Summary of Euthanasia Debate Essay

Custom Student Mr. Teacher ENG 1001-04 30 May 2016

Summary of Euthanasia Debate

Motion: “This house believes that Euthanasia should be legalized” Thesis Statement: Euthanasia has its advantages and disadvantages, therefore a lot of factors should be considered whether it should be legalized or not. I. The debate about Euthanasia covers different fields and theoretical orientations, therefore making decisions regarding euthanasia incredibly complicated due to a confluence of factors encompassing religious, medical and philosophical changes over the centuries.

II. There are pros and cons to evaluate for us to make the right judgment.

A. The proposition argued several reasons why Euthanasia should be legalized. 1. It is the choice of the patient to be euthanized. 2. Similar methods to Euthanasia are already practiced all over the world. 3. Euthanasia is not a sin.

B. The opposition countered the arguments of the proposition and gave several reason themselves. 1. Euthanasia violates and disregards the moral teachings about the preservation of life. 2. It is technically assisted murder on the doctor’s side. 3. It undermines the efforts in the advancement of medical research. C. The application of euthanasia has many advantages.

1. Legalization of Euthanasia would lead to saving a lot of patients from continuously suffering intractable and unbearable pain. 2. It is less expensive than added expenses from therapies.

III. People’s lives depend on the decision should Euthanasia be legalized or not.

The debate about Euthanasia covers different fields and theoretical orientations, thereby making decisions regarding euthanasia incredibly complicated due to a confluence of factors encompassing religious, medical and philosophical changes over the centuries. People are having a hard time judging if Euthanasia should be legalized because the outcome will affect the life of many people, which is a very serious matter. Euthanasia has its advantages and disadvantages, therefore a lot of factors should be considered whether it should be legalized or not. Ezekiel J. Emmanuel explained in his paper, entitled “What is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide?”, that we have freedom in concern with our health and our decision. If the same diagnosis from another physician shows that the patient understands his/her action completely, then the request to be euthanized by the sufferer is completely reasonable. If not, then the most immediate family of the patient that can be contacted would make the decision. According to a survey done by the American Journal of Public Health, 55% of the house officers and medical physicians reported that the treatment they give is overly burdensome to their patients.

The survey also states that only 7-15% of doctors feel as if they gave up on their patients too soon. The “do not attempt to resuscitate” order, a consent signed by the patient’s relatives prohibiting the medical team from performing CPR, is an example of a method being practiced all over the world that is similar to euthanasia. Euthanasia is not a sin. It is a medical procedure which doctors all over the world are already performing similar methods to, to relieve a patient from suffering with their or their immediate family’s consent, it is but an act of mercy. On her essay on Patient’s Rights Council, Marker defined Euthanasia as “intentionally, knowingly and directly acting to cause death of another person.” Moral teachings about the preservation of life are violated and disregarded by the doctor involved. We, Filipinos, value the Christian doctrine as the foundation of our conviction. We consider life as a sacred gift from God. As Christians, we must follow the 10 Commandments, “Thou shalt not kill.” being a part of them. Blessed John Paul II says, “Euthanasia must not be called false mercy, and indeed a disturbing perversion of mercy.

True compassion leads to sharing another’s pain. It does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.” He also said on his interview in Rome last March 2004, it is “morally obligatory” to continue giving life support to everyone, even if it is not as a “medical act”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically said that no matter what the intention and means used, euthanasia is an intentional murder that gravely contradicts a person’s dignity and respect to God. It also contradicts the Hippocratic Oath, which states that “physicians and their assistants must value life of their patients and never suggest anyone ways toward suicide”, and Article II Section 11 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states that “the State values the dignity of every person and guarantees full respect for human rights in which no law or statute shall be legalized that will contradict the Constitution”. If euthanasia becomes legal, accepted, and widely practiced in the society, people will cease to have concerns about it and doctors would become accustomed to doing it with ease, weakening society’s respect for human life.

Filipinos who seek medical help outside the country attest that medical technologies and professionals here are not entirely advanced. So, why not use the money and time for the advancement of medical research and technologies instead of using it to further study Euthanasia? Legalization of euthanasia would lead to saving a lot of patients from continuously suffering intractable and unbearable pain.It would help people avoid paying large amount of money for endless therapies and expenses that come with keeping a patient in the hospital; it would also save families heartbreak from seeing their love ones suffering. Tom Mortier, in his article, said, “Euthanasia is hardening from a medical option into an ideology. Belgium’s euthanasia doctors even believe they are being humane because they are liberating people from their misery.

Fundamentalist humanists go further and describe euthanasia as the ultimate act of self-determination.” He also said that “Euthanasia is being promoted as a “beautiful” and positive way to die. Doctors are transplanting organs from patients who die in the operation. (This is said to make their lives meaningful.)” We shouldn’t be making rash decisions. These factors are what would tip the scale; we should be careful and consider every factor. We should also remember that people’s lives are on the line. We should make the decision for the better of the people.

References:

Emanuel, E. (1999). “What Is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia of Physician-Assisted Suicide?” Ethics 109(3), 629-642. Retrieved from http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/EMANUELwhatisthebenefit.pdf Esma, V., & Pazcoguin, R. (2008). SALVA VIDA: Salvation Story and Study for College. Espana, Manila: University of Santo Tomas Publishing House DiManno, R. (2013). Euthanasia is not mercy: It is barbarous. Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, n.p. Gunten, C. v. (2001). Discussing do-not-resuscitate status. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19(5), 1576 & 1578. Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (9th ed.). (1990). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. Wang, P. (2012, December 12). Cutting the High Cost of End-of-Life Care.. Time. Retrieved October 15, 2014, from

Free Summary of Euthanasia Debate Essay Sample

A

  • Subject:

  • University/College: University of Arkansas System

  • Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter

  • Date: 30 May 2016

  • Words:

  • Pages:

Let us write you a custom essay sample on Summary of Euthanasia Debate

for only $16.38 $13.9/page

your testimonials