Euthanasia Essay: Arguments, Facts, and Ethical Considerations

This essay delves into the complex and controversial topic of euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, and physician-assisted suicide, exploring deliberate actions taken to end a life to relieve persistent suffering. The essay examines the legal landscape, highlighting that euthanasia is against the law in the majority of nations, and the varying laws within the US. It provides a detailed introduction to the concept, differentiating between voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary euthanasia. The core of the essay presents arguments both for and against euthanasia, covering freedom of choice, quality of life, dignity, religious and moral perspectives, and the role of healthcare professionals. The essay concludes with findings from a research study and a summary of the main points, emphasizing that while euthanasia is often illegal, physicians may legally decide to withhold treatment in cases of severe suffering, and may administer pain-relieving drugs, even if it shortens a patient's life. The essay provides a balanced overview of the ethical, legal, and social dimensions of euthanasia.

Thi Kim Oanh Le
4016820
EUTHANASIA
1

Thi Kim Oanh Le
4016820
Contents
1. Executive Summary............................................................................................................3
2. Introduction.........................................................................................................................4
3. Finding Enthusiasm Facts...................................................................................................5
4. Conclusion..........................................................................................................................6
References..................................................................................................................................7
Appendix A................................................................................................................................8
2

Thi Kim Oanh Le
4016820
1. Executive Summary.
Euthanasia along with physician-assisted suicide imply towards deliberate actions undertaken
with the view to end a life, for relieving persistent suffering.Within the majority of nations,
euthanasia is against the regulation and it might involve a jail sentence. Euthanasia also
known as mercy killing, practice or act of painlessly placing to death individuals
experiencing incurable and painful disease or incapacitating physical illness or letting them to
die through simply withholding cure or retreating artificial life-assistance processes. Within
the US, the law differs from state to state. Moreover, euthanasia has long been a controversial
and emotive topic. Further, this particular paper attempts to provide detailed insight into the
topic of Euthanasia.
3

Thi Kim Oanh Le
4016820
2. Introduction
To start with, Euthanasia along with physician-assisted suicide imply towards deliberate
actions undertaken with the view to end a life, for relieving persistent suffering.Within the
majority of nations, euthanasia is against the regulation and it might involve a jail sentence
(Carr, 2014). Within the US, the law differs from state to state. Moreover, euthanasia has
long been a controversial and emotive topic. In present application, euthanasia has been
described as the "painless inducement of a speedy death”. Nevertheless, it is highly asserted
that this particular concept fails to effectively describe euthanasias, since it leaves open
several likely actions that will fulfil the needs of the definition, however wouldn’t be
observed as euthanasia (Ramsay, 2011). Additionally, in specific, these take in situations
wherein an individual kills another, painlessly, nevertheless, for no reason apart from
individual gain or accidental deaths, which are painless and quick, but not intended.
Moving ahead, Euthanasia is grouped in several different manners that take in voluntary,
non-voluntary, or involuntary (Ramsay, 2011). First of all, voluntary euthanasia is considered
legal within few nations. Secondly, non-voluntary euthanasia (patient's approval not
available) is unlawful within all nations (Carr, 2014). Thirdly, involuntary
euthanasia (without taking approval or against the patient's readiness) is also unlawful within
all nations and is normally regarded as murder. Further, the continuing sections throw light
upon various facts related to enthusiasm.
3. Finding Enthusiasm Facts
Several arguments are generally cited for as well as against the concept of euthanasia along
with physician-assisted suicide.
Arguments for Enthusiasm:
Freedom of choice: The patient should be capable of making his/her own choice.
Life Quality: Just the patient actually understands how he/she feels and how the emotional
and physical pain of prolonged death and illness impacts the life quality (Otani, 2010).
4

