mercy killing argumentative essay

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Mercy killing debate: should euthanasia be legalized?

Source: This image was created for netivist.org. If you want to use it you simply need to  attribute it by linking  to this page or to  https://netivist.org . Thanks

Many new cases of physician-assisted suicide or mercy killing are emerging in Western countries. Some of them have regulated it. Do you think euthanasia  should be legalized? Under what circumstances? Do we have the right to die as we choose?

Mercy Killing Debate

Euthanasia or physician- assisted suicide , also know as mercy killing , is becoming a prominent public debate . The implications of legalizing assisted suicide are wide-ranging from a  medical , legal, political and ethical point of view. 

The term euthanasia means "good death" in Greek. With the progress of medicine in multiple domains (e.g. anesthesiology, pain medicine) came the problem of the decision of death. Some countries, like for instance Belgium, The Netherlands, and some states in the USA, including New Mexico, Montana, Oregon and Vermont, have passed laws allowing voluntary euthanasia. But the legality of choosing the moment of death is an extremely controversial subject because it appeals to personal views on ethics and morality and is highly emotional and linked to religious beliefs. Most countries still consider euthanasia a crime . Some people consider allowing euthanasia to risk opening a slippery slope where killing may become more common, and risk the killing of people misinformed or against their will. These people also worry about the risk of killing any person with some sort of suffering (e.g. mental disability, physical handicap). Supporters of euthanasia claim it is an individual right to decide when to die, to keep control of their fate when it is still possible.

Types of euthanasia

There are different types of euthanasia according to whether the will of the patient has been expressed.

• Voluntary euthanasia : to intentionally end the life of someone who asked for it to relieve physical pain and psychological suffering. It can be considered as assisted suicide. Patient gives informed consent. An official signed document in which one declares one wants to be euthanized.
• Non-voluntary euthanasia : consent of the patient is unavailable. Usually family members are asked about the possible will of the patient as well as their own wish.
• Involuntary euthanasia is against the patient’s will and is illegal, considered as murder, in most countries. 

Euthanasia can also be divided into:

• Passive euthanasia:  when the family or medical staff withhold life support (e.g. medication, respiratory machine, feeding or liquids) from the patient.
• Active euthanasia: when the patient is administered (e.g. injected) a lethal dose of any chemical substance to end her/life. 

And you? Do you support  mercy killing ?   Should euthanasia be legalized? Before voting and commenting you may want to consider the pros and cons of legalizing physician-assisted suicide (see below).

Watch this video on the mercy killing debate

Euthanasia pros and cons

• Dying with dignity: some people are deeply sick, postrated and unable to do even the most basic human actions, such as eating, changing clothes, washing themselves or using the toilets. They often find their state degrading and humilliating and may prefer to die with dignity and stop being a burden to those around them.
• End to human suffering: people with terminal illness and no chance of recovery often suffer great physical pain and emotional distress. Ending their lives, if they wish so, can spare them from an unnecessary suffering.
• Legal certainty: according to research conducted in the Netherlands, regulating euthanasia has improved legal certainty and has contributed to the carefulness of assisted suicide.
• Healthcare spending: keeping alive terminal patients who are suffering and not able to recover is also very expensive and detracts medical resources from other patients who could heal or need treatments. Families of the patients who want to end their lives may also face bills which can very negatively affect their finances.
• Autonomy and self-determination: opposing to someone's will of ending her/his life goes against that person freedom and right of deciding on their future.
• Moral and ethical problems: physician assisted death clashes with religious beliefs. Many religions state that human life end should not be decided by people but by God. 
• Misunderstandings and errors: there are cases in which doctors have wrongfully diagnosed a terminal disease or have thought that a patient is without hope of recovery. However, medicine evolves and cures may be found. Some new treatments may become effective were others failed. So terminating someone's life even with her/his consent may be a mistake.
• Legalizing murder: regulating euthanasia for some extreme cases may mean crossing a line. It has been argued that this could be a slippery slope which could end up with the legalization of an increasing number of cases for ending a life for utilitarian reasons.
• Abuse: if euthanasia is legal, there may be an incentive to exaggerate the negative condition of patients so that the family decides to "disconnect" them so that the hospital or insurance company saves money.
• Complexity: even if countries decide to legalize euthanasia, there may be great difficulties in agreeing with the cases and situations in which these mercy killings are acceptable and with the legal procedures that should be respected.

Taking all these pros and cons into consideration and the experience in the territories where it has been legalized, what would you recommend doing?

You may also want to participate in our debates on the legalization of  cannabis , prostitution , and  same sex marriage .

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Yale J Biol Med
• v.92(4); 2019 Dec

Focus: Death

Pros and cons of physician aid in dying, lydia s. dugdale.

a Department of Internal Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY

Barron H. Lerner

b Department of Medicine and Population Health, New York University, New York, NY

Daniel Callahan

c formerly of the Hastings Center, Garrison, NY

The question of a physician’s involvement in aid in dying (or “assisted suicide”) is being debated across the country. This article adopts no one position because its authors hold contrasting views. It aims instead to articulate the strongest arguments in favor of aid in dying and the strongest arguments opposed. It also addresses relevant terminology and reviews the history of its legalization in the United States.

Physician aid in dying is a controversial subject raising issues central to the role of physicians. According to the American Medical Association, it occurs when a physician provides “the necessary means and/or information” to facilitate a patient’s choice to end his or her life [ 1 ].

This essay’s authors hold varying views on the ethics of aid in dying; thus, the essay explores the subject without taking a position. It addresses its terminology; history of legalization in the United States; arguments in favor of aid in dying; and arguments opposed.

Terminology

Physician aid in dying goes by many names. Perhaps the best recognized is “physician-assisted suicide.” Alternative terms include but are not limited to: death with dignity, doctor-prescribed death, right to die, and physician-assisted death. For simplicity’s sake, we use aid in dying (AID), although we recognize that there will be some who object, no matter the label.

A variety of factors have led to these various neologisms. Supplanting the word “physician” with “medical,” for example, makes it possible for non-physician clinicians to prescribe the lethal medications. Some advocates of AID prefer not to use the term “suicide;” they contend that AID is a medical practice, distinct from the act of suicide for a depressed or hopeless person [ 2 ]. By contrast, opponents maintain that the process of prematurely and deliberately ending one’s life is always suicide, regardless of motivation. Some insist that dissociating “physician-assisted suicide” from other types of suicide demeans those who die by suicide for other reasons, as if only medically-assisted suicides are legitimate [ 3 ]. People on both sides of the issue worry whether “aid in dying” or “assisted dying” might be confused with palliative, hospice, or other care of dying patients.

In the United States, physician-assisted suicide or aid in dying has always been carefully distinguished from euthanasia. Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, refers to the administration of a lethal medication to an incurably suffering patient. It may be voluntary (the patient requests it) or involuntary. Euthanasia is illegal in the United States, but voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Colombia, Luxembourg, and Canada. It is decriminalized in the Netherlands.

At risk of compounding terminology further, Canada legalized in June 2016 “medical assistance in dying” (MAiD), which includes both “voluntary euthanasia” and “medically-assisted suicide [ 4 ].”

A Brief History of Legalization in the United States

In the early 1900s, advocates argued forcefully for legalizing euthanasia, which was already being secretly practiced in the US. According to Jacob Appel’s work on this period, the eugenics movement strongly influenced discourse on euthanasia, and opponents of legalization tended to put forth practical rather than religious or moral arguments [ 5 ]. When efforts to legalize euthanasia failed, public discourse on the subject waned for many decades.

In the 1980s, the pathologist Jacob “Jack” Kevorkian began advertising in Detroit area newspapers as a death counselor [ 6 ]. He had studied the technique of Dutch physicians in the Netherlands, and created his own device with which patients could self-administer lethal medications. His first patient ended her life in 1990 while lying on a bed inside Kevorkian’s Volkswagen van. He went on to assist with some 130 deaths by suicide over the next eight years. In 1999, after Kevorkian publicly distributed a video of himself directly euthanizing a patient, he was convicted of second-degree murder and sent to prison. Although Kevorkian reignited national debate about dying, his off-putting approach and personal idiosyncrasies prevented his becoming a national leader on the issue.

Several of Kevorkian’s physician contemporaries filed suit against New York’s Attorney General, arguing that the State of New York’s prohibition against physician-assisted suicide violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They argued, in effect, that the right to refuse treatment was effectively the same as the right to end one’s life. The Supreme Court ruled in response in Vacco v. Quill (1997) that there is no constitutionally-protected right to die. It left such decisions to the states. The Court also ruled in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) that a right to aid in dying was not protected by the Due Process Clause.

Oregon became the first to pass its death with dignity law that same year. More than a decade later, Washington legalized AID in 2008. Montana decriminalized the practice a year later. Vermont legalized it in 2013.

In 2014, a young Californian named Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with an astrocytoma and became a spokesperson for the legalization of AID. She was a newlywed facing terminal illness, and her story quickly captured the public imagination. Her well-publicized death by lethal ingestion in Oregon in 2014 influenced her home state of California to legalize AID in 2015. This was subsequently followed by Colorado in 2016, the District of Columbia in 2017, Hawai'i in 2018, and New Jersey and Maine in 2019.

Pro Arguments

The two most common arguments in favor of legalizing AID are respect for patient autonomy and relief of suffering. A third, related, argument is that AID is a safe medical practice, requiring a health care professional.

Respect for Patient Autonomy

Bioethics as a discipline gained significant traction in the 1970s, at a time when the concept of patient rights was pushing back against physician paternalism. The philosophers Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, in their well-known textbook Principles of Biomedical Ethics, advanced four fundamental principles as a framework for addressing ethically-complex cases: autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Of these principles, autonomy undeniably exerts the most influence on current US medical practice [ 7 ].

Autonomy refers to governance over one’s own actions. In the health care setting, this means a patient determines which medical interventions to elect or forgo. Patient autonomy serves as the justification for informed consent; only after a thorough explanation of risks and benefits can the patient have the agency to make a decision about treatments or participation in medical research. This logic, it is argued, naturally extends to AID; patients accustomed to making their own health care decisions throughout life should also be permitted to control the circumstances of their deaths.

Relief of Suffering

At its core, medicine has always aimed to relieve the suffering of patients from illness and disease. In the West, Hippocrates’s ancient oath pledged to use treatments to help the sick, but not “administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so [ 8 ].” In contrast, advocates of AID argue that relief of suffering through lethal ingestion is humane and compassionate – if the patient is dying and suffering is refractory. Indeed, some of the most compelling arguments made in favor of AID come from patients, such as Maynard, who suffer from life-threatening illnesses.

A Safe Medical Practice

Aid in dying is lauded by advocates for being a safe medical practice – that is, doctors can ensure death in a way that suicide by other means cannot. Aid in dying thus becomes one option among many possibilities for care of the dying. Although individual state laws vary, most propose a number of safeguards to prevent abuses and to provide structure for an act that some people will do anyway, albeit more haphazardly or even dangerously. Safeguards include requiring that a patient electing AID be informed of all end-of-life options; that two witnesses confirm that the patient is requesting AID autonomously; and that patients are free of coercion and able to ingest the lethal medication themselves [ 9 ].

Con Arguments

Although opponents of AID offer many arguments ranging from pragmatic to philosophical, we focus here on concerns that the expansion of AID might cause additional, unintended harm through suicide contagion, slippery slope, and the deaths of patients suffering from depression.

Suicide Contagion

The sociologist David Phillips first described suicide contagion in the 1970s. He showed that after high profile suicides, society would witness a broad spike in suicides [ 10 ]. This was particularly true for individuals whose demographic profiles were similar to those of the person who died by suicide [ 11 ]. Although Phillips’s work did not focus on AID, it has been corroborated recently by the spike in youth suicidality following the airing of Netflix’s 13 Reasons Why [ 12 ].

The publicly-available data from Oregon, however, reveal that in the months surrounding Maynard’s high-profile death in November 2014, the number of similarly situated individuals in Oregon who ended their lives by lethal ingestion more than doubled. Furthermore, from 1998 (when Oregon started recording data) to 2013, the number of lethal prescriptions written each year increased at an average of 12.1%. During 2014 and 2015, however, this increase doubled, suggesting that high-profile AID leads to more AID [ 13 ]. Although the data do not prove that an increase in AID causes more non-assisted suicide, a study by Jones and Paton found that the legalization of AID has been associated with “an increased rate of total suicides relative to other states and no decrease in non-assisted suicides [ 14 ].” They suggest that this means either AID does not inhibit non-assisted suicide or that AID makes non-assisted suicide more palatable for others.

Slippery Slope

Some opponents of AID express concern that once doctors are involved in the business of hastening patients’ deaths; they have already slid down the slippery slope [ 15 ]. Others suggest that the slope is best exemplified by an expanding list of reasons for electing AID. Refractory physical pain is no longer the most compelling reason for ending one’s life through lethal ingestion. Instead, cumulative Oregon data suggest that the vast majority of patients elect AID because they are concerned about “losing autonomy” (90.6%) or are “less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable” (89.1%). Some fear a “loss of dignity” (74.4%); being a “burden on family, friends/caregivers” (44.8%); or “losing control of bodily functions” (44.3%). Concern about inadequate pain control was the reason for pursuing a lethal ingestion in only 25.7% of cases [ 16 ].

Opponents also point to increasing calls in the US for euthanasia. In 2017, Senate Bill 893 was introduced to the Oregon State Legislature; it would have enabled patients to identify in a legal directive the person they wished to administer their lethal medications, effectively legalizing euthanasia [ 17 ]. Although this bill failed, the Oregon House passed HB2217 in 2019, which expanded the definition of “self-administer” to include options in addition to the oral ingestion of lethal drugs. The House also put forward HB2903, which seeks to expand the word “ingest” for lethal medication to “any means” and also proposes to expand the definition of “terminal disease” to include “a degenerative condition that at some point in the future” might cause death. It remains to be seen whether Oregon will become the first state to legalize euthanasia.

Although Belgium and The Netherlands permit both AID and euthanasia, the latter dominates. Over the years there has been a steady increase in acceptable criteria. Currently, patients who suffer from depression, dementia, or being “tired of life” may be euthanized. In some cases, minors may also be euthanized [ 18 ]. Published data from the Flanders region of Belgium highlights that vulnerable populations are especially likely to be euthanized. From 2007 to 2013, the largest increases in rates of granting euthanasia requests were among women, those 80 years or older, those with lower educational achievement, and those who died in nursing homes [ 19 ].

Depression in Advanced Illness

Up to half of patients with cancer suffer from symptoms of depression [ 20 ]. The elderly also suffer from high rates of depression and suicide [ 21 ]. Because depression often manifests somatically [ 22 ], if patients are not screened, clinicians miss half of all cases of clinical depression [ 23 - 25 ]. Opponents of AID are concerned that in Oregon, greater than 70 percent of patients who elect AID are elderly and have cancer, but fewer than five percent are referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist to rule out clinical depression.

Physician AID remains a controversial subject relevant to the care of patients. The Hippocratic model dominated medical practice for thousands of years. With the rise of euthanasia in Europe during the second half of the twentieth century, many began to rethink this stance, but hastening the death of patients still sits uncomfortably with many physicians. Although a number of medical societies have begun to reconsider their positions, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates voted in June 2019 to maintain the organization’s long-held opposition to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia [ 26 ]. Strong arguments remain both in favor and in opposition to the practice, and physicians have an ethical responsibility to remain informed on this timely issue.

Additional Information

Co-author Daniel Callahan, PhD, died after the first submission of this article.

