of self-determination,
feel that withholding the option of euthanasia, causes an unacceptable loss of personal dignity. It
would be hard to keep control of the legalization of euthanasia. By continuing we’ll assume you’re
on board with our cookie policy. This raises the possibility that individuals may choose euthanasia
without fully understanding the implications of their decision, or may be influenced by others to
make a choice they would not have made if they were in a clearer state of mind. Therefore, refusing
patients requests for voluntary death does not lead to violation of their rights. The doctrine maintains
that there is a moral difference between actively killing someone and failing to take action (an
omission) that may save or preserve that person's life. A more practical argument supporting
euthanasia is that it is practiced anyway. This document also focuses in on the division of groups on
the idea of end of life medical care. Another reason this violation of human rights is often not
recognized is the gradual nature of the increasing power of medical technology to maintain a
semblance of life longer and longer. According to Kappel (2007), patients have a right to accept or
refuse treatment. Acceptance of death often leads to an increased quality of the life the terminally
Argument in Favor of Euthanasia has remaining.
It is apparent that terminal sicknesses, such as cancer are costly to manage and they cause severe
suffering to both the patient and loved ones. Doctors might event start killing people without their
permission. Each school of thought will tackle situations in different ways. I simply cannot
understand how anyone with a conscience can stand by and watch a human being whose mind and
body have been plagued by disease, and not give them the choice of leaving behind pain, indignity
and despair. Those of this religious background argue that life is a gift from God and is thus only to
be taken by Argument in Favor of Euthanasia. Therefore, refusing patients requests for voluntary
death does not lead to violation of their rights. Talk about what euthanasia is, what are the
techniques with which it is administered, who can access it or the controversy that this topic
generates. We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Unless, the so-called 'substituted
judgement test' is used. Euthanasia- 2nd Source For my second source, I found a report that was
written concerning a lecture given at Harvard Medical School. However, the society remains
polarized in opinion as far a legalization of the practice is concerned. There are four distinguished
types of euthanasia, all with different meanings that are mentioned later on in the text. Robert Powell
a disabled person, who was repeatedly refused treatment for various different conditions, said 'I
enjoy life just as much as anybody else does. In summarising the legal position the judge said 'the
doctor is entitled to relieve pain and suffering even if the measures he takes may incidentally shorten
life' following this advice the jury acquitted Dr Adams. Inequality in health care is a harsh reality.
Shortening this period through euthanasia could be seen as a way to reduce finances for families.
These differences were independent of other risk factors. Advances in medical treatments have
enabled us to keep people artificially alive, using respirators and methods of artificial feeding. This is
another of those arguments that says that euthanasia should not be allowed because it will be abused.
In todays world, medical technology has advanced so much that it is now possible to sustain life
through formerly life ending injuries or illness. The essential rule always to tell the truth may place an
individual in an impossible situation, for example, being told something in confidence by one person
then instructed to tell the truth about the confidence by another. This means that competent adults
have the right to refuse life saving treatment. The slides offer a formal style and are designed to
make your information stand out and your thesis defense a success. On this page Overview of
arguments against euthanasia Against the will of God Sanctity of life The slippery slope Euthanasia
some lives Patient's best interests Proper palliative care Fears about regulation It gives doctors too
much power Pressure on the vulnerable Page options Against this page. Decision making in health
and social care cannot depend on simple principles like utilitarianism or logic but nor can decision
making be left to the beliefs what individuals have been brought up with, or socialised into.
Euthanasia could also be used as a cost-effective way to deal with terminally ill people. Increasing
numbers of examples of the abuse or neglect of elderly people by their families makes this an
important issue to consider. It is an argument that has many forms, but the main thrust of the
argument is the claim that once we begin to kill others who have requested death, we will find
ourselves sliding down a slope that leads to killings that no one wants (Singer, 1995). It is sometimes
suggested that euthanasia is discriminatory because it implies that some lives are of less value than
others and so are not worth prolonging. Physician Assisted Suicide Pros And Cons 390 Words 2
Pages Since Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill in 1997, euthanasia has
been receiving close attention. He was able to breathe and digest food but could not see, hear,
communicate, taste or smell.