Thi Kim Oanh Le
4016820
Dignity: Every person should be capable of dyeing with self-respect.
Witnesses: Several individuals who experience the slow death of other people hold the view
that assisted death must be permitted.
Humane: It is considered as being highly humane for allowing an individual with obstinate
suffering for being permitted to decide to end that specific suffering.
Loved ones: It could assist in shortening the sorrow and misery of loved ones.
Arguments against Enthusiasm:
Role of doctor: Health care experts might not be willing to give up their professional
functions, particularly considering the Hippocratic Oath.
Religious and moral arguments: Various faiths observe euthanasia like a type of murder
and ethically improper. Suicide also is considered unlawful in few religions (Otani, 2010).
Ethically, there is an assertion that euthanasia would deteriorate society's admiration for the
life sanctity.
Patient capability: Euthanasia is just voluntary in case if the person is seen as being
mentally knowledgeable, with a coherent knowledge about available alternatives and impacts
and the capability of expressing that specific understanding along with their desire for
terminating their own life. Deciding or describing capability is not up-front.
Guiltiness: Patients might sense being burdened upon resources and are emotionally
distressed to consenting (Otani, 2010). They might sense the financial, mental and emotional
burden upon the family is quite high. Even in case if the treatment costs are offered through
the state, there exist a threat that hospital employees might hold an economic encouragement
for encouraging euthanasia approval.
Mental illness: An individual facing depression is more expected to request for aided suicide
and this could greatly confound the overall decision.
5

Thi Kim Oanh Le
4016820
Possible recovery: At times, a patient pulls through, against all the odds. The analysis may
prove as being incorrect.
Palliative care: Sound palliative care marks euthanasia as being needless.
Regulation: Euthanasia could not be appropriately controlled.
Moving ahead, the appendix A clearly throws light upon the research carried out in order to
gain better insight of the concept of Enthanasia. The research involved a total of 30
individuals of which 18 were females and 12 were males. The sample chosen for the research
mainly involved individuals between the age group of 18-21 years of age. The study involved
both Vietnamese as well as Chinese candidates, even though the number of Vietnamese was
more i.e. 20 and Chinese being 10. It has been observed that the majority of people engaged
that little or no knowledge about Enthanasia, which requires spreading more information
about this among the individuals and society in general. Additionally, individuals believed
that euthanasia is/is not contrary to the dignity and preciousness of life. Further, the majority
of candidates were of the view that euthanasia relieves suffering.
6

Thi Kim Oanh Le
4016820
4. Conclusion
To conclude, this particular paper intended to focus upon the concept of Euthanasia. It can be
concluded that Euthanasia also known as mercy killing, practice or act of painlessly placing
to death individuals experiencing incurable and painful disease or incapacitating physical
illness or letting them to die through simply withholding cure or retreating artificial life-
assistance processes (Carr, 2014). For the reason that there is no particular provision for it
within the majority of legal frameworks, it is typically considered as being either suicide (in
case if carried out through the patient himself) or murder (in case if carried out through
someone else). Physicians might, nevertheless, legally determine not to extend life during
situations of high suffering and they might manage drugs for relieving pain even in case if
this curtails the patient’s life (Ramsay, 2011). During the period of closing 20th century,
various European nations involved special provisions in criminal codes
for merciful punishing and the deliberation of explanatory situations in trials for euthanasia
(Ian, 2007).
7

Thi Kim Oanh Le
4016820
5. References.
Carr, C. (2014). Unlocking Medical Law and Ethics (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Ian, D. (2007). A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God, and Medicine. Rowman
& Littlefield.
Otani, I. (2010). Good Manner of Dying as a Normative Concept: "Autocide", "Granny
Dumping" and Discussions on Euthanasia/Death with Dignity in Japan". International
Journal of Japanese Society, 19(1), 49–63
Ramsay, J. H. R. (2011). A king, a doctor and a convenient death. British Medical
Journal, 308(1445), 1445.
8

Thi Kim Oanh Le
4016820
Appendix A.
Euthanasia
Total Total in %
1. Gender.
A. Female. 18 64%
B. Male. 12 36%
2. Age.
A. 18 – 21 23 79%
B. 22-25. 7 31%
3. Nationality.
A. Vietnamese. 20 67%
B. Chinese. 10 33%
4. Do you know about euthanasia?
A. No information. 10 33%
B. A little Information. 10 33%
C. A lots information. 3 10%
5. Is euthanasia contrary to the dignity and preciousness of
life?
A. Yes. 15 50%
B. No. 15 50%
6. Do you think that euthanasia relieves suffering?
A. Yes. 18 64%
B. No. 12 36%
7. Does criminalizing euthanasia violate the right to equal
protection?
A. Yes. 13 45%
B. No. 17 55%
8. Do you think that people have the right to choose?
A. Yes. 23 79%
B. No. 7 21%
9