• Opinions on caring for patients at the end of life . AMA Code of Medical Ethics , 2016. https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/code-of-medical-ethics-chapter-5.pdf Accessed April 30, 2019.
• Medical aid in dying is not assisted suicide . Compassion & Choices , 2016. https://www.compassionandchoices.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FS-Medical-Aid-in-Dying-is-Not-Assisted-Suicide-FINAL-11.22.16-Approved-for-Public-Distribution.pdf Accessed January 19, 2017.
• Yuill K. Assisted Suicide: The liberal, humanist case against legalization . London, England: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. p. 16. [ Google Scholar ]
• Medical assistance in dying . Government of Canada , 2017. http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/health-system-systeme-sante/services/end-life-care-soins-fin-vie/medical-assistance-dying-aide-medicale-mourir-eng.php Accessed April 30, 2019.
• Appel JM. A duty to kill? A duty to die? Rethinking the euthanasia controversy of 1906 . Bull Hist Med . 2004; 78 ( 3 ):610–34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dr. Jack Kevorkian dies at 83; A doctor who helped end lives. New York Times . June 3, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/us/04kevorkian.html Accessed April 30, 2019.
• Quill TE, Brody H. Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and patient choice . Ann Intern Med . 1996; 125 :763–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hippocrates of Cos The Oath . Loeb Classical Library. 1923; 147 :298–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips DP. The influence of suggestion on suicide: substantive and theoretical implications of the Werther effect . Am Sociol Rev . 1974; 39 ( 3 ):340–54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dugdale LS, Callahan D. Assisted Death and the Public Good . South Med J . 2017. September; 110 ( 9 ):559–61. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bridge JA, Greenhouse JB, Ruch D, Stevens J, Ackerman J, Sheftall AH, et al. Association between the release of Netflix’s 13 Reasons Why and suicide rates in the United States: an interrupted times series analysis . J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry . 2019;Apr 28:pii: S0890-8567(19)30288-6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oregon death with dignity act: 2015 data summary . Oregon Public Health Division , 2016. https://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year18.pdf Accessed May 2, 2017.
• Jones DA, Paton D. How Does Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide Affect Rates of Suicide? South Med J . 2015. October; 108 ( 10 ):599–604. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caplan AL, Curlin FA. Physician-assisted dying: The antithesis of medicine, says doc . Medscape . http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/874232 Accessed April 30, 2019.
• Oregon Death with Dignity Act : 2018. Data Summary. Oregon Public Health Division, Center for Health Statistics . https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/EVALUATIONRESEARCH/DEATHWITHDIGNITYACT/Documents/year21.pdf Accessed April 30, 2019.
• Senate Bill 893 . Oregon State Legislature , 2017. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Measures/Overview/SB893 Accessed April 30, 2019.
• Bollen JA, Ten Hoopen R, van der Hoeven MA, et al. Organ donation after euthanasia in children: belgian and Dutch perspectives . Arch Dis Child . 2019. September; 104 ( 9 ):827–30. Epub 2018 Aug 28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dierickx S, Deliens L, Cohen J, Chambaere K. Comparison of the Expression and Granting of Requests for Euthanasia in Belgium in 2007 vs 2013 . JAMA Intern Med . 2015. October; 175 ( 10 ):1703–6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenstein DL. Depression and end-of-life care for patients with cancer . Dialogues Clin Neurosci . 2011; 13 ( 1 ):101–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown PJ, Rutherford BR, Yaffe K, et al. The depressed frail phenotype: the clinical manifestation of increased biological aging . Am J Geriatr Psychiatry . 2016; 24 ( 11 ):1084–94. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tylee A, Gandhi P. The importance of somatic symptoms in depression in primary care . Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry . 2005; 7 ( 4 ):167–76. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ansseau M, Dierick M, Buntinkx F, et al. High prevalence of mental disorders in primary care . J Affect Disord . 2004; 78 ( 1 ):49–55. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• González HM, Vega WA, Williams DR, Tarraf W, West BT, Neighbors HW. Depression care in the United States: too little for too few . Arch Gen Psychiatry . 2010; 67 ( 1 ):37–46. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell AJ, Vaze A, Rao S. Clinical diagnosis of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis . Lancet . 2009. August; 374 ( 9690 ):609–19. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/ama/80384

1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time

Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing

Author: Nathan Nobis Category: Ethics Word count: 1000

Listen here

Sadly, there are people in very bad medical conditions who want to die. They are in pain, they are suffering, and they no longer find their quality of life to be at an acceptable level anymore.

When people like this are kept alive by machines or other medical treatments, can it be morally permissible to let them die ?

Advocates of “passive euthanasia” argue that it can be. Their reasons, however, suggest that it can sometimes be not wrong to actively kill some patients, i.e., that “active euthanasia” can be permissible also. [1] This essay reviews these arguments.

1. Passive Euthanasia

Denying that passive euthanasia is ever morally permissible suggests that we must always do everything we can to try to keep someone alive, even if they are miserable, want to die, and say so. To many, that’s just cruel. [2]

Passive euthanasia can be directly supported by both consequentialist (or utilitarian) and Kantian ethics. [3]

For the consequentialist, the patient being out of their misery is a better consequence for them , and overall, than their staying alive: this decreases the total amount of pain and unhappiness in the world, and no other choice would produce more good, for them or overall.

For a Kantian, letting them die respects their autonomy or decisions about matters that profoundly affect their own lives: this respects them as “ends in themselves,” whereas forcing them to live treats them as a “mere means” toward our ends, not their own.

Passive euthanasia can also be supported by stating conditions when it can be OK to let someone die. We begin with an ‘if’ and develop a principle:

(a) someone is dying, and (b) is in horrible pain and suffering, and (c) that pain and suffering cannot be relieved, and (d) that person wants to die and says so, and (e) informed, thoughtful and caring people agree that the person would be better off no longer living . . ,

then it can be permissible to let that person die. [4]

Passive euthanasia, then, can be justified in a variety of ways.

2. Active Euthanasia

To see why active euthanasia might be permissible, we begin by reflecting on why passive euthanasia might be OK: it gets people out of their misery and respects what they want for their own lives.

We then observe that these goals can often be pursued more directly and immediately by, say, giving them an overdose of pain-killing medications. Letting people die can take a long time, and that time might be full of unwanted suffering. Killing people, when they want to be killed, achieves their goals, more quickly.

So, it seems that if passive euthanasia can be permissible, so can active.

3. Objections

There are many objections to this reasoning. Some concern euthanasia in general.

3.1. Some claim that pain can always be controlled and so there is never a need to euthanize anyone. However, this insistence that pain can always be made bearable is, sadly, not true.

3.2. Some argue that “miracles” are possible – there’s always a chance that someone recovers – and so euthanasia is wrong. But making important decisions on very unlikely chances is often unwise. Most interestingly though, euthanasia would never prevent a miracle, especially one of divine origins.

Further objections claim there are important differences between active and passive euthanasia, making passive permissible but active wrong.

3.3. Some argue that it’s always wrong to intentionally kill someone, so active euthanasia is wrong. In reply, while it’s, at least, nearly always wrong to kill people, this is arguably because people usually want to live and do not have lives full of pain. Perhaps killing can be justified when this is not the case. [5]

3.4. Some argue that allowing active euthanasia might put us on a “slippery slope” to murdering people who want to live. But this hasn’t happened where active euthanasia is allowed, since we do and would have safeguards to lessen this possibility, as we do with other things that might lead to bad results if misused.

3.5. Some argue that there are important moral differences between allowing something to happen and doing something or because killing someone and letting them die are profoundly different, and so passive and active euthanasia should be judged differently. But consider this case:

An aunt will inherit lots of money if her five-year-old nephew dies. She plans to drown him in the bathtub and make it look like an accident. He just started his bath; she’s on her way to the bathroom to drown him. She opens the bathroom door and is delighted to see that he has slipped in the bathtub and is drowning. She watches, ready to push him under if he steadies himself and saves his own life. But, as her luck would have it, he drowns; she never touches him throughout the ordeal. She inherits the money. [6]

If she claimed that she didn’t “do anything,” she did : she stood there, and doing nothing is doing something . And letting someone die can be as bad , or nearly as bad , and perhaps sometimes even worse than killing someone [7] : indeed, a way to kill someone is to let them die. So these distinctions are, at least, not clear.

3.6. A final concern is that especially if active euthanasia were allowed, some people could be wrongfully killed. This is possible: some people might wrongfully break (potentially good) rules. But we cannot ignore that if euthanasia is not allowed, it might be that some people could be wrongly kept alive. Which wrong is more likely? Which wrong is worse?

4. Conclusion

While death is, arguably, usually bad for the person who dies, the goal of euthanasia is to make this less bad: the word euthanasia means a “good death.” These issues are important, and not just for people currently facing hard choices about death. None of us knows what will happen to us: at any time, an accident or illness might force these issues upon us, and so we should engage them more deeply, now. [8]

[1] The discussion and arguments here are largely based on James Rachels ’ (1941-2003) famous and widely-reprinted article “ Active and Passive Euthanasia,” New England Journal of Medicine 1975; 292: 78-80 .

[2] The discussion here concerns what’s called voluntary euthanasia, where a person wants to die and says so. There are other types of euthanasia though. Non-voluntary euthanasia involves an individual who neither wants to die nor wants to live, e.g., someone who has been unconscious for a long time, say in a coma, and we have good reason to believe that consciousness will never return: they currently don’t literally want anything and we usually don’t know what they would have wanted , since people usually don’t discuss this. What is sometimes called involuntary “euthanasia” involves someone who wants to live and says so . If such a person is let die or killed, this is not euthanasia: in all or nearly all cases, this is murder or wrongful killing , and so won’t be discussed further here.

These definitions cover most actual cases of euthanasia, but they aren’t perfect. First, it could happen that someone said that, if they were to fall into a permanent coma, they would very much want their body to be kept alive for as long as possible, but nobody knows this is what they wanted: if they are euthanized, is that in voluntary or non -voluntary? It could also happen that someone wants to die, but has no way of communicating that (suppose they have an extreme form of “ locked-in syndrome ,” with eye paralysis too, so they cannot even blink out messages): if they are euthanized, is that voluntary or non-voluntary? These cases are unclear, given the characterizations above, as are further possibilities of someone who wants to die but nobody knows that and someone who wants to live but nobody can tell .

Non-human animals who are judged to have a poor quality of life due to serious health problems are often (actively) euthanized: is this best considered a form of non-voluntary euthanasia, or potentially a different type of voluntary euthanasia? These animals have some current wants or desires, unlike a coma patient, but probably don’t have a specific want or desire to die, unlike in typical voluntary euthanasia cases. 

[3] Consequentialism and Kantianism can be used to support euthanasia (although Kant himself might have opposed it: Kant’s own judgments on many moral issues and the positions on moral issues that his theories arguably support sometimes diverge). But these theories do urge us to be very cautious about bringing about someone’s death, including our own.

Consequentialists would, and should, urge especially anyone who doesn’t have a challenging medical condition but wishes to die to seek counseling and assistance to help find happiness and fulfillment: in most cases, this would be better than death for that person and for promoting overall happiness. “ It gets better ,” the saying goes: it’s possible for someone to be euthanized (passively or actively), or commit suicide (if someone euthanizes themselves, this is a type of suicide; if they need assistance to do this, this is assisted suicide ), whose death is not in their own best interest or contributes to the greatest overall good. Indeed, some people have wished to die, have been prevented from ending their own life, come to appreciate their own life later, and then have been glad that they had not ended their life when they wanted to do so earlier. (However, it’s also sometimes true that people want to die, they live, and are eventually able to live what they report to be fulfilling lives, yet they still they wish they had died: Dax Cowart is a well-known case perhaps like this).

And Kantians don’t think that autonomy is unrestricted or limitless: just because we want something for ourselves doesn’t mean we should get it. Kantians firmly reject an attitude of “It’s your life, so do whatever you want with it,” since we have obligations to respect ourselves (and our future selves), given our value as persons, and this respect for ourselves could rule out some cases of euthanasia and suicide.

[4] The details of a principle like this, however, take us to harder questions about euthanasia, harder than those that arise in most circumstances: for examples, what if someone wants to die now but isn’t currently in horrible pain and suffering, or is expecting to die, but many years later after a very slow decline? Should anyone else have “say” over your own life or judge whether some pain and suffering is “horrible enough” for you to reasonably wish to die? If so, who? What if someone isn’t dying and doesn’t even have a bad medical condition but just finds their life not worth living and so wants to die (and so, say, plans to starve themselves to death or do other things that will result in their death)? These harder questions, and others, would need to be addressed for a complete defense of this or similar principles and any arguments based on them.

[5] Some might claim that their intention in any euthanasia is not to kill anyone: killing is an unintended consequence of their real intention, which might be to make the patient comfortable. If this makes sense, they might claim that they are not engaged in any intentional killing, so they aren’t violating any moral principle against intentional killing. This type of reasoning is related to what’s called the “Doctrine of Double Effect.”

[6] This case is from James Rachels. Here is another example that addresses the distinction between doing something versus allowing something to happen :

In a deep forest, hiking alone, Adam finds someone who has fallen into a deep pit. They ask him to throw them a rope so they can climb out. Adam doesn’t and they eventually starve to death. Adam learns of this on the news but feels fine since, he tells himself, “I didn’t do anything there. I did nothing wrong.”

To most, Adam clearly did something  –  he didn’t just allow something to happen – and he did something wrong: what he did , standing there not throwing the rope, was wrong.

[7] For tragic reflections that letting someone die can be worse than killing them, see Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die,” The New York Times , July 12, 2017 .

[8] Thanks to Zach Blaesi, Taylor Cyr, Chelsea Haramia, Dan Lowe, Travis Rodgers and Dan Peterson for comments on and discussion of this essay.

Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die,” The New York Times , July 12, 2017 .

James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” New England Journal of Medicine 1975; 292: 78-80.

For Further Reading

Young, Robert, “Voluntary Euthanasia”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta .

Cholbi, Michael, “Suicide”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

Woollard, Fiona and Howard-Snyder, Frances, “Doing vs. Allowing Harm”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

McIntyre, Alison, “Doctrine of Double Effect”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

Related Essays

Applied Ethics by Chelsea Haramia

The Badness of Death by Duncan Purves

Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death by Frederik Kaufman

The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? by Gabriel Andrade

Deontology: Kantian Ethics by Andrew Chapman

Consequentialism by Shane Gronholz

Principlism in Biomedical Ethics: Respect for Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice  by G. M. Trujillo, Jr.

Can We Believe in Miracles? by Tomas Bogardus

Possibility and Necessity: An Introduction to Modality  by Andre Leo Rusavuk

Are We Animals? Animalism and Personal Identity by Kristin Seemuth Whaley

PDF Download

Download this essay in PDF . 

Acknowledgments 

This essay is an abbreviated version of a longer chapter of the same title published in Noah Levin, ed.,  Introduction to Ethics: An Open Educational Resource (NGE Press, 2019) .  Nathan is grateful to Noah Levin for the occasion and inspiration to write these essays. 

About the Author

Nathan Nobis is a Professor of Philosophy at Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA. He is the author of Animals & Ethics 101 , co-author of  Thinking Critically About Abortion , a co-author of  Chimpanzee Rights , and author or co-author of many other articles, chapters, and reviews in philosophy and ethics. www.NathanNobis.com

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on  Facebook  and  Twitter  and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at  1000WordPhilosophy.com .

Share this:, 11 thoughts on “ euthanasia, or mercy killing ”.

• Pingback: The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Psychological Approaches to Personal Identity: Do Memories and Consciousness Make Us Who We Are? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Are We Animals? Animalism and Personal Identity – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Principlism in Biomedical Ethics: Respect for Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Personal Identity – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Ethics: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes - The Daily Idea
• Pingback: Ethics: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes – The Daily Idea
• Pingback: Speciesism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Applied Ethics – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Online Philosophy Resources Weekly Update - Daily Nous

Comments are closed.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Euthanasia – Arguments in Favour and Against

Last updated on April 7, 2024 by ClearIAS Team

Euthanasia is the deliberate act of ending a person’s life to relieve them of suffering. It is a complex and ethically sensitive topic that has sparked debates and discussions worldwide. There are different forms of euthanasia, and it is regulated differently in various countries.

Euthanasia (“good death”) is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. It is also known as ‘mercy killing’.

In many countries, there is a divisive public controversy over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of euthanasia. Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Euthanasia is also classified into active and passive Euthanasia.

Table of Contents

Voluntary, Non-Voluntary, and Involuntary Euthanasia

• Voluntary euthanasia: It is conducted with the consent of the patient and is termed voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries. Jurisdictions, where euthanasia is legal, include the Netherlands, Colombia, Belgium, and Luxembourg.
• Non-Voluntary euthanasia: It is conducted where the consent of the patient is unavailable and is termed non-voluntary euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. Examples include child euthanasia, which is illegal worldwide but decriminalized under certain specific circumstances in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol.
• Involuntary euthanasia: It is conducted against the will of the patient and is termed involuntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is usually considered murder.

Passive vs Active euthanasia

Voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into passive or active variants.

• Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments, such as antibiotics, necessary for the continuance of life.
• Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces, such as administering a lethal injection, to kill and is the most controversial means.

Euthanasia debate

Euthanasia raises profound ethical and moral questions. Supporters argue that it can be a compassionate and dignified way to end suffering, particularly in cases of terminal illness.

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan ⇓

(1) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims cum Mains

(2) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims Test Series

(3) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Fight Back

Opponents argue that it raises significant ethical concerns, including the potential for abuse, coercion, and mistakes in diagnosing terminal conditions.

Arguments in Favor

Historically, the euthanasia debate has tended to focus on several key concerns. According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel Emanuel, proponents of euthanasia have presented four main arguments:

• that people have a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their fate
• assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than requiring that they continue to suffer
• the distinction between passive euthanasia, which is often permitted, and active euthanasia, which is not substantive (or that the underlying principle–the doctrine of double effect–is unreasonable or unsound);
• permitting euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences. Pro-euthanasia activists often point to countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, and states like Oregon, where euthanasia has been legalized, to argue that it is mostly unproblematic.
• Constitution of India: ‘Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but euthanasia/suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’. The State must protect life and the physician’s duty to provide care and not to harm patients. Supreme Court in Gian Kaur Case 1996 has held that the right to life under Article 21 does not include the right to die.
• Caregiver’s burden: Right-to-die supporters argue that people who have an incurable, degenerative, disabling, or debilitating condition should be allowed to die in dignity. This argument is further defended by those, who have chronic debilitating illness even though it is not terminal such as severe mental illness. The majority of such petitions are filed by the sufferers or family members or their caretakers. The caregiver’s burden is huge and cuts across various financial, emotional, time, physical, mental, and social domains.
• Refusing care: The right to refuse medical treatment is well recognized in law, including medical treatment that sustains or prolongs life. For example, a patient suffering from blood cancer can refuse treatment or deny feeds through a nasogastric tube. Recognition of the right to refuse treatment gives way to passive euthanasia.
• Encouraging organ transplantation: Mercy killing in terminally ill patients provides an opportunity to advocate for organ donation. This, in turn, will help many patients with organ failure waiting for transplantation. Not only does euthanasia give the ‘Right to die‘ for the terminally ill, but also the ‘Right to life‘ for the organ needy patients.

