Skip Nav

Against Euthanasia

Live Chat Support

❶The idea of slippery slope does not stand strong with facts because there is nothing that corroborates the idea that legalizing one type of Euthanasia will lead to the legalization of all types of Euthanasia. If euthanasia becomes legalized, then the effectiveness of the Hippocratic Oath will be negated and the doctors can have the option of immediately resorting to euthanasia especially in difficult cases instead of trying their best until the very end.

What are You Studying?

Essay title: Against Euthanasia
How to cite this page
Quotes By Topic

Euthanasia is not that different from murder because they both involve killing a person. The only difference is that in euthanasia, there is mercy and consent involved while in murder there is none Tulloch If murder is prohibited by law because people take matters into their own hands and kill others, then euthanasia should also be banned because doctors take matters into their own hands and kill their patients even if there is consent from the patients and their families or relatives.

Lastly, the continued improvements and innovations in the field of medicine and health care make euthanasia illogical to be implemented as an option.

The reason why medical experts continue to work hard to come up with improved medical technologies, medicines and treatment methods is that they want to make sure that the sick people are able to recover faster and healthy people become even healthier.

All of these efforts are being done to make the society become more productive due to the presence of healthy and strong people McDougall Thus, doctors will not have an excuse for not doing their best for their patients as they already have access to the best medical technologies, medicines and treatment methods that will prevent them from having to resort to euthanasia as the only option. There is no doubt that euthanasia needs to be banned as based on the three arguments discussed above, it does not deserve a place in human society.

Doctors must never give up on their patients no matter how hopeless the situation might be. They must exhaust all options to give their patients a fighting chance to survive and recover. The Debate Over the Right to Die. Introduction Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately killing a person to spare him or her from having to deal with more pain and suffering. This is always a controversial issue because of the moral and ethical components that are involved. This paper will discuss the arguments against euthanasia.

Discussion Euthanasia is clearly against the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors have to fulfil. This oath basically states that doctors must never be involved in the killing of people because after all, they have been trained to ensure that people are able to recover from their diseases and injuries. Doctors are the ones whom people entrust their lives whenever there is something wrong with their health. Thus, it is the responsibility of the doctors to always do the best they can to help people live and enjoy their lives Cavan If their patients die under their supervision, the doctors can accept this for as long as they know and can prove that they really did their best and exhausted all possibilities to ensure the survival of the patients.

There are just certain instances where the disease or the injury of the patients has become so serious that it is already difficult to treat and make the patients recover. In these cases, it is unfair to blame the doctors for the death of the patients.

The Hippocratic Oath helps the doctors to realize how important their responsibilities are to the people in terms of their health. This oath also provides an assurance to the people that they can trust their doctors and be assured that they will do whatever is necessary to help them deal with their health problems. If euthanasia becomes legalized, then the effectiveness of the Hippocratic Oath will be negated and the doctors can have the option of immediately resorting to euthanasia especially in difficult cases instead of trying their best until the very end.

How long will the advocates of euthanasia be arguing that we should "assist them in dying". Perhaps the most disturbing risk of all is posed by the growing concern over medical costs. Euthanasia is, after all, a very cheap service. The cost of a dose of barbiturates and curare and the few hours in a hospital bed that it takes them to act is minute compared to the massive bills incurred by many patients in the last weeks and months of their lives.

Already in Britain, There is a serious under- provision of expensive therapies like renal dialysis and intensive care, with the result that many otherwise preventable deaths occur. Legalizing euthanasia would save substantial financial resources which could be diverted to more "useful" treatments. These economic concerns already exert pressure to accept euthanasia, and, if accepted, they will inevitability tend to enlarge the category of patients for whom euthanasia is permitted Now is the time for the medical profession to rally in defense of its fundamental moral principles, to repudiate any and all acts of direct and intentional killing by physicians and their agents.

We call on the profession and its leadership to obtain the best advice, regarding both theory and practice, about how to defend the profession's moral center and to resist growing pressures both from without and from within. We call on fellow physicians to say that we will not deliberately kill.

We must say also to each of our fellow physicians that we will not tolerate killing of patients and that we shall take disciplinary action against doctors who kill.

Chapman On the other hand some people strongly feel that euthanasia is not bad and should not be looked down upon. Are there no conditions when life is meaningless and should be quietly ended?

If a person is subject to pain that won't stop as a result of a disease that can't be cured, must he or she suffer that pain as long as possible when there are gentle ways of putting an end to life? If a person suffers from a disease that deprives him or her of all memory and makes him or her a helpless lump of flesh that may live on for years.

If euthanasia were legalized,it should be admitted that there might be some abuses of virtually every social practice. There is no absolute guarantee against that. But we do not normally think that a social practice should be precluded simply because it might sometimes be abused.

The crucial issue is whether the evil of the abuses would be so great as to outweigh the benefit of the practice. In the case of euthanasia, the question is whether the abuses, or the consequences generally, would be so numerous as to outweigh the advantages of legalization.

