Essay Sample on Euthanasia: Right to Die with Dignity

Introduction

Euthanasia is the process of terminating life when it is evident that a person has no chances of recovering. The process is legalized in countries such as Belgium. However, the topic has attracted a heated debate based on the sanctity of life and the respect it should be accorded. Proponents of euthanasia argue that the quality of life should be considered when making decisions about living or not. In some cases, dying makes more sense instead of living in pain knowing very well that there are no chances of living. Such scenarios are common to patients suffering from terminal illnesses such as cancer. The debate on euthanasia attracts ethical principles, religious teachings and the universal right to life as presented in this argument.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Pro-Euthanasia Arguments

The term euthanasia originated from Greece meaning "good death" (Math & Chaturvedi 899). The main argument proposed by proponents of euthanasia is that the quality of life lived by a given person should be respected when they make a wish to be relieved off the pain and die. In most jurisdictions, it is illegal to be part of a plot to end someone's life. However, jurisdictions which have allowed euthanasia anchor the argument on the right of a person to choose death over life when qualified personnel such as a doctor confirm that there are no chances of recovery.

The concept of "self-determination" is used to propose legalization of euthanasia. Self-determination is the premise that humans should have the right to decide when they die. It is wrong to stop a person from dying when it is evident that their suffering is only taking them closer to the grave. Legalizing it will eliminate cases where euthanasia is conducted illegally. Furthermore, in some cases, the person is not even in a position to make the decision to die with dignity. Friends and family members may have to make the decision on his behalf. Death should not be viewed as an accident. It should be viewed as the ultimate end of any human. When it is considered that way, it will be easier to allow people to die in dignity when there is no sense of continuing living in pain. The right to die should, therefore, be left to be a matter of personal choice.

Keeping someone alive against their will is wrong. Opponents of its legalization argue that legalizing euthanasia will open a sloppy platform that can be used to accept homicide cases as euthanasia (Annadurai, Danasekaran & Mani 477). However, a critical review of jurisdictions that have legalized it shows that there are rare cases of that sort. Basically, with the protection accorded to human rights, the right to die with dignity should be considered as a law. Forcing people to continue suffering because their life is protected should be deemed to be a form of torture that should attract punishment. It is also essential to save the family and friends the agony of seeing their loved ones suffer when they can offer no help.

Opposing Arguments

Euthanasia weakens society's view of the value of life. Most organizations are anchored upon religious foundations. For instance, in Christian settings, euthanasia is discouraged since God is considered to be the giver of life. It, therefore, goes against the Christian teachings to take away this life. In Christian teachings, some people like Job suffered a lot, but they did not end their lives. This means that suffering has value. It is upon humans to allow life to take its cause until when death occurs naturally.

Legalizing euthanasia opens a new leeway for involuntary euthanasia. There are many cases where some people would want others to be dead. For instance, in cases of insurance or inheritance, the death of an individual would be of benefit to certain people in society. Therefore, it is feared that once euthanasia is legalized, there will be many cases where parents have been killed so that their property can be inherited. A study conducted on patients suffering from terminal illnesses in the United Kingdom revealed that while some felt euthanasia was essential, others felt that since death is an irreversible process, it should be avoided (Chapple et al. 706). Some patients may make the decision to end their life when in intense pain. The decision may be compromised due to the suffering they are going through at that specific time.

The legal aspect invites the role of a doctor to a patient's life. After completing their studies, doctors and other medical personnel take an oath of service to protect human life. They pledge to do so against all odds without wavering or compromising. Therefore, ending patients' lives goes against the oath they per taking when starting their service. Proposing that people suffering from terminal illnesses should end their lives will prompt people suffering from any disease to request to have their lives ended. In the end, it will be a chaotic system where life is no longer respected. Life should not be allowed to lose the sanctity it possesses.

Works Cited

Annadurai, Kalaivani et al. "'Euthanasia: right to die with dignity'" Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, vol. 3, no. 4, 2014, pp. 477-478.

Chapple, A et al. "What people close to death say about euthanasia and assisted suicide: a qualitative study," Journal of Medical Ethics vol. 32, no. 12, 2006, pp. 706-10.

Math, Suresh Bada and Santosh K Chaturvedi. "Euthanasia: right to life vs right to die" Indian Journal of Medical Research, vol. 136, no. 6, 2012, pp. 899-902.