Arguments against

Emanuel argues that there are four major arguments presented by opponents of euthanasia:

• not all deaths are painful;
• alternatives, such as cessation of active treatment, combined with the use of effective pain relief, are available;
• the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is morally significant; and
• legalizing euthanasia will place society on a slippery slope, which will lead to unacceptable consequences
• Euthanasia weakens society’s respect for the sanctity of life.
• Euthanasia might not be in a person’s best interests, for example, getting old-aged parents killed for property will.
• Belief in God’s miracle of curing the terminally ill.
• The prospect of a discovery of a possible cure for the disease shortly.
• Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary.
• There is no way of properly regulating euthanasia.
• Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill.
• Allowing euthanasia undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to save lives.
• Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill.
• Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill.
• Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors.

Euthanasia in India

Passive euthanasia is legal in India. On 7 March 2011, the Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasia using the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for 42 years until she died in 2015.

The Aruna Shanbaug Case

In March 2011, the Supreme Court of India passed a historic judgment permitting Passive Euthanasia in the country. This judgment was passed after Pinki Virani’s plea to the highest court in December 2009 under the Constitutional provision of “Next Friend”. It’s a landmark law which places the power of choice in the hands of the individual, over government, medical or religious control which sees all suffering as “destiny”. The Supreme Court specified two irreversible conditions to permit Passive Euthanasia Law in its 2011 Law:

• The brain-dead for whom the ventilator can be switched off.
• Those in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for whom the feed can be tapered out and pain-managing palliatives be added, according to laid-down international specifications.

The same judgment law also asked for the scrapping of 309 , the code that penalizes those who survive suicide attempts. In December 2014, the Government of India declared its intention.

PIL filed by Common Cause

However, on 25 February 2014, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India termed the judgment in the Aruna Shanbaug case to be ‘inconsistent in itself’ and referred the issue of euthanasia to its five-judge Constitution bench on a PIL filed by Common Cause , which case is the basis of the current debate.

Then, the CJI referred to an earlier Constitution Bench judgment which, in the Gian Kaur case , “did not express any binding view on the subject of euthanasia; rather it reiterated that the legislature would be the appropriate authority to bring change.” Though that judgment said the right to live with dignity under Article 21 was inclusive of the right to die with dignity, it did not conclude the validity of euthanasia, be it active or passive.

“So, the only judgment that holds the field about euthanasia in India is the ruling in the Aruna Shanbaug case, which upholds the validity of passive euthanasia and lays down an elaborate procedure for executing the same on the wrong premise that the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur had upheld the same,” the CJI said.

Common Cause Case: In 2018, the Supreme Court issued a significant judgment in the Common Cause case. The court recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and permitted passive euthanasia. It provided guidelines for the process and conditions under which passive euthanasia could be allowed.

Government’s endorsement of Passive Euthanasia

On December 23, 2014, the Government of India endorsed and re-validated the Passive Euthanasia judgment law in a Press Release, after stating in the Rajya Sabha as follows: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while dismissing the plea for mercy killing in a particular case, laid down comprehensive guidelines to process cases relating to passive euthanasia.

Thereafter, the matter of mercy killing was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has been decided that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already laid down the guidelines, these should be followed and treated as law in such cases. At present, there is no legislation on this subject and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all.

The court rejected active euthanasia using lethal injection. In the absence of a law regulating euthanasia in India, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enacts a suitable law. Active euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds to end life, is still illegal in India, and in most countries.

As India had no law about euthanasia, the Supreme Court’s guidelines are law until and unless Parliament passes legislation. The following guidelines were laid down:

• A decision has to be taken to discontinue life support either by the parents the spouse or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be taken by the doctors attending the patient. However, the decision should be taken bona fide in the best interest of the patient.
• Even if a decision is taken by the near relatives or doctors or next friend to withdraw life support, such a decision requires approval from the High Court concerned.
• When such an application is filled, the Chief Justice of the High Court should forthwith constitute a Bench of at least two Judges who should decide whether to approve or not. A committee of three reputed doctors to be nominated by the Bench, will report the condition of the patient. Before giving the verdict, a notice regarding the report should be given to the close relatives and the State. After hearing the parties, the High Court can give its verdict.

A law commission had proposed legislation on “passive euthanasia”, it said. According to the Centre, the decision to come out with a bill was taken after considering the directives of the apex court, the law commission’s 241st report, and a private member bill introduced in Parliament in 2014.

The Centre said that initially, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of B.P. Sharma, secretary in the Health and Family Welfare Ministry, on May 22, 2015, to examine the draft of The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill and the draft of The Euthanasia (Regulation) Bill.

This move to introduce a bill is a welcome step to clear the grey areas in the Euthanasia debate. Students can also link to this issue while answering questions on:

• Judicial activism: SC framing laws when the parliament hasn’t. Just like the Visaka case.
• Ethical dilemma in Paper 4 .

In India,  euthanasia has no legal aspect , and there is no penal law yet introduced in the IPC that specifically deals with euthanasia.

• However, the Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasia in 2018 with some conditions, allowing patients to withdraw medical support if they go into an irreversible coma.
• Passive euthanasia is a matter of ‘living will’, and an adult in their conscious mind is permitted to refuse medical treatment or voluntarily decide not to take medical treatment to embrace death naturally, under certain conditions.
• Individuals are only allowed to draft a living will while in a normal state of health and mind.
• Active euthanasia remains illegal in India.

Read:  Living wills

Article by: Jishnu J Raju

Top 10 Best-Selling ClearIAS Courses

Upsc prelims cum mains (pcm) gs course: unbeatable batch 2025 (online), rs.75000   rs.29000, upsc prelims test series (pts) 2025 (online), rs.9999   rs.4999, upsc mains test series (mts) (online), rs.19999   rs.9999, csat course 2025 (online), current affairs course 2025: important news & analysis (online), ncert foundation course (online), essay writing course for upsc cse (online), ethics course for upsc cse (online), fight back: repeaters program with daily tests (online or offline), rs.55000   rs.25000.

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

February 11, 2016 at 3:48 pm

excellent one..

February 24, 2016 at 8:34 pm

Giving passive euthanasia to a patient who is already dead (not literally) is a right choice.Its better than making them as well as others to suffer.

July 20, 2017 at 4:28 pm

so very true.

July 1, 2016 at 10:58 pm

If the patient does not wants to suffer and himself asking for euthanasia then voluntary euthanasia should be made legal because it will be difficult for him to live than to die. But in case of involuntary euthanasia, there should be some specific time limit upto which the patient’s relatives must wait for him to recover but if there is no improvement like in case of coma , after 7-10 years , there is less chances of the patient to recover. In such cases , involuntary euthanasia should be made legal.

March 16, 2017 at 12:37 pm

no it is not possible If the patient tends to recover over a period of time or suddenly he becomes normal then the involuntary euthanasia will become very dangerous

March 16, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Very Very Useful

June 26, 2018 at 8:12 am

Helpful source I can use to rely on research. Thank you so much, clear IAS.

May 17, 2019 at 9:58 pm

Thanku for quality content

May 23, 2020 at 10:27 pm

“Mercy Killing ” is a responsible debate . It mainly depends on persons will on his /her life.

July 2, 2020 at 2:26 pm

Euthanasia should not be accepted as there is always some hope for better.

May 24, 2021 at 11:57 am

If under Article 21 of the constitution, right to live with dignity is inclusive of right to die with dignity, then why should the provisions under the Euthanasia act be restricted to the old and dying patients. There are a lot of people in their 60s and 70s with limited financial resources, who feel neglected / unwanted by the family who would like to die with dignity rather than be dependent on their children or the other members of family. They may be in good health but would still like to self determine to end their life with dignity. In such cases the law should allow for such people to adopt active Euthanasia. Such people could be persuaded to donate their organs which will help save other lives.

August 25, 2021 at 9:40 am

euthanasia cannot be legalised because of its higher probability of misuse. whether it is for property, money or because of any family problem

August 4, 2022 at 12:11 pm

A thought for all: If you do not have a choice to life, i.e. choose to be born then how can choosing your own means of death, be fair or valid? Something you cannot create or re-created is not yours to manage. My say: God is the giver of life and He alone should take it. Our sufferings are a means of learning, loving, understanding and above all our closeness to Almighty God.

June 28, 2023 at 6:36 pm

ur death is already written whether you take it or god does so doesnt matter

September 19, 2022 at 12:47 pm

I can’t put my dog to sleep for I am as old as he; and despite our handicaps he also wants to live like me.

Boghos L. Artinian

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

ClearIAS Programs: Admissions Open

Thank You 🙌

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan

Subscribe ClearIAS YouTube Channel

Get free study materials. Don’t miss ClearIAS updates.

Subscribe Now

IAS/IPS/IFS Online Coaching: Target CSE 2025

Cover the entire syllabus of UPSC CSE Prelims and Mains systematically.

Download self-study plan.

Analyse Your Performance and Track Your Progress

Download Study Plan

Do You Agree or Disagree With Euthanasia or Mercy Killing?

Euthanasia is the deliberate advancement of a person’s death for the benefit of that person. In most cases euthanasia is carried out because the person asks to die, but there are cases where a person can’t make such a request.

A person who undergoes euthanasia is usually terminally ill. Euthanasia can be carried out either by doing something, such as administering a lethal injection, or by not doing something necessary to keep the person alive (for example failing to keep their feeding tube going).

In my opinion it’s not moral to kill a person even if they are terminally ill because this person need a chance to live along and see his life, but there are people that disagree.

I have a debate in my college about this topic and I’d like to hear if you agree or disagree with euthanasia.

All the Yes points:

It frees up hospital beds and resources, it ends the patient life because he/she is already terminally ill, it relieves suffering, right to choose, relatives spared the agony of watching their loved ones deteriorate beyond recognition, it reduces the spread of diseases, the relationship between law and medical ethics, the ethical safeguards of pas, discrimination in palliative care and how pas can end it, how to save a life, all the no points:, it is not moral to end the patient’s life because he has the right to live longer, it is murder, sanctity of life, making the decision for yourself, or others, voluntary euthanasia gives doctors too much power, a lack of responsbility, the price they pay, the worst evil, yes because….

Terminally ill patients, or those in a permanent vegetative state, can take up valuable hospital beds for those who do want to get better. If they do not want to live, then they should not be allowed to take the beds and care of those that do. Long term palliative care for the terminally ill is a huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources. Why waste these precious resources on someone who has expressed a desire to die, when they could be improving the life of someone who wants to live? In addition, these resources could be re-allocated to further the research of the specific disease the patient is suffering in order to allow future generations to either not have the disease or increase the quality level of care for future patients of this disease by alleviating the symptoms of the disease at the very least. In addition, if the patient is an organ donator and the organs are healthy, it may save up several lives which are ultimately invaluable. working in the care system with people with dementia i have to say in many cases its cruel to keep them alive, we are kinder to our pets when so ill. This is an awful disease which takes any quality of life away, One lady i know has been bed ridden for 5 years unable to communicate , move her limbs or anything if the nazis had done this to people it would be a war crime. This is not about god or any other belief its about common sense. Everyone should have the right to say while they are still of good mind if they get this or another illness at a certain stage they have their life ended, What i see every day is slow often distressing painful deaths which is no more than cruelty,we really have to change the way we think

No because…

Just because beds in hospitals are needed by others is no reason to allow a person to die! Some can be cared for at home, or in special hospices. If we stopped caring for the terminally ill at all where would we draw the line? Is treating the elderly also a waste of resources because they are nearing the end of their lives anyway? I think that to describe palliative care as a “huge and ultimately wasteful drain on medical resources” is rather harsh! I’m not sure that families of the terminally ill would agree with you there.

Terminally ill means terminally ill. This means that the patient, unless an absolute miracle happens, will die eventually regardless of how many interventions it takes to prolong his or her life expectancy. This time and money could be used to help others or cure others who aren’t mortally wounded or diseased. The rebuttal presupposes that an individual needs to wait for a hypothetical existence of a treatment being developed on an assumption that decisions that are finalized is not a justification for terminating a patient’s life at one’s explicit consent. If decisions made in your life were to be stagnated each and every time in order for an opportunity to arise everytime, the basis for this principle would not be a good one at the very least. Wait one day, wait one week, wait one month, we’ll stay back and see. An indecisiveness for something which might not exist within one’s lifetime would make a claim for which things ought to be reversible or decisions ought to be remade in order for things to be “controlled” in a manner. In this respect, of the practice of “Euthanasia”, death is the ultimate goal of avoidance and thus a finalized decision of upholding pain until the very last minute of life in respect to waiting for a treatment outweighs the ultimate outcome of death. The opposition makes a claim that reversibility of a decision that may be regretted later due to it being finalized is better on these grounds, however, if life was controllable in all aspects and under all possible circumstances, we were able to scroll back on our decisions, what meaningful would arise out of the circumstances for which our decisions are made on? What would the product of our actions, time and energy be? Aren’t these decisions philosophically what identify us as who we are even to the extent of a life or death situation? Also, even if a cure was possible, what complications will arise thereafter? What if the patient is of old age and will die anyways but has already lived a long healthy life? It cannot be justified to deem that waiting for something which might or might not exist in a future to occur outweighs the prospect of pain. Wait for a miracle “cure”, wait for a revolutionary science “discovery” to solve our problems, wait for a technological “innovation”…this line of thought may be wise in some situations but not necessarily in the case of Euthanasia.

The patient may be terminally ill but this statement aside from repeating other points discounts the possibility of new treatments being developed in time to cure the illness he or she is facing.

If a terminal patient faces a long, slow, painful death, surely it is much kinder to spare them this kind of suffering and allow them to end their life comfortably. Pain medications used to allieviate symptoms often have unpleasant side effects or may leave the patient in a state of sedation. It is not as if they are really ‘living’ during this time; they are merely waiting to die. They should have the right to avoid this kind of torturous existence and be allowed to die in a humane way. Appeal to “naturalism” is a very bad argument. We take medical pills, we put up an umbrella to avoid having rain fall on us, we try to not live in a tribal manner like our ancestors where we deem ourselves to live a civilized life where we do not simply kill eachother and rape eachother because its the “natural conclusion” of our actions. Suffering may a part of the human condition and it can be argued to be useful in preventing us from self-destructive habits, physical dismemberment or physiological damage due to negligence of the body, etc. However, does that justify that we ought to endure a pointless pain just because it must be part of life’s experience? Just because life is unfair doesn’t mean we should start treating others unfairly, or just because sex is a part of the human experience, that we have an obligation to perform intercourse. Also, if an argument of biological existence is made, then why is it limited to humans in the treatment of this manner? What is the difference between existence and living? Do people want to live in a state where they cannot progress, breathe, talk, hear, see, suffer from paralysis and slowly die? People do want to live, and merely existing is not enough. If we just had to exist, then why do we need a spectrum of other human experiences? Why do not we just limit ourselves to sleep, eat, reproduce, etc? There is more to life than existing in such a state.

There is a straight answer for this: Suffering is part of the human condition and part of life’s experience. Also medication can be improved to help a person’s quality of life and make their deaths as humane as possible. Futhermore even if a person is in a state of sedation they are still biologically existing and still have what some would say an obligation to live their life until its natural conclusion. i think that it is our fate and nothing happens in theis world just like that for no reason. Everything in this world happen for a reason that could be beneficial for that person but he or she may not realise it. You may say know that how if a person is suffering severly from ilness would that be a good thing for him or her ?? Bu toyu never know. I mean that i take as murder. We all say and agree that murder is something really bad and is not allowed so how come killing a person is the right thing?? Even if that person is suffering.What would you call it? Wouldn’t you call it killing. I will say that life is something complicated. It is not something that we could ever realise and understand 100 percent but each and every single person lives for a reason and when someone would die i definitly don’t have the choice to choose whether to kill that person or not even if he or she is suffering. Maybe yes a person would absolutely like to avoid suffering and have a relaxed life but sometimes and mostly always things don’t always turn out to be exactly like what we want. So I think it depends on how a person believes in God if he or she have faith in God then they will know that this is the will of God and will take it. We can’t say that there is a life with no suffering each and every person in his life have suffered in their life but it is how you deal with them that matters and not to run away because you’re afraid to face them or afraid that you would suffer because they alwaus say that you will always face your biggest fears in your life. So i would never kill a person and take the blame for it my entire life as i might someday sit alone and ask myself a question, did i kill my mother??