The choice is not between a present policy that is benign and an alternative that is potentially dangerous. The present policy had it's evils, too. We spend more than a billion dollars a day for health car while our teachers are underpaid, and our industrial plants are rusty.

This should not continue. There is something fundamentally insustainable about a society that moves its basic value-producing industries overseas yet continues to manufacture artificial hearts at home. We have money to give smokers heart transplants but no money to retool out steel mills.

We train more doctors and lawyers than we need but fewer teachers. On any given day, 30 to 40 percent of the hospital beds in America are empty, but our classrooms are overcrowded and our transportation systems are deteriorating. We are great at treating sick people, but we are not that great at treating a sick economy. And we are not succeeding in international trade. When you really look around and try to find industries the United States is succeeding in, you discover that they are very few and far between.

Lamm There is no way we are going to come to grips with this problem until we also look at some of these areas that aren't going to go away. One of the toughest of these is what Victor Fuchs called "flat-of-the-curve medicine"- those medical procedures which are the highest in cost but achieve little or no improvement in health status.

He says that they must be reduced or eliminated. We must demand that professional societies and licensing authorities establish some norms and standards for diagnostic and therapeutic practice that encompass both costs and medicine. Wer'e going to have to come up with some sort of concept of cost-effective medicine. Individuals have the right to decide about their own lives and deaths. What more basic right is there than to decide if you're going to live?

A person under a death sentence who's being kept alive, through so called heroic measures certainly has a fundamental right to say, "Enough's enough. The treatment's worse than the disease. Ironically, those who deny the terminally ill this right do so out of a sense of high morality.

Don't they see that, in denying the gravely ill and suffering the right to release themselves from pain, they commit the greatest crime? The period of suffering can be shortened. If you have ever been in a terminal cancer ward, It's grim but enlightening.

Anyone who's been there can know how much people can suffer before they die. And not just physically. The emotional, even spiritual, agony is often worse. Today our medical hardware is so sophisticated that the period of suffering can be extended beyond the limit of human endurance. What's the point of allowing someone a few more months or days or hours of so-called life when death is inevitable?

In fact, it's downright inhumane. When someone under such conditions asks to be allowed to die, it's far more humane to honor that request than to deny it. Barry People have a right to die with dignity. Nobody wants to end up plugged into machines and wired to tubes. Who wants to spend their last days lying in a hospital bed wasting away to something that's hardly recognizable as a human being, let alone his or her former self? The very thought insults the whole concept of what it means to be human.

People are entitled to dignity, in life and in death. Just as we respect people's right to live with dignity, so we must respect their right to die with dignity.

In the case of the terminally ill, that means people have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment when it's apparent to them that all the treatment is doing is destroying their dignity, and reducing them to some subhuman level of humanity. The reasons just stated in favor of euthanasia are often over looked due to the following arguments that are against euthanasia.

The way you talk you'd think people have absolute right over their bodies and lives. But that is obviously just not true. No individual has absolute freedom. Even the patient's Bill of Rights, which was drawn up by the American Hospital Association, recognizes this. Although it acknowledges that patients have the right to refuse treatment, the document also realizes that they have this right and freedom only to the extent permitted by law.

Maybe people should be allowed to die if they want to. But if so, it's not because they have an absolute right to dispose of themselves if they want to. Brock 73 Only a fool would minimize the agony that many terminally ill patient endure. And there's no question that by letting them die on request we shorten the period of suffering.

But we also shorten their lives. Can you seriously argue that the saving of pain is greater good than the saving of life?


Main Topics

Privacy Policy

Against Euthanasia essaysLiterally, euthanasia means "good death" but the controversy surrounding it is just the opposite. In active euthanasia the immediate cause of death is not the patients disease but something that is done to the patient to cause his or her death.

Privacy FAQs

Non voluntary passive euthanasia. General Arguments: Against euthanasia: 1-One should not interfere in the doings of God: As God has a purpose to everything. Counter point: A person in favor of it usually says how one can be sure of what god wants or what god has in His mind. God has given us intellect to make one's life as better as possible.

About Our Ads

Essay on A Christian's Arguments For or Against Euthanasia Words | 5 Pages Euthanasia is the act of bringing about the easy and gentle death, usually someone who is terminally ill or in great pain, which is why some recognise euthanasia as 'mercy killing'. Another argument against euthanasia is that it is essentially homicide because the doctors will kill the patient even if it has been approved by the patient himself or the family of the patient. Euthanasia is not that different from murder because they both involve killing a person.

Cookie Info

Another argument against euthanasia, this time a practical one, is that euthanasia is not needed when proper palliative care is available. Terminally ill patients are given drugs and other types of support to help relieve the physical pain and mental effects of being terminally ill. Argument Against Euthanasia, Free Study Guides and book notes including comprehensive chapter analysis, complete summary analysis, author biography information, character profiles, theme analysis, metaphor analysis, and top ten quotes on classic literature.