The word 'euthanasia' originated in Greece and means a good or easy death. By continuing we’ll
assume you’re on board with our cookie policy. In those circumstances, subtle pressure could against
people to request immediate, rapid, painless death, when what they want is close and powerful
support and love. It is basically saying that some lives are not worth living. In treatment decisions at
the end of life the dilemma in applying these principles often revolves around what course of action
will promote the patient's best interests. A competent, terminally ill adulthaving lived nearly the full
measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest Euthznasia choosing a dignified and humane death
rather than being reduced at the end of his existence learn more here a child-like state of
helplessness, diapered, sedated, and incompetent. You should state the main idea of your paper and
your primary argument clearly. Decision making in health and social care cannot depend on simple
principles like utilitarianism or logic but nor can decision making be left to the beliefs what
individuals have been brought up with, or socialised into. Since God arguments are of against
interest to people without faith, it's presented here with the God bit removed. We believe that the
issue of euthanasia is one in which the interest of the individual cannot be separated from the
interest of society as a whole. Several options are therefore lawful, these include, withdrawing life-
sustaining treatment; withholding life-sustaining treatment; DNAR orders; and given pain killing
drugs that may shorten life. There three main criticisms of the double effect principle. The argument
of mercy is also one of the common opinions presented by euthanasia proponents. He was fed
through a nasogastric tube and lay in bed with his eyes open and his limbs crooked and taut. His
determined wife vowed never to give up on him and six years later her prayers were answered when
he woke up from the coma. You can discuss various problems in your essay on euthanasia, as there is
a broad variety of related issues. According to Kappel (2007), patients have a right to accept or
refuse treatment. Palliative care should aim to make it easier and more attractive for family and
friends to visit the dying person. There should be no law or morality that would limit a clinical team
or doctor from administering the frequent dosages of pain medication that are necessary to free
people's minds from pain that shrivels the spirit and leaves no time for speaking when, at times, there
are very few hours or days left for such communication. In a recent survey over 60% voted in favour
of euthanasia. As callous as it may seem, there are also financial benefits for people that could use
the money in better ways than to use it to go against the wishes of the dying. His determined wife
vowed never to give up on him and six years later her prayers were answered when he woke up from
the coma. Consider the major arguments for and against voluntary, involuntary and non. So, for
example, if a patient commits suicide by taking an overdose of tablets you have left by the bedside
for that purpose, you could be found guilty of assisting suicide (under the Suicide Act 1961).
Restatement of Thesis: Overall with current situations happening around the world Euthanasia and
Assisted suicide has become a very controversial topic, however there are many interpretations that
should be looked upon before deciding that huge decision. If we accept euthanasia now we could
delay research and new treatments for decades. Suggesting that people can be 'helped' by offering
them physician-assisted suicide. Increasing numbers of examples of the abuse or neglect of elderly
people by their families makes this an important issue to consider. However, individuals who are
suffering from severe pain or other symptoms may not be in a clear state of mind to make such a
decision, and may not fully understand the implications of their choice. It is apparent that terminal
sicknesses, such as cancer are costly to manage and they cause severe suffering to both the patient
and loved ones.
The principle of the sanctity of life is a fundamental legal principle that is now enshrined in the
Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 2), but the principle is not an absolute legal one. People trust their
lives to doctors and health care workers as they think that they are dedicated to the saving lives, to
healing, and to caring. You should state the main idea of your paper and your primary argument
clearly. Advances in medical treatments have enabled us to keep people artificially alive, using
respirators and methods of artificial feeding. With legalised euthanasia, there will be pressure upon
people to justify being alive - we will have to prove if we ought to be allowed to live. The law first
recognised the principle of double effect in the 1957 case of Dr Adams, who was accused of
deliberately increasing the dose of opiates used as pain relief in order to end the lives of patients
who has left him money in their wills. The first reason for this is that very few people can predict the
future and manage to work out what will create future happiness. These differences were
independent of other risk factors. Since God arguments are of against interest to people without
faith, it's presented here with the God bit removed. People who are ill and dependent can often feel
worthless and an undue burden on those who love and care for them. Ethical systems of thought
always encounter problems. It is difficult sometimes to define what is good. However, I am with the
majority who are against this so-called mercy killing. However, the society remains polarized in
opinion as far a legalization of the practice is concerned. This test is based on what the patient would
have wanted, regardless of what others may think is a 'good' outcome. Few cases have reached the
courts on the legality of DNAR orders. They may actually be a burden, but those who essay them
may be happy to bear that burden. Many people argue that a person who is terminally ill may make a
miraculous recovery- it has happened in the past. Communication has to show respect for individual
beliefs and identity. Several options are therefore lawful, these include, withdrawing life-sustaining
treatment; withholding life-sustaining treatment; DNAR orders; and given pain killing drugs that
may shorten life. It is vital we do not, under any circumstances, deny anyone the right to live, when
we should allow them to live as long as possible. Those two places are the State of Oregon in the
U.S., and the Northern Territory of Australia. There is the risk that some unscrupulous relatives might
bring pressure to bear on elderly and burdensome patients to have them request euthanasia in order to
inherit their estate. Finally, refusal by a mentally astute individual to take life saving treatment is not
considered as euthanasia because the physicians cannot compel an individual to take medication
against his or her will (Care, 2010). To end a patient's life, a doctor must have fairly good guarantee
of his prognosis. Another negative effect of euthanasia is that they are carrying out euthanasia
without the consent. The death of a person affects the lives of others, often in ways and to an extent
which cannot be foreseen. Very often the group most targeted by physician-assisted suicide is the
disabled community because the 'quality of life' of its members is deemed to be 'poor' by people
outside the community. Hence, if appropriate care and environment is provided to such patient, he or
she could have a painless and dignified natural death (Care, 2010). Overview of anti-euthanasia
arguments It's possible to argue about the way we've divided up the arguments, and many arguments
could fall into more categories than we've used. She lived several years with the knowledge that her
muscles would eventually waste away until the day came when fully conscious, she would choke to
death.