Our legal system accepts that people have a legal right to choose when to die, as demonstrated by the fact that suicide is legal. This right is denied to those who are incapable of taking their own lives unaided. Legalising euthanasia would redress this balance. Our legal system also recognises that assisting a suicide attempt is a crime. Human beings are independent biological entities, and as an adult, have the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves. A human being decides who they spend their life with, their career path, where they live, whether to bear children. So what is the harm in allowing a terminally ill patient to decide for themselves whether they die in a hospital or in their own home? Surely a terminally ill sufferer is better qualified to decide for themselves whether they are better off dead or alive? Their disease makes them so crippled they cannot commit suicide alone. A quote from The Independent in March 2002 stated that “So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions” [[ The Independent” Editiorial Make euthansia available for those who can choose it http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/make-euthanasia-available-for-those-who-can-choose-it-653034.html Accessed 03.09]]. Human beings should be as free as possible and unnecessary restraints on human rights are strongly discouraged. The opposition makes an arguement of inclination. However, it ought to be rejected that people, intuitions or legal entities should advocate the death of an individual. The life an individual rests in the considerations of the consequences of an individual’s actions. If we deny them this right, we make a claim that we own their life. We own the product of their time, energy and utility. This is something we must never fall into. Although it may be said from a financial sense, things aren’t good; we do attempt to put human life in an invaluable scale. It may be said that human beings are precious for various reasons, but the value of an individual’s life can never be determined by the state, another individual or entity. Even though life insurances are in place, the individual’s self-assigned worth is what gives the individual its own worth for its very own existence.

The right to choose is not something which our legal system has “accepted” we all have. This is far from the truth. Suicide was decriminalised in the UK solely for the reason that it is not a punishable offence – it is of course impossible to punish a dead person. This is by no means a reflection of the general opinion of society. Furthermore the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of Diane Pretty that a person does not has a recognised right to die as stated in this quote: “No right to die, whether at the hands of a third person or with the assistance of a public authority could be derived.” [[ BBC Online News “British woman denied right to die” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1957396.stm%5D%5D Unfortunately giving any sort of ‘right to chose’ also denies a right to choose for others. If Euthanasia is allowed then people who are terminally ill, critically injured or simply old may well feel compelled to choose and option they don’t really want to take. If Euthanasia is allowed in some cases these people whose treatment may be costing relatives or the state a lot of money may well feel that they are not worth the cost of keeping them alive. This is not something we would want anyone to feel as in essence it takes away their freedom of choice on the matter.

A person dying from cancer feels weak; exhausted and loses the will to fight. Muscles waste away, appearance changes and the patient starts to look older. A cancer patient becomes confused, no longer recognising family and friends. Motor neurone disease causes the sufferer to lose mobility in the limbs, having difficulty with speech, swallowing and breathing. Those suffering with Huntington’s Disease develop symptoms of dementia, such as loss of rational thought and poor concentration. Involuntary movements, difficulties with speaking and swallowing, weight loss, depression and anxiety may also occur. Families of individuals suffering with such diseases see their bright, happy relative reduced to a shadow of their former self. Their loved one suffers a slow and painful death. Surely, it is kinder to put a mother, father, brother or sister out of their misery and allow them to die a peaceful death, as is their last wish.

Even if their relatives may be suffering from watching their loved one’s condition detiriorate, they have no right to either decide or put pressure on a person to end their own life because of their own sufffering. Just as it may be the individuals right to die it is also the right of the individuals right to “rage against the dieing of the light” with their support of their family so to speak. While it may be an ‘agony to watch a loved one deteriorate’ many will also want to spend as long as possible with their loved ones, and more than likely a family will be split on the matter meaning that the views of the family would have to have no impact on the matter.

When a person is sick, there a chance that a contagious agent exists within the host. The longer the duration that the individual is kept alive, it may increase the risk of others being affected by the disease if the individual is not handled properly.

isn’t that what a hospital has i mean many people are sick and have diseases which are contagious but they try to get cured that’s why they go to hospitals. This is not a reason for not keeping them alive because what if they actually get cured and got the chance to start a new life. I don’t think that it will REDUCE the spread of diseases becasue there are other people in the hospital that may suffer from different diseases which may be contagious right? so does it stop on terminally ill people that they have a contagious disease that’s why they should be killed??

At the core of a legalized physician assisted suicide (PAS) system is the principal that medical ethics should be governed and regulated by the professionals instead of lawmakers. A PAS system puts the expertise of the doctor and the experience of the patient at the forefront of the issue and views both perspectives rightly as the most credible in a given situation. The law cannot adapt to the specificity and multitude of ethical problems that arise on a situational basis. The law can only take into account circumstances that it foresees and can elaborate on. The highly personal and situational nature of this issue deems it insufficient for legislation, which exists outside the realm of the personal. The foundation of medical ethics relies upon the understanding of the consent (when applicable) of the patient to the procedure and the discretion, judgment, and experience of the medical profession to whom the patient has entrusted their care. The basis of good and ethical health and health systems relies upon the integrity of this. [[http://www.ur.umich.edu/9697/May20_97/artcl10.htm]]

Laws are codifications of what morals exist in a society. Side Opposition wonders how exactly ‘Medical Ethics’ would be defined in the status quo anywhere in the world if these things were not defined through the law. Furthermore, most nations have ways in which the law can in fact be changed, thus giving law the ability to adapt to the specificity and multitude of problems that do exist in regards to health care. Also, without the law then attempts to even test a society with PAS wouldn’t exists anyway. Simply put, the law is what safeguards patients, doctors, and everyone else in the medical field, anywhere. And still, any change in health care can directly affect not just what humans can do, but how humans think about being human (and, therefore, what rights and obligations humans should have). As issues of between medical ethics and the law come into play the importance of prudent use of law to protect health and safety becomes central. Finally, issues of social justice and resource allocation are presented more starkly in the medical care context than in any other context. [[http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/health/index.htm]]

To ensure that a system maintains the highest ethical standards, numerous safeguards will be implemented. To begin, The patient’s condition must be either a terminal one (meaning incurable) with no hope of recovery and death imminent (Two doctors must overlook the case to verify the diagnosis and prognosis) or suffering irreversible medical conditions that cause them suffering in ways they can no longer tolerate. Secondly, Euthanasia can only be undertaken at the request or with the permission of the patient (Oregon provides a good example by requiring two written requests at least 15 days apart, an oral request and other safeguards to ensure the capability of the patient to make such a serious decision. Also, two doctors must verify the decision-making capability of the patient.) Lastly, Doctors must perform the task of providing means and administering but only if necessary, otherwise the patient will self-administer. [[http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year1.pdf]]

In the medical profession, there is an unavoidable problem dealing with the prognosis of ‘terminal’ patients. Many problems arise when physicians try to diagnose a disease that will be terminal or try to recognize the terminal phases of an illness. For example, a person who has recently been infected with HIV can be considered to have a condition that will be terminal, yet 10% to 17% of such persons are still without sequelae of immunodeficiency at 20 years. Cardiac disease is the leading cause of death in the United States [34], but persons with atherosclerotic disease are not considered to be terminally ill even though their deaths may occur at any moment. This has much to do with why PAS is very hard to implement. These definitions will differ not just in the US, but in other nations around the world. At the point we recognize this to be true, proposition would be granting the right to PAS for some people, and yet not for others. This is why we look to palliative care, because, at the very least, the standards are clear. [[http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/126/2/146]] Furthermore, we say that patients who are terminally ill may have a single disease process (such as a brain tumor) that will, in and of itself, cause death; they may have a disease (such as leukemia) that weakens them to the point where a second condition (such as pneumonia) may overwhelm and kill them; or they may have a combination of diseases, each of which makes the other incurable (for example, severe lung disease and cardiac disease). The prognosis will alter as the patient makes decisions about treatment of the primary disease or intercurrent illnesses. But let’s talk about Oregon: In the first year Oregon voters put PAS into law, 15 patients had undergone PAS. However, only four of the candidates had psychological or psychiatric consultations. Eleven others did not. Since the way in which PAS has been provided in a current system has not been shown to be systematic, it has shown to not be fair either. Surgeons don’t operate without informing a patient of all their options, or doctors do not prescribe prescriptions without allowing for other options, yet PAS physicians have been able to let some patients undergo consulting while others don’t have as much help. Because of this, PAS is inherently unfair on the basis that some patients will have access to more knowledge than others – this is important because all patients are attempting to make the same choice.

Those who have terminal disease that are less common often face more suffering. Without the lobbies and charities behind diseases like lung cancer, brain cancer, etc., palliative care cannot provide the same Quality of Life that other better-funded palliative measures do. [“This study suggests that patients with end stage COPD have significantly impaired quality of life and emotional well being which may not be as well met as those of patients with lung cancer, nor do they receive holistic care appropriate to their needs.” Those in the third world are the most discriminated against in the area of palliative care. They are denied basic analgesics because of their economic situation. “Morphine is a cheap, safe analgesic, yet most patients in developing countries are denied access to this drug.” Palliative care is also weakened in the Third World by “the lack of effective models for…delivery.” The palliative care options are often limited to those available to the family. Though physicians may be available, long-term palliative care is often ineffective as the physicians must respond to a large area of need and the constant support is left up to the family of the patient, who are limited in resources and training. Minority groups are less likely to be given palliative care. Dalits, African Americans, and other minority groups are systemically given poor health care coverage and treatment. The result is that they face more emergency care rather than preventative and more inpatient non-palliative deaths. Without the option for PAS, minority groups often face alienated deaths in the institutions that have alienated them.In the case of the Roma people, both an ethnic and a lifestyle minority are discriminated against without access to PAS. Because of their nomadic way of life, the European healthcare system allows them to fall through the many cracks. When they plead for the right to die, they are denied PAS on “ethical” grounds. The European healthcare system, like many worldwide, is inherently biased to those who have a lifestyle of the majority, i.e. with a permanent residence. [[http://thorax.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/55/12/1000]] [[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1295230&pageindex=1]] [[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1295230&pageindex=2#page ]] [[http://www.dalitsolidarity.org/health_overview.php]] [[http://books.google.com/books?id=XKQ-OV72P7YC&lpg=PA153&ots=GyTOY7p0K8&dq=palliative%20care%20blacks&pg=PA153 ]] [[http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/system_frustrates_terminally/ ]]

A inequality in palliative care in places around the world is not enough to justify its circumvention. If anything, the option of PAS not only decreases the growth of the success some palliative care has been able to prevent, but it will prevent it’s growth in the future as well. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide is merely a part of the debate about improving end-of-life care. It cannot be viewed as a quick and easy fix, or a way to protect patients from inadequate care arrangements. Too many people still suffer needlessly, often because doctors and families just do not know how to serve people who are dying. The main problem lies with a lack of knowledge. Many suffer because doctors fail to provide adequate medication for pain. To legalize physician-assisted suicide would make real reform, such as better pain control, less likely. And ultimately hurts the growth of the medical industry. Without the reform of pain medication, patients end up with no prospects to live well while dying. In this scenario, making suicide an option is not offering a genuine choice but instead forcing a decision on the patient who again loses rights under this plan the affirmative have presented. [[http://www.growthhouse.org/mortals/mort2526.html]]

In addition, if there are those whose death is inevitable who would like to be put out of their suffering early, it means that doctors will have a chance to examine their vital organs to see if they can be donated. At later stages of many terminal illnesses, organs are severely weakened and, in some cases, failing – it may not be possible to use them at that point. This will help alleviate the long waiting list there is for organ donations. Thus permitting assisted suicide through euthanasia will not only put the victim out of his/her suffering earlier, but may also help save more lives. More than 102,389 men women and children are waiting for organ transplants in the US alone with only 14,203 eligible donors. PAS is an effective and ethical avenue to decrease this vast and fatal gap. [[http://www.lifelineofohio.org/donation/resources/statistics.aspx]]

Regardless of whether or not a patient decides to under PAS, they have already made the decision to be an organ donor, or not, well before the procedure. There has not been a correlation shown between the number of people willing to be an organ donor if they underwent PAS (From the Oregon studies). We would also say that a push for organs would decrease the amount of care given even with a PAS. Because now the focus is not on the patient but on their organs. In the status quo, people who are registered donors are at times kept on life support against (against their will, something we though, the proposition did not like) to determine the organs sustainability for transplant. Finally, if patients who have been cleared for PAS under the guidelines set out by the proposition, then they are already terminally ill, and thus, have failing organs already, not in good enough condition for transplant. [[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/03/AR2007040302062.html]]

When Michelangelo was asked how he created his masterpiece David, he simply said “I saw David through the stone and I simply chipped away everything that was not David”. Since we on the proposition are on a similar pursuit as Michelangelo in creating a masterpiece, lets first look at what supporting physician-assisted suicide is not: 1) Supporting PAS is not supporting the end of palliative care. The opposition has stated time and time again how palliative care can be a good thing but just needs reform. This offers no direct clash with our plan and our line of argumentation throughout the entire debate. We recognize that palliative care as a viable option for patients, but we also have pointed out some of the pitfalls of palliative care and how PAS can be a benefit to those who have to suffer in these pits in some countries currently. Reform can be achieved in both PAS and palliative care under our plan. Fundamentally, we respect the preference of the patient to choose whichever option. The proposition is on the side of options and a death with dignity for citizens. We denounce the self-proclaiming moral arbiters that would force citizens to die only on the terms that they deem “natural” and “right” in the face of intense suffering and unbearable pain being felt by the patient. 2) Supporting PAS is not supporting the disproportional killing of coerced poor people and stigmatized groups. While this concern is certainly respectable, it is based simply on predicative fears. These fears have been discredited with the empirical evidence that we have provided from countries and states in which PAS is already supported. While we support these groups getting access to PAS, we certainly aren’t forcing them and neither is any outside party, as the data shows. 3) Supporting PAS is not supporting new cultural norms or ideologies that declare some lives are ‘not worth living’. What PAS promotes is that citizen’s are in control of the choice of how they want to end their lives. This idea finds opposition not in the prevailing attitudes of the people, but in the ideologies that someone or something should be in control other than the actual individual, whether it be the government, religion or someone’s definition of nature. It is time to break free from the shackles of these ideals into a world where citizens are individually empowered by supporting the right-to-die. Day by day more and more governments and citizens are recognizing this right and are strongly disavowing the antiquated positions that our opposition has argued for. Now that we have removed what supporting assisted suicide is not, let’s look at what it is: 1) Supporting PAS is supporting a system that addresses the highly personal and situational manner of this issue while enforcing ethical safeguards that protect against any form of abuse to the utmost degree possible. Both sides agree that laws can indeed change, but when should these laws should change is where the debate lies. We refuse to maintain archaic laws in which the consent of the patient and expertise of the doctor is largely ignored. We believe that to support PAS is supporting a flexible and ethical system that can address this complex situation with the patient and doctor in mind and at the forefront. 2) Supporting PAS is supporting the idea that it is the state’s role to create conditions where citizens can make optimal decisions for themselves amongst viable options. We do not support an atmosphere where the state destroys options and makes the decision for its citizens, especially on the most sacred thing a person has, life. 3) Supporting PAS is supporting a system that not only ends lives more humanely, but saves lives as well. We are not advocating a vast increase in quantity but rather a quality increase in organ donation. We have stated that if these terminally ill patients are forced to live prolonged lives, vital organs will become increasingly weaker even if the disease does not directly affect specific organs. The system allows organ donation to be completed more efficiently, effectively and even at all in some cases. The proposition offers quality of life over just mere quantity, choice on how to preserve this quality, and a way to preserve life of many people on organ donation waiting lists. We strongly believe we offer a far better system for these very reasons, masterpiece or not.

Patients that are in comas and have not indicated that they wish to die have the right to continue thier lives until the natural end. Who are we to say that they should die when it is convenient to us? That should be left unto God to decide. This point should be erased. The debate specifically says “Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?”. What is being advocated is the right of an individual to make a decision, not to have a say or coerce an individual to make the decision to want to die. Although in some cases, involuntary euthanasia has a dark region (grey area).

Coma patients are not ‘living until their natural end’ because modern medicine has developed so we can support them artificially. Perhaps it was God’s will that they die, and we are interefering in this plan by treating them? This point should be erased. The debate specifically says “Do you agree or disagree with euthanasia or mercy killing?”. What is being advocated is the right of an individual to make a decision, not to have a say or coerce an individual to make the decision to want to die. Although in some cases, involuntary euthanasia has a dark region (grey area).

There are strong proponents on both sides of the debate for and against euthanasia. The word euthanasia comes from two Greek words, ôeuö meaning good, and thanatos meaning death. Proponents of euthanasia believe it is everyone’s right to die at a time of their own choosing, and in a manner of their own choosing, when faced with terminal illness rather than suffer through to the bitter end. Opponents argue that euthanasia cannot be a matter of self-determination and personal beliefs, because it is an act that requires two people to make it possible and a complicit society to make it acceptable . They consider euthanasia the equivalent of murder, which is against the law everywhere in civilized society.So, we sould maintain the respect for human life in a secular pluralistic society

The first argument was removed. An appeal to a dictionary or a definition does not make it right or justified in its position. However, it may be speculated or conceived that it is not murder because the premeditated advancement of death by a person of another has been consented to in principle thereby the choice being made is a deliberate one for which one’s right in its very own nature permits the condition to be moral. Secondly for describing euthansia the Germans use the term Sterbehilfe which means “help to die” so while the person and maybe society may be complicit in the “killing of a person” they are accessories and not the actual agents of the killing as they are helping a person to die rather than determining that a person should die, something that would be viewed as murder [[Collins lanugage dictionary]] .

