If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Euthanasia - A comparison. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Euthanasia - A comparison paper right on time.
Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Euthanasia - A comparison, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Euthanasia - A comparison paper at affordable prices!
Euthanasia raises many questions in morality, medical ethics and the law. There is an ongoing struggle to make euthanasia legal. Advancement in technology has also contributed to the debate of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Bloyd describes euthanasia as meaning good or happy death. It involves allowing or helping a terminally ill person to die, for the sake of relief from suffering (15). Supporters of voluntary euthanasia argue that it is all right to help someone end his or her life, as long as that person has a good reason for doing it. However, other people think that it is wrong to legally kill and take away an innocent life.
According to Faye Girsh, the Hemlock Society and the majority of polled Americans believe that providing physician-assisted dying to a terminally patient who requests it, is a humane and compassionate option that should be legalized. She points out that it will be cruel, even barbaric to make a suffering person, whose death is inevitable, live longer than he or she wishes. As part of their job, doctors are there to help all patients in any possible way. In the case with the terminally ill, only physicians can prescribe some medication to help with suffering, and in doing so, fulfil certain patients wishes. A physician may also aid in the dying process, when prescribed substances cannot control suffering. The patient would also have a better state of mind, knowing that they have options when the pain becomes unbearable, instead of having the anxiety of not knowing how much longer one would have to suffer and watch the family suffer, which also adds to the burden of the illness (6-76; ch. ). With added stress and worrying about when the final day will come, a person may get more sick, and develop unnecessary symptoms. Kohl and Kurtz believe that society has no genuine interest or need to preserve the terminally ill against their will and that the right to beneficent euthanasia, with proper procedural safeguards, can be protected against abuse (6).
On the other hand, many people believe that Euthanasia should not be legalized, for it will harm the society. Instead of terminally ill patients having a right to die, they will see their illness as a burden to family members, which leads to their duty to die (Torr 7). As a result of euthanasia becoming legal, there would be many deaths of people who want to die, and even those who do not, but they were just told by the physician or a family member that that is the best available option. Not only would one individual be affected, but the society as a whole, because people may choose euthanasia even if they are not terminally ill, but instead have depression or some curable disease. In such a case, those are the people that need hospice care (where someone is on call for the patient at all times), not euthanasia, or an easy way out to committing suicide.
In many countries, Euthanasia is legal and accepted. Some of these countries include the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Uruguay and Norway. Hollands policy may work for that country, but it may not be successful if applied to the United States. For the United States, the New Oregon Death with Dignity Act was passed in 14, marking just a beginning. Derek Humphry argues that euthanasia is justifiable and ethical. A person should not be allowed to suffer if he or she does not want to. In the later days of the illness, a person may be given so much drugs to ease the pain that they loose consciousness, but their quality of life lowers, affecting loved ones around them (17-; ch. 1). John Shelby Spong believes that, We are aware that life can today be prolonged by managing pain with pain-killing drugs, but that relief is sometimes achieved at the price of the destruction of the patients mind of the loss of the patients capacity to relate to other human beings in a meaningful way. Every person has their individual rights, so they should also be granted that right of choosing their death, under the right state of mind (41, 44; ch. 1). Due to the advancement of medical technology, Spong also thinks that euthanasia does not violate Christian and other religious beliefs. Although the church could have taken a firm position on the topic in the past, the present brings about new changes and views. Due to the advances of modern medicine, God cannot only control death (The Ethics Of Euthanasia 0-4).
on Euthanasia - A comparison will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