Religious and secular morality decrees that no one has the right to take the life of another human being, A principle stated in the Quaran “[2.28] [Allah] will cause you to die and again bring you to life, then you shall be brought back to Him.” This surah states that if a creator has created an individual than it p.b.u.h will decide whether you live or die and you can not take matters into your own hands.[[ University of Michigan “The Koran” http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=life&q2=&q3=&amt=0&size=more%5D%5D . This principle must be safeguarded by law, as moral absolutes of this kind are necessary for a functioning legal system.

While religious morality may be precise on who sets decides when a person dies secular values also recognise if a person is suffering unncessarilly they should be helped to eliminate that suffering. Futhermore a person may well be non religious and resent the imposition of religious or secular values on them, values which they may not belive in. [[ Dr Adams “Personal Story- Dignity in Dying” http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/personal-stories/uk/south-west/exeter/dr-adams-story-33.html Accessed 1.06.2009]] Additionally if this arguement is extended, certain individuals pick and choose biblical scripture (not wiping out the land of a certainr ace) or selectively identify parts as something obselete (i.e. agricultural practices). If an individual does this, the individual believes that there is a morality outside of religious morality above the standard for which the biblical or context in which religion takes place and thus it is moot whether the bible says so or not.

The problem that I have always had with euthanasia is that terminally ill patients may choose to die through feelings of guilt. They may feel guilty about the burden that they are putting on their families and choose to die for this reason alone.

Whatever their reasons, a person should be allowed to do as they see fit. It is their life and they have the right to choose how and when it ends.

The prestigious position of doctors could quite easily be abused if euthanasia were to become legalised. A prime example of this would be the late Dr Harold Shipman, who killed between 215 and 260 elderly women[[ Bonnie Malkin et al ” Harold Shipman in dictionary of biography” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574271/Harold-Shipman-in-dictionary-of-biography.html Acccessed 01.06.09]] Vulnerable, ill people trust their doctor and if he confidently suggested a course of action, it could be hard to resist. A patient and his family would generally decide in favour of euthanasia according to the details fed to them by their doctor. These details may not even be well founded: diagnoses can be mistaken and new treatment developed which the doctor does not know about. Surely it is wrong to give one or two individuals the right to decide whether a patient should live or die? On the contrary, the majority of doctors would make well-informed, responsible and correct decisions, but for those few like Harold Shipman, they can get away with murder, undetected, for 23 years.[[ Bonnie Malkin et al ” Harold Shipman in dictionary of biography” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574271/Harold-Shipman-in-dictionary-of-biography.html Acccessed 01.06.09]]

Harold Shipman committed his crimes when euthanasia was illegal, which illustrates that psychopaths can commit crimes whatever the legal situation. Legalising euthanasia would have no effect on the 0.000001% of society who do this sort of thing. In countries where euthanasia is currently legal, such as Switzerland and the Netherlands, strict legal guidelines are in place to ensure that the process does not include such problems. All patients who request euthanasia require the diagnoses of at least two doctors to verify the terminal nature of their illness, and undergo psychological examination by these doctors and often other experts to examine the reasons for their choice. It is not a situation of “Surely it is wrong to give one or two individuals the right to decide whether a patient should live or die?”; it is one of two medical professionals deciding whether the legal parameters allow them to enact the patient’s wishes. [[ Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs”A Guide to the Dutch Termination of life on Request and Assisted Suicide (review procedures) Act – April 2002″ p3 http://www.minbuza.nl/binaries/en-pdf/faq-2008/faq-euthanasie-2008-en.pdf%5D Accessed on 01.06.09]] It is worth noting that, at the moment, doctors can effectively use euthanasia anyway. Firstly, under the “doctrine of double effect”, a doctor is allowed to give a patient, upon their request, a dose of painkilling medication which as a secondary effect speeds up the death of the patient. [[ Alison McIntyre “Doctrine of Double Effect” Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ Accessed 01.06.09 ]]Secondly, all patients have both the right to refuse treatment, and the ability to make a “living will”, which doctors are compelled to consider if the patient is unable to express their wishes during illness. [[ Direct gov “Government, citizens and rights- How to make a living will-http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Death/Preparation/DG_10029429 01.06.09]]

Ethical safe-guards may not be achieved in the time frame allotted by the affirmative. Oregon physicians, as well as the physicians of Netherland, have been given authority without being in a position to exercise it responsibly. They are expected to inform patients that alternatives are possible without being required to be knowledgeable enough to present those alternatives in a meaningful way, or to consult with someone who is. Meaning that physicians or mental health professionals are advising patients without a complete understanding of end-of-life care available to them, which again goes against the Hippocratic Oath all medical personal must take. They are expected to make decisions about involuntariness without having to see those close to the patient who may be exerting a variety of pressures, from subtle to coercive. They are expected to do all of this without necessarily knowing the patient for longer than 15 days, which is clearly not long enough to fully gain perspective on a person. Since physicians cannot be held responsible for wrongful deaths if they have acted in good faith, substandard medical practice is encouraged, physicians are protected from the con-sequences, and patients are left unprotected while believing they have acquired a new right, and ultimately defeats the purpose of legalizing PAS. [[http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54071?pageNumber=5]]

We believe this Argument and the rebuttal for the proposition’s “Ethical Safeguards” argument can be clubbed together, and they have both been responded to together in “Rebuttal: Ethical Safeguards”

The opposition stands with critics of PAS who have found that once assisted suicide is accepted as an available option for competent terminally ill adults, it may be permitted for ever-larger groups of persons, including the non-terminally ill, those whose quality of life is perceived to be diminished by a physical disability, persons whose pain is emotional instead of physical, and so forth. Critics point to the fact that permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide, as is done in the Netherlands, does not prevent violation of procedures (e.g., failure to report) which occurs frequently in the medical profession, or abuse (e.g., involuntary euthanasia). It is further contended by the opposition that adequate safeguards are not possible. For example, requiring written requests to be repeated over a period of time, such as 15 days, and witnessed by two unrelated witnesses while simultaneously involving at least two physicians AND a psychiatrist’s or psychologist’s examination is unrealistic. Persons at the end of their lives typically have neither the energy nor the ability to meet such conditions. In addition, the option of assisted suicide for mentally competent, terminally ill people could give rise to a new cultural norm of an obligation to speed up the dying process and subtly or not-so-subtly influence end-of-life decisions of all sorts. Which ultimately costs the patient one of the three inalienable rights, the pursuit of Life. [[http://www.apa.org/pi/eol/arguments.html]]

1) Many people who choose PAS and are not terminally ill have a physical injury or disease attached to their emotional pain. For instance, Daniel James [[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4969423.ece]] was paralyzed from a rugby accident and Chantal Sebire [[http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL1918252520080319]] whom had a swollen tumor in her sinuses that made her face severely disfigured. These people felt like prisoners to their own existence, their quality of life was in fact diminished not “perceived”. We believe no person or government has a right to keep these people entangled in a web of suffering. We recognize that people can continue their lives even in dire situations, but we believe the government should not force them to continue a life of suffering. 2) The opposition says that a “violation of procedures” can occur, such as a failure to report. Unfortunately we do not live in a world where the medical practice can be absolutely infallible. This is more an argument against any sort of medical procedure, life saving or life ending because these problems are not unique to any medical procedure, whether it be perceived as simple or complex . Involuntary euthanasia is not a problem with our safeguards and able and competent doctors in place. Any doctor that would commit involuntary euthanasia with any form of consent from their patient would do so even without a legal PAS system because they have no regard for ethics. 3) Firstly, it seems the opposition is unclear as to why they object to the conditions that need to be fulfilled; because they are not stringent enough or because they are too stringent to be fulfilled by people who wish to exercise this right? We are not exactly sure how our safeguards can be deemed “not possible” and “unrealistic” when they are the same safeguards put in place in the state of Oregon, which we have already stated in our opening arguments.[[http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/127.html]] This is not a chimerical proposition as the opposition has dismissed it as but in fact an actual and real life working system that has been around for 11 years. [[http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/09/washington_states_assistedsuic.html]] This system, under which in fact the right to physician assisted suicide has been exercised by hundreds of patients since the law was passed in Oregon. [[http://www.wrd.state.or.us/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year8.pdf]] 4) Rights do not demand to be exercised. We support the inalienable pursuit of Life but we do not support force-feeding life to citizens whom declare that they no longer want to participate in this pursuit for the ethically justifiable reasons stated in our case. We also grant citizen’s freedom of speech but does that mean they we should ban silence? Where governments allow dissent, it would be ludicrous to demand that all citizens must dissent in order to exercise their right. Instead, any theory of rights must protect the exercising of rights as well as the citizen’s choice to not participate, to not exercise their right. The right to life has to be forfeited at some point, and we support the right for our citizens to choose when they want to forfeit it. We see this in the status quo already – governments have ceased to consider suicide a crime. Why should assisted suicide for terminally ill patients be any different?

A patient may accurately judge their current quality of life to be unacceptable, but adequate care would always increase their quality of life to the point where they would reconsider. In addition, there is also fear that accepting such thoughts as legitimate, rather than simply understandable, could comfort an ideology that considers some lives as being ‘not worth living’, even if the person living this life sees value in it. PAS limits the view of the patient to a mere biological mass. Palliative care providers emphasize compassion, and the will to care for the whole human being. The importance of caring for the whole individual rather than for an organ is underlined, as is the importance of interactions between psychological and physical suffering. For both PAS and palliative care, the worst evil is a poor quality of life. For palliative care providers, however, the worst evil is a poor quality of life that is an obstacle to valuing the time that is left, rather than seeking to destroy the natural life-cycle. [[http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/54071?pageNumber=5]]

1) Legalizing physician assisted suicide does not mean that it will be forced on all suffering patients. The proposition strongly feels about the freedom of choice, but the opposition would like to eliminate options and funnel suffering people down a path they feel is the right one. 2) The only ideology that this supports is that a citizen’s life and its value is actually in the hands of and defined by citizens instead of some separate entity. We don’t see any sort of logical connection with this slippery slope that they would like us to ride down. 3) We are not advocating an end to palliative care; we believe both systems can co-exist. What we recognize is that there are some huge pitfalls in palliative care (See: “Discrimination in Palliative Care and how PAS can end it” argument) and that PAS can fill these ethically and efficiently. Stating why palliative care may be a good thing doesn’t address why a PAS should not also be a viable option for patients. 4) We don’t believe that anything that is “natural” is always inherently good and anything that is unnatural is inherently bad, as it seems the opposition believes. If we are to agree with this line of argumentation then any sort of medication, treatment and surgery, such as chemotherapy, that can save lives should not be exist either because they also destroy this “natural life-cycle” that our opposition has defined for all of humanity. We don’t believe that they are as omniscient as they seem to think and feel that they are trespassing into very dangerous territory when they attempt to define just how people should die, and force conformation to that definition.

I really like this article as it gives the pros and cons of mercy killing. I will be referencing this article for a school paper I’m writing .

Who is the author?

Yes. Because It can Save Lives & Preserve the Dignified Orderb of International Health Among Others, Especially Our Own Children! My Mother Died of Both TuberCulosis & Liver Cirrhosis In Combination! She Spat Endless Blood & Making a Terrible Mess in My House & Disturbing All Neighbors & Relatives, With All the Expense On My Own Back ALONE! Since I Was Not Yet Married, but Planned To be ….It May Sound Selfish, but I Truly Value the Safety Of Both My Own Health & Of My Own Neighbors! Now Nobody Wants To Catch TB! So I Used An Injection with ****** (I Am Not Allowed to Post This For Security Purposes) To My own Mother, 7 She Then Died A Happy Quiet & Dignified Death! My Neighbors Did Not Like the & Approve the Idea, But I Must Strongly Approve that it Was THe BEST SECURITY MEASUR OF DEFENSE FOR OWN HEALTH`S SAKE! In Order Not to Be CONTAMINATED From the Disease! Since Additionaly * WE LIVED IN A RUARAL PROVINCE & DID NOT HAVE ANY DOCTORS OR HOSPITALS NEARBY AT ALL!

It should be allowed. Everyone has a right to die.

How can we allow a person to suffer immense pain, and agony; to live each bit of his life cursing his fate? Why is it said that they have to suffer it all?????

In this I really disagree because life is one of the best things that God created.He created us to his image and likeness and in this it’s is a wonderful gift from God.We must thank God for this very wonderful and Beutiful Gift that he has given to us…Thank you very much God

you spelt beautiful wrong.

Give me proof that God exists

Ok tell me how can everything can everything come to being without any creator

As we have no right to choose our birth ,so is our death also the matter of obligation?!I believe that depending on the patient’s illness & age, he has the right to choose, life or death?! It’s so personal.Why should he tolerate pain and suffer?! Just to live a few more days or months. So what?!!!

Surely anyone with compassion who has watched the agony of a friend or relative dying in front of them, sometimes over many days or weeks would agree with euthanasia?? After all, it is usually only the difference between a few more mls of morphine!!! We only keep people in a “liveable” state (called palliative care!) with morphine and having watched my own mother trying to die over this past week I have nothing but contempt for people who are insistent it should be God’s will or the person should keep going until the very bitter end. Shame on you! You obviously enjoy watching someone suffer. I would not and never have allow any animal I have owned to suffer this fate.

I take care of my dad who has an end stage type of dementia. He can’t walk. He can’t talk. He can hardly keep his eyes open to see anymore. He might be living with just dementia, bit I’m living in a never-ending nightmare of taking care of someone that doesn’t know who I am. I don’t love this but because someone says euthanasia is illegal, i am living in slavery. Why is it ok for me to end the suffering of a pet bit I have to suffer and let my father suffer. Maybe drugs will ease his pain but is quality of life just living without pain? He can’t do anything meaningful and he doesn’t remember anything he does anyway. This is bullshit, the longer I deal with him, smothering him with a pillow seems more and more tempting. Then you can all complaint about my quality of life as I live rent free with free food in a prison cell that is being paid for with your tax dollars.

My husband and I talked alot about end of life when he was diagbnosed with Frontal Temporal Disease, from a mutation in the gene that resulted in 2 of his syblings dying from ALS. More research indicated that there had been 7 generations of the diease in his family. As we prepared our legal and financial documents and our living wills, he did not want to be kept alive by any means if he could not care for himself and he never wanted to be in a nursing home. He wanted to die quickly. Unfortunately he was healthy and strong but with a brain that was detiorating very quickly to the point where I could not care for him at home alone or with help since I was physically challenged myself. Most of the time his brain was not focused and communications was non existent; however there were occassions where he would plead for his life to be over. As he lost more of his physical abilities and his ability to walk and talk and his body was forgetting how to swallow you could see the pleading in his eyes. I know this is not how he wants his life to end but there are no options but to sit and watch him wadte away. This is just not right for someone who wants the optopn to end their life!

I think mercy killing should be allowed in my country. Having 2 alzheimer’s patients in hands is not easy. The symptoms are getting worse day by day. No medication can cure alzheimer’s nor at least stop it. We have to spend about 1 million per year for medication, and we dont take them to a nursing home. One is bedridden, cannot talk, and needs to be feeded. Another poops on the stairs or in front of the house. In this case, I would consider euthanasia as a good choice. You know, it does not mean we dont love the two of our family, but they will live in this world and can do nothing to make themselves happy. They cannot even remember themselves or what they just did 5 mins ago! Do you see any good on spending 1 million a year on this incurble disease? Or we pay just to keep them with us?

When there is nothing more to live for, physician assisted suicide should be allowed. What is the big deal? It is as simple as that. It is a solution not a problem.

I just think that they or their close family/close friends should have proof as to prevent any killings that were not wanted by the patient and his or her’s family/close friends.

Whether you agree or disagree, it doesn’t matter. People will take their own life with or without help. Let common sense prevail. We should not judge others people’s right to choose. Do we not allow women to choose to abort or not? It is the same thing. A life is a life, we can’t have it both ways and we must be consistent.

We accept mercy killing for animals but we do not care of the suffering and economic disaster of not allowing people to terminate his/her life

let others die in your hands not with your hands

thanks for the details

In Natures Law nothing is good or evil, it is how we interpret the situation. Euthanasia is just another part of natural occurring which happens to all sort of living beings. Just because we humans interpret it differently doesn’t mean such occurring shouldn’t happen.

Sensitive Topics: How to Write a Mercy Killing Essay

Don’t Forget to Study a Sample Argumentative Euthanasia Essay

If you have no idea how to approach the topic, you may try and find some examples on the Internet. Although it will be a really bad decision to copy/paste any of them and try to pass it for your own writing, reading one may provide you with the much necessary insight and help you get to grips with the issue. If you have a strong opinion on the subject, you should probably look for an example of argumentative essay that promotes another point of view – when you see how wrong the author is and in what respects, it will be easier for you to build up your own argumentation.

Your Own Take on Mercy Killing Essay

There are a lot of possible approaches you may use when dealing with the topic of euthanasia. But whatever opinion you share, don’t forget that you shouldn’t found your essay on emotions, no matter how much this particular topic asks for it. What you need is real argumentation, supported with facts, statistics, examples from real life and so on. For example, if you support euthanasia, you may mention the number of patients slowly dying of incurable diseases with no hope for recovery who could be otherwise spared the pain and indignity of their position if they were allowed to die. If you are against it, you may mention the examples of people waking up from coma long after the doctors had given up on them and told their loved ones that they may just as well pull the plug on them. Study a sample argumentative essay on the topic and think about the arguments presented by another person – maybe you can disprove them? As you may see, the possibilities are boundless, especially if you have a strong opinion on the subject in question.

Our statistics

Euthanasia (Mercy Killing) Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Euthanasia refers to termination of the life of a patient who has no prospect of recovering. The patient might be in great pain and suffering, which calls for termination of his or her life in order to release him or her from pain.

Termination of life qualifies to be euthanasia if a professional or a medical practitioner does it. Moreover, Euthanasia is granted to a patient if he or she does not have a prospect of recovering. In the modern society, Euthanasia is an ethical issue that has raised a controversy between those supporting it and those opposed to it.

Mercy killing takes two major forms, depending on the concept and procedure. Voluntary Euthanasia takes place when the patient requests for the termination of his or her life (Torr 87). Apart from requesting the hospital to terminate his or her life, the patient might as well give consent to the termination of his or her life. In some circumstances, the family and friends of the patient might request the hospital to terminate the life of the patient without necessarily informing the patient. This is termed as involuntary euthanasia.

Involuntary euthanasia takes place when the patient is unable to give consent due to incompetence. Positive euthanasia takes place when the patient is assisted to die through injection of lethal drugs or shooting. Negative or passive euthanasia happens when the patient is left to die without injection of lethal drugs. This takes place when medication is stopped or when the doctor switches off the life-supporting machine.

Euthanasia is highly contested in society since some people claim that God gives life, and only he can take it. Others believe that the sick person should not be left to suffer, but instead relatives and friends must intervene through mercy killing. Proponents suggest that Euthanasia is cost effective implying that the family can save on resources and time by simply helping the patient to die.

Again, Euthanasia is preferred because it saves on the hospital bed and space meaning that curable patients can be admitted (Nitschke 28). Others observe that Euthanasia is the only option if society is to save drugs and fluids, which are usually wasted on patients who will never recover. If Euthanasia is adopted in many countries in the world, doctors will have adequate time to attend to curable diseases and conditions.

Families can as well save on the little resources instead of wasting them on the sick who will never recover. Apart from the issue of cost effectiveness, euthanasia is preferred in the western countries because it is the honorable exit from pain, suffering, and possible humiliation. Euthanasia is considered the only way that one can die with some honor. Based on this argument, we should look at life beyond more existence and consider its quality. When life becomes useless, it should be terminated.

Supporters of euthanasia observe that the principle of individual freedom should be upheld even in matters related to health. An individual should be allowed to choose between life and death. If an individual finds out that his or her life is meaningless, then he or she has the right to terminate it.

Philosophers have also contributed to the topic by noting that the physically fit have a moral obligation of not allowing the sick to suffer if they can help in ending pain. The healthy individuals should use all available means to save those suffering even if this help means employing euthanasia.

Although a number of reasons have been given to justify euthanasia, it should not be legalized because of the sanctity of life. Human life has an intrinsic value and it must be respected at all conditions. Nothing should be done to interfere with human life. If euthanasia is legalized, people will lose respect for human life.

Euthanasia amounts to violation of professional ethics. Medical practitioners are trained in healing and protecting life. In this case, they are not supposed to destroy life. Hippocratic Oath requires that medical doctors must never use their knowledge against human life. They should always support it even if conditions are unbearable. Medicine is not an actual science. In this regard, there could be a possibility of error in medical diagnosis.

A mistake in medical diagnosis causes serious problems because euthanasia does not give the patient a chance to correct the error (Mannes 16). In some parts of the world, such as India and Africa, people believe that miracles might happen, and the patient might be healed. Some individuals argue that sometimes, the condition of the patient might be declared incurable, but after some time the patient is healed miraculously. In other words, we should always hold our patience as we wait for miracles.

Only God gives life and he should be the one taking it. No other person should end it. As human beings, we should always be optimistic for a cure. A cure might be discovered tomorrow because what is incurable today can be cured tomorrow. It will be painful to learn that an individual was assisted to die yet a cure was on the way. Although people have individual freedoms and rights, no person has the right over his or her life.

An individual with friends and family members cannot claim to have the absolute right over his or her life. Our friends and family members are also stakeholders in our lives, and they have a right over our decisions. In some communities, such as African communities, it will be better having a patient in any condition rather than having a dead person. Family members will prefer having a sick person in the house as opposed to having memories of the beloved one (Rachels 56).

The debate on euthanasia is importunate since no group is willing to accept the views of the opposing group. In conclusion, euthanasia is based on two issues, one of them being individual right and the other one is the avoidance of pain and suffering. From a personal standpoint, euthanasia should not be legalized because it is unethical. In most countries of the west, euthanasia is legal implying that it is exercised without restrictions.

Life should always be respected, and any attempt to terminate it should be resisted. As argued by some opponents of euthanasia, a cure might be discovered in the future. Moreover, a miracle might happen along the way since many people have been cured miraculously. For medical practitioners, their role is to protect life but not to terminate it. Therefore, euthanasia should never be allowed in hospitals. Those found discussing it should be prosecuted in the court of law. Allowing euthanasia in society will be disrespecting human life.

Works Cited

Mannes, Marya. “Euthanasia vs. the Right to Life.” Baylor Law Review 27.69 (1975): 14-26. Print.

Nitschke, Philip. The Peaceful Pill Handbook . New York: Exit International Press, 2006. Print.

Rachels, James. The end of life: Euthanasia and Morality . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Torr, James. Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints . San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Print.

• Ethical and Unethical Leadership in Healthcare
• Should Assisted Suicide Be Legalized
• Euthanasia: Right to Live or Right to Die
• Euthanasia: Is It Worth the Fuss?
• The Problem of Euthanasia
• Ethical Problems in Animal Experimentation
• Ethical Dilemma: Heroin Prescription
• Euthanasian Issues in Modern Society
• Ethical Dilemma: the Husband’s Right to Confidential Treatment
• Ethics Issue - Organ Transplants
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, November 20). Euthanasia (Mercy Killing). https://ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia-mercy-killing/

"Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)." IvyPanda , 20 Nov. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia-mercy-killing/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)'. 20 November.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)." November 20, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia-mercy-killing/.

1. IvyPanda . "Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)." November 20, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia-mercy-killing/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Euthanasia (Mercy Killing)." November 20, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/euthanasia-mercy-killing/.

Persuasive Essay On Mercy Killing

What a person can do if he finds himself at a point where the pain and suffering has led him to make a simple choice between an unbearable life and a peaceful death, and life seems more like an undignified liability rather than a blessing? Euthanasia, often termed as Mercy Killing, may be one of the available moral options at that moment, but is it legally justified? This paper shall explore the answer to this question, by shedding light on the moral dilemma, that whether it is justified to end the life of a terminally ill patient suffering from severe pain and under what conditions can this merciful act of killing could be justified, if at all. Euthanasia is a term which refers to ‘an intentional termination of life by another, at the explicit request of the person who wishes to die, in order to relieve them of their suffering.’ Usually, a person undergoes euthanasia in situations where he has either an incurable condition or a …show more content…

The world has tremendously evolved and continues evolving every day, and with changing social realities, the rights and obligations of people have also evolved. Rights, which were once forbidden and considered taboo, like abortion or same-sex marriages, are now recognized and accepted. In this scenario, could a right to death be accepted and legalized universally? Let us assume why not, as it is a matter of personal liberty, especially when it is voluntary or provided for by the patient in the living will; so, why state should interfere and disturb the enjoyment of this right, since an individual has a right and control over his own

Persuasive Essay On Death With Dignity Act

Imagine you have difficulty waking up, trying to fight the constant sensation of drowsiness with the little life you have left. When you wake, you struggle through the haze of confusion to finally realize that you are in the same monochromatic, secluded room you’ve been in for the past two months or possibly two years. No family in sight. No pets. No fireplace awaiting you.

14th Amendment Euthanasia

The right to die is not embedded in the Constitution. Based on the first and fourteenth amendments euthanasia is not invested in the Constitution. The first amendment expresses freedom of religion. The fourteenth amendment states you can’t deprive anyone from life.

Persuasive Essay On Assisted Suicide

Assisted Suicided Every 16.2 minutes, there are people in the world that take their own life by killing themselves.(Purity, 9) There are are over 40,000 people every year that commit suicide.(Purity, 10) Suicide is the leading cause of death for those of the age of 15-24 years old.(Purity, 13) However, coming up in the media through the last 20 years has been the idea of ending your life by assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is the practice of ending someone 's life.(Newton, 7) A terminal illness is when you have a disease that will end your life within the near future.

A Rhetorical Analysis Of Euthanasia By Philippa Foot

Another issue with legalizing euthanasia would be that society would be too easily convinced to support it. "It would be hard to devise procedures that would protect people from being persuaded into giving their consent." (Foot, p. 112) There is no possible way to know if a person is giving their consent because they actually want to or maybe because they were persuaded to do

Persuasive Essay On Physician Assisted Suicide

In the defense of Physician Assisted Suicide, a wide publicly talked about topic, it should be a choice every terminally ill patient receives. Physician Assisted suicide is when a patient is terminally ill and has no chances of recovering. The patient themselves can make the decision, with the help from their physician, to get lethally injected and end their life reducing and ending the pain. In America each state has a little over 3,000 patients that are terminally ill contact an advocacy group known as the Compassion and Choices to try to reduce end-of- life suffering and perhaps hasten their death. Physician Assisted Suicide shouldn’t be looked at as suicide, but as ending the pain and suffering from an individual whose life is going to be taken away anyway.

Ethical Essay: The Role Of Euthanasia In Medicine

The word “euthanize” means to bring about a person’s death to relieve them from serious distress. The topic of euthanasia in medicine has evolved since intensive care was first instituted. Before the 1950’s, a simple model was used to determine when someone was dead: the individual was dead when his or her heart stopped beating. In the modern light, the answer to this question isn’t as clear. With advancements in organ transplantation and other medical technologies, the stopping of a beating heart is no longer a definite death sentence.

You Don T Know Jack Movie Analysis

There are real case incidents in which a 14 year old girl suffering from terminal cystic fibrosis is asking her country’s president for permission to end her life. She had self shot a video in which she says “I am tired of living this disease and she can authorize an injection through which I can sleep forever”. The girl's video has sparked a broader conversation about whether euthanasia should be legalized in the largely Catholic nation. According to me we should let euthanasia be legal as there is no significance in keeping them alive against their wish as we don’t know how much they are suffering. Another incident is where the woman moved to Oregon where euthanasia is legal to take advantage of Oregon’s death with Dignity Law.

Argumentative Essay Pro And Euthanasia

Imagine having to endure so much pain and suffering for a majority of your life that you would just want it all to end. Well, there is a way one can stop their own pain and suffering and it is called euthanasia. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease. The act may only be done solely to those diagnosed with terminal illnesses such as cancer, aids, and heart disease. Many people agree with the idea of euthanasia as it can help those who are suffering be stripped of all the pain they are enduring.

Argumentative Essay On Right To Die

The pros to having the right to die law are that patients are able to end their suffering and pain. Some patients have illnesses that are so painful that the only way to get rid of the pain is to end their own life. The patient is able to die in dignity because they don’t have to worry about losing their mental and physical capacities. The patient can arrange to say goodbye to their love ones and their financial burden is reduced. Patients are able to donate their organs to other patients if they were planned ahead of time.

Persuasive Essay On Euthanasia

Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, is the act of permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured patients. This is never suggested by the caretaker rather than requested by the patient or their family. Few areas such as the Netherlands have already legalized this practice. This debate, as split as a fork in the road, is over whether or not this approach should be legalized worldwide on stances regarding religion, ethics, and self choice.     I see this as being extremely unethical on both religious and social morality levels.

The Pros And Cons Of Active Euthanasia?

Before discuss the human right to die with dignity, first to discuss the human right to die. Indeed, there are not a specific declaration of right to die, right to die is an extent of the right to life. The right to life is not a right simply to exist and is a right to life with a minimum quality and value. Death is the opposite of life, but the process of death is part of

Everyone has the right to choose to live or die. Death is part of life that can 't be avoided. This is a natural phenomenon in the process of life is birth, aging, illness and death. Euthanasia, in some words "Mercy Killing or Physician assisted Suicide. " Euthanasia is to help patients who despair and cannot be cured to die peacefully and to have free from suffering.

Argumentative Essay: The Right To Die

The Right to Die has been taking effect in many states and is rapidly spreading around the world. Patients who have life threatening conditions usually choose to die quickly with the help of their physicians. Many people question this right because of its inhumane authority. Euthanasia or assisted suicide are done by physicians to end the lives of their patients only in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, New Mexico and soon California that have the Right to Die so that patients don’t have to live with depression, cancer and immobility would rather die quick in peace.

Persuasive Speech On Euthanasia

If people have the right to live, then do they have the right to die? Is it okay to end someone’s life in order to end his/her pain and suffering? These are two of the biggest questions nowadays and I am here to take my stand on this issue. People are easily confused with this due to the fact that on one hand, we know that it is wrong to take a person’s life. On the other hand, it is difficult to see them suffering and in pain for a longer period of time.

Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia

THE EUTHANASIA CONTROVERSY Summary Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.

More about Persuasive Essay On Mercy Killing

Related topics.

• Medical ethics
• Voluntary euthanasia

Essay: The Quality of Mercy Killing

I f it were only a matter of law, the public would not feel stranded. He killed her, after all. Roswell Gilbert, a 76-year-old retired electronics engineer living in a seaside condominium in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., considered murdering his wife Emily for at least a month before shooting her through the head with Luger as she sat on their couch. The Gilberts had been husband and wife for 51 years. They were married in 1934, the year after Calvin Coolidge died, the year after Prohibition was lifted, the year that Hank Aaron was born. At 73, Emily had Alzheimer’s disease and osteoporosis; her spinal column was gradually collapsing. Roswell would not allow her to continue life as “a suffering animal,” so he committed what is called a mercy killing The jury saw only the killing; they felt Gilbert had mercy on himself. He was sentenced to 25 years with no chance of parole, which would make him 101 by the time he got out. The Governor has been asked to grant clemency. Most Floridians polled hope that Gilbert will go free.

Not that there ever was much of a legal or practical question involved. Imagine the precedent set by freeing a killer simply because he killed for love. Othello killed for love, though his passion was loaded with a different motive. Does any feeling count, or is kindness alone an excuse for murder? Or age: maybe someone has to be 76 and married 51 years to establish his sincerity. There are an awful lot of old people and long marriages in Florida. A lot of Alzheimer’s disease and osteoporosis as well. Let Gilbert loose, the fear is, and watch the run on Lugers.

Besides, the matter of mercy killing is getting rough and out of hand. Nobody seems to use poison anymore. In Fort Lauderdale two years ago, a 79-year-old man shot his 62-year-old wife in the stairwell of a hospital; like Emily Gilbert, she was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. In San Antonio four years ago, a 69-year-old man shot his 72-year-old brother to death in a nursing home. Last June a man in Miami put two bullets in the heart of his three-year-old daughter who lay comatose after a freak accident. An organization that studies mercy killings says that nine have occurred this year alone. You cannot have a murder every time someone feels sorry for a loved one in pain. Any fool knows that.

Yet you also feel foolish watching a case like Gilbert’s (if any case can be said to be like another) because, while both feet are planted firmly on the side of law and common sense, both are firmly planted on Gilbert’s side as well. The place the public really stands is nowhere: How can an act be equally destructive of society and wholly human? The reason anyone would consider going easy on Gilbert is that we can put ourselves in his shoes, can sit at his wife’s bedside day after day, watching the Florida sun gild the furniture and listening to the Atlantic lick the beach like a cat. Emily dozes. He looks at her in a rare peaceful pose and is grateful for the quiet.

Or he dreams back to when such a scene would have been unimaginable: she, sharp as a tack, getting the better of him in an argument; he, strong as a bull, showing off by swinging her into the air–on a beach, perhaps, like the one in front of the condominium where old couples like themselves walk in careful slow motion at the water’s edge. Since the case became a cause, photographs of the Gilberts have appeared on television, she in formal gown, he in tails; they, older, in a restaurant posing deadpan for a picture for no reason, the way people do in restaurants. In a way the issue here is age: mind and body falling away like slabs of sand off a beach cliff. If biology declares war, have people no right to a pre-emptive strike? In the apartment he continues to stare at her who, from time to time, still believes they are traveling together in Spain.

Now he wonders about love. He loves his wife; he tells her so; he has told her so for 51 years. And he thinks of what he meant by that: her understanding of him, her understanding of others, her sense of fun. Illness has replaced those qualities in her with screams and a face of panic. Does he love her still? Of course, he says; he hates the disease, but he loves his wife. Or–and this seems hard–does he only love what he remembers of Emily? Is the frail doll in the bed an impostor? But no; this is Emily too, the same old Emily hidden somewhere under the decaying cells and in the folds of the painkillers. It is Emily and she is suffering and he swore he would always look after her.

He considers an irony: you always hurt the one you love. By what act or nonact would he be hurting his wife more? He remembers news stories he has read of distraught people in similar positions, pulling the plugs on sons and husbands or assisting in the suicides of desperate friends. He sympathizes, but with a purpose; he too is interested in precedents. Surely, he concludes, morality swings both ways here. What is moral for the group cannot always be moral for the individual, or there would be no individuality, no exceptions, even if the exceptions only prove the rule. Let the people have their rules. What harm would it do history to relieve Emily’s pain? A little harm, perhaps, no more than that.

This is what we see in the Gilbert case, the fusion of our lives with theirs in one grand and pathetic cliché in which all lives look pretty much alike. We go round and round with Gilbert: Gilbert suddenly wondering if Emily might get better, if one of those white-coated geniuses will come up with a cure. Gilbert realizing that once Emily is gone, he will go too, since her way of life, however wretched, was their way of life. He is afraid for them both. In The Merchant of Venice Portia says that mercy is “twice blessed;/ It blesses him that gives and him that takes.” The murder committed, Gilbert does not feel blessed. At best, he feels he did right, which the outer world agrees with and denies.

Laws are unlikely to be changed by such cases: for every modification one can think of, there are too many loopholes and snares. What Gilbert did in fact erodes the whole basis of law, which is to keep people humane and civilized. Yet Gilbert was humane, civilized and wrong: a riddle. In the end we want the law intact and Gilbert free, so that society wins on both counts. What the case proves, however, is that society is helpless to do anything for Gilbert, for Emily or for itself. All we can do is recognize a real tragedy when we see one, and wonder, perhaps, if one bright morning 1934 Gilbert read of a mercy killing in the papers, leaned earnestly across the breakfast table and told his new bride: “I couldn’t do that. I could never do that.” –By Roger Rosenblatt

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Inside the Health Crisis of a Texas Bitcoin Town
• Lionel Messi Isn't Finished Yet
• The Lara Trump Project
• 4 Signs Your Body Needs a Break
• Fiji’s Fiery Battle Against Plastics
• Column: AI-Driven Behavior Change Could Transform Health Care
• How to Watch Lost in 2024 Without Setting Yourself Up for Disappointment
• Get Our Paris Olympics Newsletter in Your Inbox

Contact us at [email protected]

Argumentative Essay On Mercy Killing

• 7 Works Cited

Show More Register to read the introduction… We are being inhumane to force people to continue suffering in this way (Newman, 1996). Choosing for a more painless death comes a lot easier for patients along with family who witness the pain of their loved is enduring with all the medications and treatments (which tend to cause severe side effects). I believe that is justified. Especially knowing that the chances of survival are very slim for the patient . Supports of the mercy killing ask whether it is rational or not to keep a terminally ill patient who’s hopes of survival are slim and alive on a support system when our medical infrastructure is under immense pressure (Naik, 2011). Supporters also ask why mercy killing is not legalized when murder in defense is taken into consideration by law (Naik, 2011). 1. The Patient’s right to self-determination. Patient empowerment has been a trend for more than twenty-five years. “it’s my life, my pain. Why can’t I get the treatment I want?” (Newman, 1996). Severely ill patients will be able to die with dignity and honor rather than waiting for their sickness to consume every part of them. Forbidding someone who is terminally ill and is suffer gives that patient a feeling of being trapped in agony and their

Related Documents

Arguments against euthanasia research.

The previous section outlined how interpretation or understanding of the Hippocratic Oath provides arguments for and against Euthanasia being considered medical care. However, I find that the Oath, even if not taken literally, shapes a special ethic in medicine that should continue to be upheld. The spirit of the Oath, as mentioned earlier, offers to patients a sense of what they expect from their physicians- ultimate care. It took years to form the long-standing ethical norms in the patient-physician relationship and allowing physicians to euthanize patients threatens this central norm. Physicians enter the profession, or patients at least hope, with the intention of caring for patients.…

Physician Assisted Suicide Case Study

As a lot of ethical dilemmas about ending life continues to rise and become common, physicians of all specialties, all registered nurses and enrolled nurses will be confronted with questions from patients and their families, and from legislators and the media. There will come a time for a patient suffering from a terminal illness, where treatments aimed at cure is either no longer effective or the burden of side effects such as severe nausea and vomiting becomes so overwhelming that patients cancel out any benefit for treatment (Best 2010). However, despite the fact that patients have a right to make decisions about their life and treatments, there are several laws that prevent them from opting for euthanasia. Euthanasia violates codes of medical ethics that have existed since the ancient past and the Hippocratic oath taken by doctors on graduation prevents them from aiding a patient’s death (Best 2010). This results in terminally ill patients suffering from incurable disease to remain in pain and suffering, hence depriving them of their rights to autonomy to end their life quicker and peacefully if they so choose to.…

The Pros And Cons Of Physician Assisted Suicide

In a world where terminal illness is more of a reality than being able to afford a decent-sized house in a “good” neighborhood, it can bring peace to a patient when they have the option to determine how they go out. “Nearly half of all Americans die in a hospital” according to Centers for Disease Control (2005) [PDF]. Most patients in these situations are in excruciating pain for the duration of their treatments only to face death in a hospital bed used by many, rather than in the comfort of their own bed surrounded by their loved ones. Physician-Assisted Suicide is something that should not be said or taken lightly.…

Outline For Euthanasia Research Paper

Outline for Arguments on PAS and Euthanasia When addressing the matter of Euthanasia and PAS, “we must first acknowledge that figuring out the benefits and harms of permitting euthanasia or PAS is speculative at best” (Emanuel). As well, it is important to acknowledge the fact that, “no matter which social policy regarding euthanasia or PAS is adopted - legalization or maintaining the current policy of permitting them in individual cases - there will be both benefits and harms” (Emanuel). In this argument, it will be shown that legalizing Euthanasia and PAS within the United States, will help people, by allowing terminally ill patients to realize the end of a good death or, more accurately, a create a higher quality dying experience for them.…

Physician Assisted Suicide In Today's Society

In today’s society, one of the many controversial issues discussed is physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. There have been many questions and opinions concerning the incident, and as a result, some people have been criticized for their opinions of physician-assisted suicide. Many have debated about what is wrong and right yet, none of us actually know what is best for society. Furthermore, we ask ourselves, “Should patients have the right to die? Should we agree to the patient’s request regardless if they want to die based on emotional/mentally reasons, their fear of becoming weak, or their condition?”…

What Is The Right To Choose Physician Assisted Suicide?

Why can’t physicians be able to eliminate a patient 's suffering by helping them to die? Yet, we need to know the distinction between suffering, and the person who is suffering. It is a mistake to intentionally destroy an innocent person; their dignity, by removing their pain through suicide. The moral or ethical side of this argument does not resolve the legal issue. Supporters of physician-assisted suicide claim that people 's freedom of choice should be honored, which means PAS should be legal.…

Doctor Assisted Suicide Ethical

The argument for physician assisted suicide swirls around the want and hope for less suffering and an ability…

Pros And Cons Of Physician Assisted Suicide

Even though both cases are not subject to the same legal framework, criminalizing PAS is unfair and discriminatory for chronically-ill patients. A rational patient who is unable to bear the pain in the last stages of his life, and lives in a liberal country, should be granted with the right of getting a help to ‘die with dignity’. Arguments…

Argumentative Essay: Death With Dignity Act

I was by my sister-in-law’s side as she suffered through a terminal brain cancer and I watched her slowly wither away to a shell of a human. I saw the life slowly ebb out of her, behind a mask of pain and untold indignities, until she was unrecognizable as the vibrant person I once knew. Motivated by the thought of her son growing up without her, she fought with every ounce of strength in her body until the last day she was conscious, seeking every medical treatment available. Tragically, the cancer prevailed and her life ended one month after the tumor was discovered. Fortunately her suffering was short lived, but for many, the pain and indignities of a terminal illness can drag on for months, even years.…

The Ethical Dilemma Of Physician Assisted Suicide And Euthanasia

Secondly, Dr. Manning (1998) concludes that “the more compassionate treatment for such terminally ill patients is a quick merciful end since its treatment is generally far less successful than traditional medical and psychological means” (p. 42). People claim that by keeping an terminally ill patient alive you are putting them through unbearably pain and prolonging unnecessary suffering when you can easily just let them die a peaceful and merciful death. Thirdly, people think they are morally doing the right course of action by PAS and euthanasia by relieving the patient of pain relief. According to Gallup, a…

Assisted Suicide Argumentative Essay

A patient who is suffering has the legal right to die with guidance, counseling and support from their physician, they ultimately have the decision whether or not they want to take their life. Sullivan and Taylor emphasize that, “Neither government nor religious institutions should impose their own values on others, especially on those who are not causing harm. As an option in end-of-life care, PAS would allow terminally ill, mentally competent individuals to retain dignity and bodily integrity in the face of unbearable pain and suffering,” (54). There comes to a point in the patients’ life when they know they have had enough and in a stable mind set choose to die. Patient’s do not become incapable of making choices; yet have a clear view of their mental and physical wellbeing.…

Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

If doctors are enabled the decision to terminate a life on behalf of a unconscious patient, they would be then granted a power over society that not only breaches the Hippocratic Oath, but also empowers them to “play God”. This responsibility could then reflect upon society, altering their views and their trust within doctors and medical professionals as they could then be seen as “providers of death” (Cosic, 2003. 25) In addition to this, a doctor’s decision to terminate a life may not rely on the condition and best interests of the patient, but instead of amount of hospital beds and facilities that are…

Brock's Argument For The Moral Permissibility Of Voluntary Active Euthanasia

In this essay, I will contend that Brock’s argument in favor of the moral permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) is sound and that Brock offers persuasive responses to the objection that (A) VAE is an act which involves the deliberate killing of an innocent person and (B) the deliberate killing of an innocent person is always morally wrong. To achieve this, I will begin by summarizing Brock’s argument for the moral permissibility of VAE. Then, I will synthesize the objection to Brock’s argument and Brock’s subsequent responses. Finally, I will describe why I find Brock’s responses persuasive. Brock’s argument for the moral permissibility of VAE can be constructed as follows: (1) VAE is supported by the “values of patient well-being…

The Legalization Of Physician Assisted Suicide

Suffering, unimaginable pain, and the loss of meaning in life are all fears that people face when thinking about their eventual deaths. However, these fears can be dismissed by the practice of physician-assisted suicide. This practical and ethical procedure is a safe and humane way to help those with terminal illnesses die on their own terms without causing more damage to not only themselves but to their family as well. While physician-assisted suicide is frowned upon by many moral crusaders, the legalization of this process is necessary due to the need for protection of people’s rights, the current working application of supportive legislation, and the support of a majority of the population where activism is occurring. As stated by the…

Ethical And Moral Dilemmas: The Ethics Of Assisted Suicide

No person should have to endure terminal suffering that is unremitting, unbearable, or prolonged. When the burdens of life outweigh the benefits because of uncontrollable pain, severe psychological suffering, loss of dignity, or loss of quality of life as judged by the patient, and when the circumstances are not remediable, the dying person should be able to ask for and receive help in assisted suicide (Marker, Smith 47-51). It is further argued that assisted suicide for incurably ill persons experiencing extreme suffering can be distinguished from euthanasia used for the purpose of genocide on the grounds that it is based on principles of dignity, honor, and respect and is chosen and enacted by the dying individuals, rather than being forced on them against their…

Related Topics

• Medical terms

Ready To Get Started?

• Create Flashcards
• Mobile apps
•   Facebook
•   Twitter
• Cookie Settings

YOUR FINAL GRADE - GUARANTEED UK Essay Experts

Disclaimer: This is an example of a student written essay. Click here for sample essays written by our professional writers.

View full disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKEssays.com.

Debates On Mercy Killings

Reference this

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Related Services

Essay Writing Service

• Dissertation Writing Service

• Assignment Writing Service

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on UKEssays.com then please:

Our academic writing and marking services can help you!

• Find out more about our Essay Writing Service
• Undergraduate 2:2
• 7 day delivery
• Marking Service
• Samples of our Service
• Full Service Portfolio

Humanity University

Dedicated to your worth and value as a human being!

Related Lectures

Study for free with our range of university lectures!

• All Available Lectures

Freelance Writing Jobs

Looking for a flexible role? Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher?

Study Resources

Free resources to assist you with your university studies!

• Dissertation Resources at UKDiss.com
• How to Write an Essay
• Essay Buyers Guide
• Referencing Tools
• Essay Writing Guides
• Masters Writing Guides

Change Region / Country

Here you can choose which regional hub you wish to view, providing you with the most relevant information we have for your specific region. If your specific country is not listed, please select the UK version of the site, as this is best suited to international visitors.

United Kingdom

United States

United Arab Emirates

Saudi Arabia

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Assisted Suicide — Euthanasia and Mercy Killing

Euthanasia and Mercy Killing

• Categories: Assisted Suicide

About this sample

Words: 411 |

Published: Dec 12, 2018

Words: 411 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1647 words

2 pages / 1057 words

5 pages / 2356 words

3 pages / 1531 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia, the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve suffering, has been a topic of intense ethical and practical debate. While proponents argue for its legalization as a compassionate end-of-life option, this [...]

Euthanasia, a topic fraught with moral and ethical complexity, stands at the intersection of personal autonomy, suffering, compassion, and empathy. In this in-depth exploration, we will delve into the profound moral and ethical [...]

Assisted suicide, also known as physician-assisted death, is a controversial and sensitive topic that has sparked heated debates in the medical, ethical, and legal realms. The practice involves a physician providing a terminally [...]

Euthanasia, the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve their suffering, has been a topic of ethical debate for decades. This essay explores the nuanced and multifaceted arguments in favor of euthanasia, delving [...]

Relief from pain, and preservation of health and or life is the basic role of medicine and all the technologies associated with it. However, in some instances where the disease is a terminal one with no known cure, pain is the [...]

For those who are seeking a way out of existence suicide could come to mind. Though wanting to end their own life sometimes they wish not to do it alone. They want to be assisted in ending their life. A male engineer named [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Law

Good Euthanasia Mercy Killing Or Murder Argumentative Essay Example

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Law , Crime , Life , Death , Nursing , Euthanasia , Religion , Medicine

Words: 3750

Published: 02/20/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Many people believe that we now live in a world where we can make decisions – women are allowed to choose if and when they want to get pregnant so they take pills to ensure they have their choice. However just like with birth control, there is a lot of debate on euthanasia. Many people are of the opinion that euthanasia should not be allowed. Euthanasia is the process of allowing someone dies willingly and has being mercy killing by many. Unfortunately it is the killing that gets many people riled up as they are of the opinion that lives should not under any circumstances be taken. I am one of those people who agree with those who claim that there is nothing merciful about the taking of people’s lives and I will show in the pages below the problems with euthanasia. Many people have wondered if people on the brink of death can still make a choice and choose death and watch such a choice be acted upon. People have argued that they should be allowed to die in dignity as many of the people who go through with euthanasia usually have some debilitating and life threatening illness that they may think they have no cure over. They feel that allowing them to live in pain and agony for maybe six more months before they die is not life at all but greed by the ones they may be leaving behind who do not want to say goodbye. Proponents of euthanasia believe that it is immoral to force people to keep on living in suffering and pain when they would rather die with dignity. These proponents claim that since suicide is not yet considered a crime that euthanasia should not be as well. But there are many other proponents who are against the idea of euthanasia as they see it as murder. The religious groups believe that life in itself was given by God and only God can take it. There are also legal proponents who believe that euthanasia should not be allowed as they believe this leads people to take the lives of those who would otherwise have wanted to live.

The Legal Position

In most countries euthanasia is considered illegal although that has not stopped some doctors from practicing it still. In a country like the United Kingdom it is considered murder to practice euthanasia and as such it is illegal and culprits are liable to spend up to fourteen years behind bars. This does not change even if the doctor or medical practitioner was acting on the orders of the patient. The 1961 Suicide Act takes it a step further in the UK and stipulates that people who assist, counsel or aid someone in the taking of their lives is also liable to fourteen years imprisonment. The authorities however also decide the circumstances regarding to the person’s death when they are prosecuting cases on euthanasia. Many other countries have similar laws with regards euthanasia even though it may seem like the tide is turning as recent surveys have shown that up to 80% of the public believe that a terminally ill person should be allowed the decency to die with the doctor’s help. While euthanasia has picked up many titles along the way the end result is always death - whether it is active or passive euthanasia. As I have demonstrated above, different countries have different laws regarding euthanasia. The law sees doctors that practice passive euthanasia as different from those doctors who will abandon a patient to die. Although the law states that any euthanasia that occurs without the consent of the patient should be treated as a criminal offense, which is to say that the patient was not pressured into arriving at that decision. This is one of the biggest issues I have with euthanasia. If it were to be made legal, it will not be administered for the healthy but rather the weak and terminally ill. How easy will it be to convince people in this state that they are better off dying so that their loved ones may have closure? There are many people that have been given a very grim medical report who have gone on to achieve great things because they did not give up. The people who make it out alive from these kind of illnesses may be few and far between but if euthanasia kills a person that would otherwise have wanted to live out their lives, no matter how short that period of time is.

Ethical Issues

Euthanasia will always be compared against the religious, moral and ethical backdrop of the society. Most democratic countries accept the right to choose as a civil right. If this is the case, an issue like euthanasia has to be made by the individual itself and many of these people that have chosen euthanasia will not have made this choice if they were to make it by themselves. They would have preferred to go on living – no matter how short that life may be. Most religions are also against the taking of one’s life and euthanasia will always be seen as just that. Many religions that worship a supreme God believe that life was given to us by him and he alone can take that life. they claim that if you had no input in how or when your birth would be then you should not determine when your death would be. In taking your life or giving consent for one’s life to be taken from them is equal to that person in question taking the role of God upon themselves? It is clear that not everybody will believe in a God who gives life and watches over the life, people cannot deny the fact that everybody is unique with unique DNA and a life that cannot be copied. If indeed our lives are as precious as have been mentioned above, then why do we take these same lives. It therefore becomes the job of the society to stop people from short changing themselves through the taking of their lives.

Religion and Death

Death plays a very important role in the many different religions in the world and while these different religions treat death differently, most of them are adverse to the idea of euthanasia. The Christian religion believe that it is God who gives life and He too should be the one who takes life and that the so called mercy killing is actually murder and should be stopped. One of the most active advocates against euthanasia is the Roman Catholic Church who actually forbids it. They teach that people attached to the ailing should instead take care of them and nurture them in their dying days as opposed to finding a quick fix solution to their problem. Most religions that have a supreme God stick to His command when He says that we must not kill. In as much as people may look at euthanasia as ‘letting the patient die with dignity’ the bible has called this process death and frowns at it. Religion also sees humans as being special because they were created by God. If mankind is indeed special then they must be preserved by all means and not trivialized through the practice of euthanasia. While Christianity is adamant in its opinion that euthanasia should not be allowed, the eastern religions take on a different approach. These religions see death as being set free from mortal life. However they too are against harming other people and euthanasia falls into the second category. While religions like Hinduism and Buddhism see death as a process of the life cycle, shortening that life does interfere with this divine cycle and is therefore frowned upon. Ending one’s life before it naturally ends also interferes with ultimate liberation and what the said person will become in the afterlife. Many other religions have different reasons as to why they are against this sort of life ending procedure and as a result euthanasia has been a heavily debated topic. This doesn’t look like it will end any time soon.

The Hospice as an Alternative

Living with the terminally or seriously ill is a huge burden on the sick person and the caregiver. This pressure has seen to the rise of hospices being prepared for people who have a very short time to live where they are cared for and given palliative care. These centres do not try to prolong the life or even shorten it but instead they try to make it as stress free as possible for all the parties involved. The staffs at these centres help to enhance the quality of life of these people who can see and tell that they are not alone in their suffering but that there are many other people with similar or worse cases than theirs. These hospices help to ease the burden on the loved ones who had taken up the role of caretakers. It also reduces the resentment felt by the terminally ill patient towards their loved ones.

Personal Experience

For many years my grandmother has been suffering from depression and this depression began to make her physically ill. It got to a point where she had to survive on anti-depressants and because she hated how they made her feel she would deliberately not take them at times. Unfortunately for her situation when she was not taking her medications, she acted violent. During her last days she became increasingly ill and emancipated and this also became a burden on her children as well. Many times she had family watch her as the depression and many other illnesses that came about as a result. Staying at home and being looked after became hard on my mother because she was always a very energetic and busy woman and many of times she wished she was dead. As hard as it was to take care of her we did still do everything in our power till the day she just died normally. We knew that it was eventually going to be a losing battle but we were willing to keep her alive instead of the alternative choice of euthanasia. Whenever people wondered why we were punishing her by keeping her alive, we always said that the last four months of her life may have seen her have 110 bad days but the 10 good days was worth her being alive.

Euthanasia – A Global Issue

The world has become a global village with longevity of life seen as a global reality. This is due to the new and improved research, better medical facilities and healthier alternatives to life. in all this however, globalisation has not been able to stop death from happening and why some people face death and come out victorious, others suffer a long and difficult journey before they eventually die. People are said to be living not just because they are breathing but because of the quality of life they live. There are some illnesses that deprive people of that quality of life that was at one time or the other available to them. The people who say euthanasia should be allowed see euthanasia as a humane thing to do and not as murder (Gerald). Although I do not have data or a survey to back this statement, I do believe that most people would want a pain free death although not everyone will enjoy that benefit. Looking at the above one could almost believe that euthanasia is the right thing to do. In my life I have seen many things that may seem right at the start but halfway through I realise that I have made a grave mistake and then it would be too difficult to retrace my steps. Euthanasia is a touching subject because it has to do with life, it is not like a dress that you buy from the shops and on getting home realise that you don’t like it and you return it for a refund. Life especially that of a loved one should not be treated as a discarded or unwanted cloth. Is there anything like death with dignity or is death just death – a finality of life.

Proponents for Euthanasia

While there are people and organisations and even legislations that have been put up to stop euthanasia, there are those who believe that euthanasia should be allowed to thrive. The proponents of euthanasia believe that it is possible for euthanasia to be controlled and not abused even though it will be hard to have regulations in place that will prevent people from abusing euthanasia. They say it is just like the law and how it affects any crime (Neil 243). There may be laws in place to prevent crimes like fraud or theft or any other crime but still there will also be people that will go ahead and commit those crimes. The problem and the catch though is that no laws and regulations put in place will dissuade wicked people from pressuring vulnerable people to make the choice of death even though they may have wanted to live for a few days more. They however admit that it would be a better situation to create a structure for euthanasia as opposed to making no structure available. People being who they are will practise euthanasia whether it be made legal or not and the best way to minimize abuse would be to put structures in place. They have argued that this is a similar thing to the struggle for abortion. With structures put in place, vulnerable people will be able to be protected through these structures instead of just being unnecessarily pressured to choose euthanasia. How then would a good regulation look like? An effective regulation should take everything into consideration before deciding that euthanasia is the best option. In other words it should not be the first option but rather the last one. There are some parts of the world that have started practising such things on a reasonable scale. - Physician-assisted suicide was legalised in Oregon in 1998 under very severe conditions. For the first three years of its presences only about 2 people a month used euthanasia to end their lives. The process involved things like getting checked by a second physician who must also claim that the patient had less than six months to live and many requests for euthanasia must have been given. - While the Netherlands still considers euthanasia and assisted suicide as crimes, there are times doctors can be exempt from liability of crime. The Criminal Code Article of Netherlands has stipulated that if the patient that has made a voluntary request to die was suffering unendurable pain and is convinced that there is no other viable solution, then the doctor that assists that patient to die will not be liable of crime.

Problems with Euthanasia

There is the fear that euthanasia will be abused if it is allowed. Vulnerable and at risk patients will be pressured by people to end their lives. While I have shown that it is difficult to take care of any ailing person, forcing them to choose death instead of fight for their lives is wickedness. And many of them will be coerced into choosing death. I could give an example of two AIDS sufferers. The first one may have been abandoned as a result of their illness by all they love and hold dear and in a state of isolation choose death to end it all. However there is the other sufferer who is being pressured by present loved ones to end their life while all they may have wanted might have been the chance to spend every waking minute with these same loved ones. Allowing euthanasia will be a chance for it to be abused. People are created free and they enjoy the opportunity to live life free. Illness not only saps one of this freedom of life but it also saps the chance to live free of the loved ones who now have to care for an ill relative and especially when that ailment does not seem to have a silver lining. This total dependence on others leads to feelings of worthlessness as they see their situation depriving the ones they love of the chance to live life free. Some people that find themselves in that position may decide rather to end it all than to have their loved ones hate on them later from depriving them from living their own lives. On-going medical treatment is a very expensive venture and more often than not it affects the financial lives of the loved one who may also be left to pay the bills when the sufferer dies eventually. Many people may stipulate that since the person is going to die anyway that it might be better if the life is shortened instead of prolonging it and in so doing increasing their hospital debt. The lethal medication that is usually administered for euthanasia costs less than $100 and this is much cheaper than the continuing medical treatment of the patient. I believe that many people who choose or persuade others to have euthanasia have never stopped to consider what they would want to happen to them if they were the ones lying by a thread in that hospital bed.

I have heard many stories of people who have been affected in one way or the other by sicknesses that look incurable and how they have at one time or the other considered how much easier it would be for them to end it all. I remember the story of a friend whose mother was dying of cancer and how she one day joked that her son should use an axe and chop her head off. While she said it in jest on one of her better days, that friend did sit to think for a minute how much easier his life would be when his mother would die. While he was never going to get an ax to chop off his mother’s head or even allow her take the euthanasia route, he did admit that her illness was not just hard on her but it was hard on him as well. Dying is so different from child bearing and it does take time and unlike child bearing where there are people on hand to assist you bring in that new life, death happens when you are alone. In that instance he realised that euthanasia went far beyond the issue of morality or legality and was really all about how selfish one was. The issue I have with euthanasia is that it deprives the carers the time they needed to process how they would feel when that person was no longer in their lives. Just like my friend, many people are not ready to die and even though they may moan and groan and even wish death on the sufferer in their care when things get too hard for them, at the end of it all, they want these people to go only when they have fully prepared themselves for that loss. Those who agree with euthanasia will call my friend selfish and maybe he was, but isn’t that what love is about. They will claim that he deprived her going in a dignified manner and instead watch as she lost herself and her will to eat or live or endure insurmountable pain because he wanted to be with his loved one for one more day. They may argue that that person on that bed is no longer the loved one they knew but a caricature of their former selves and they may be right. But in all this I say that there is no telling the amount of pain that a human can bare if that human believes that there are loved ones cheering them on. Only a fool will believe that he will never die but then, everybody that is alive should be allowed to die and not pressured to give up their right to live so that their carers can go on with their lives – that is very selfish. What protects the terminally ill person from the clutches of their wicked family who would rather they die sooner rather than later. Does that man or woman who is been rattled by alheizmers have enough thinking faculty to realise that no one has the power to determine when he should die. There was a time that people saw abortion as a taboo but today the story is different. If the world continues to grow at the rate it is at the moment, I believe that there will come a time when euthanasia just might become law. I hope that if that day ever comes by that the people who wield the power to determine if grandma should die tomorrow should look back and think of all they have gone through and how one day it may be them lying on that bed and waiting for your grandson to give a verdict on your life. I hope that if that day does roll around that you and your grandson will choose life no matter how short it may be.

BBC. “Ethical Problems of Euthanasia.” n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/problems.shtml Campbell, Neil. “A Problem for the Idea of Voluntary Euthanasia.” Journal of Medical Ethics. 25 (1999) : pp 242-244. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. http://jme.bmj.com/content/25/3/242.full.pdf Berger, John. “Hiroshima: Paired Readings of the Reality of War.” n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. http://www.mccc.edu/pdf/esl135/hiroshima.pdf Larue, Gerald. “Euthanasia: A Global Issue.” North American Committee of Humanism. (1999) Web. 11 Nov. 2013. http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol13/larue.html Nickel & Dimed. “On Not Getting by in America.” New York: Metropolitan/ Owl Book, PDF. http://swcta.net/moore/files/2013/03/Nickel-and-Dimed-Barbara-Ehrenreich.pdf

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 466

This paper is created by writer with

ID 271621024

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Brush reports, senator reports, metric reports, perpendicular reports, headache reports, redesign reports, rage reports, billing reports, perspective college essays, premium product chocolates case study examples, free essay on impact of globalization on education, free essay on type of work undertaken, statement of cash flows research paper sample, sample essay on history of humanity, essay on contributions of w edwards deming, example of zen master seung sahn teachings on dont do anything other than what you are essay, understanding financial reports essay sample, good essay about history of social media reection, free essay about describe the limiits of the article of confideration and problems occurring under, free rainforests essay sample, free drug addiction and treatment research paper sample, sample term paper on death of a salesman an analysis of the american dream, good example of sociology essay, free essay on womanhood during wwii, free affordable healthcare act essay example, evolution as a threat to christianity essays example, good book review on happy life learnt from mans best friend, history of economics term paper, example of report on continuous assessment task plan, good example of women discrimination in the workplace organizational research proposal, sample research paper on supply network for digital health, good example of role play essay, the core research paper samples, southern baptist essays, vitamin b12 essays, tunis essays, tilling essays, milton hershey essays, career goals and aspirations essays, jack jones essays, monty python and the holy grail essays, silverbird essays, warrens essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Essay On Mercy Killing In Of Mice And Men

Mercy killing has always been a controversial topic that made people go round and round about whether or not it was socially acceptable to kill a person. During the Great Depression, which was the time frame of the novel, Of Mice and Men, many people were tired, sick, and ultimately depressed. The suicide rates skyrocketed during the Great Depression. Although Lennie's death was not suicide , it could have been considered assisted suicide. After reading Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck, it was clear that Steinbeck believed that mercy killing was acceptable if there was a greater reason or purpose for the person being killed, or if it was to help a person out of their circumstances. The first smaller incident of mercy killing in Of Mice and Men occurred when Candy’s dog was shot to put the dog out of its misery. Candy’s dog was very old and could not do anything. It was not only hurting Candy’s dog to be alive, but it was hurting Candy as well, although Candy did not know that in the beginning. After Carlson shot Candy’s dog, Candy realized that his dog was in misery and needed to be put down. The dog was slowly dying on its own and just needed a little help so it would not suffer. Candy once told George, "I ought …show more content…

Lennie knew he was in a great deal of trouble when he killed Curley’s wife so he fled to the bush where George told him to go. When George found Lennie, George knew that Lennie would be shot by Curley. George wanted Lennie’s last moments to be great rather than in fear. George shot Lennie so he Lennie did not die a painful death. “Slim came directly to George and sat down beside him, sat very close to him. ‘Never you mind,’ said Slim. ‘A guy got to sometimes.’” (107) This quote showed how Slim was telling George that George did the right thing by killing Lennie, or else Lennie would have suffered in a horrible manner. In this circumstance, mercy killing was

Mice and Men Persuasive Essay

We can all argue back and forth whether George killing Lennie was wrong or not. But the fact of the matter is—there was no escape. George heard “a

Why George Was Right to Kill Lennie in 'Of Mice and Men'

George saved Lennie by shooting him with a gun in the back of the head. It was fast and painless, but Curley had other plans for Lennie, “We oughtta let ‘im get away. You don’t know that Curley. Curley gont’ta wanta get him lynched. Curley’ll get ‘im killed”( Steinbeck 94). Candy knows that Curely will lynch Lennie if he finds him. George knew he had to find Lennie before Curley. George decided to shoot Lennie because he knew Lennie would have either been locked up in jail his entire life, or have been beaten up and lynched by Curley. After George shoots Lennie, Slim reassures George that he did the right thing, “You hadda, George. I swear you hadda”(Steinbeck 107). George needed Slim to let him know that it was the right thing to do. Slim gave George closure, because George was in awe. George realized he did the right thing after he followed Slim out of the

Of Mice And Men Euthanasia Analysis

Terri Schiavo didn’t have to die by euthanasia, so why should others. In the novel Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, George, the main character travels with Lennie, another main character. In the book towards the end George is left with a terrible decision, after Lennie does something bad and runs away. The rest of the men find out he has accidentally killed the boss’ daughter- in-law. Curley is ready to kill him. But George makes the decision to mercy kill Lennie, to stop him from getting brutally killed by Curley. The novel makes it seem like George did the right thing, but this is not true because mercy killing is a way in which no one should die.

Is George Justified In Of Mice And Men

Some argue that no one, no matter the circumstances, is justified in taking the life of another. They state that George had no right to take Lennie’s life because it was morally wrong. They say George executed Lennie because he is not an officer or a member of the court. Some

Is George Guilty Of Murder

Any good person does not want to watch a friend to be hurt, and George is no exception. George is most worried for Lennie when Curley says ‘“i’m gonna shoot the guts outta that big dumb bastard myself, even if i only got one hand.”’ (steinbeck 48). this is when Curley, Slim and Carlson are getting together to find Lennie and hurt him and kill him. George thought

Of Mice And Men Suffering Quotes

It's been four months, the doctors don't know what else they can do. You don't want to accept it but, she tells you to. Your daughter, your own flesh and blood, pride and joy, is begging you to stop the pain and suffering with her big cloudy doll eyes. In the novel Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, one of the main characters, George, had come upon an unthinkable situation, where he best friend, Lennie, murders the wife of Curley. George faces the decision to weather let Lennie live, and suffer from Curley's vengeance, or to end Lennie's life permanently, and save him from suffering. The novel makes it clear that mercy killing, the act of putting an animal or human down painlessly without suffering, is a human way to show compassion towards

Reasons Why George Was Justified In Of Mice And Men

First and foremost, George has to constantly continue to repeat rules to Lennie because Lennie is undisciplined. Like, after Slim gives Lennie a puppy Lennie brings the puppy into the bunkhouse with him even though George told him he was not supposed to. For example, after Lennie comes into the bunkhouse John Steinbeck writes that George " reached down and picked up the tiny puppy from where Lennie had been concealing it against his stomach." (Steinbeck) In this quote it shows that Lennie disobeyed the rules that George has set with him so he could get the puppy this means that Lennie is undisciplined because he broke the rules even though he knew that there were specific rules that were not supposed to be broken. consequently, George has to repeat himself many times and treat Lennie like a child by fixing the things that Lennie messes up and disobeyes the rules. So George was justified in his decision to kill

Argumentative Essay On Of Mice And Men

According to www.dualdiagnosis.org, in the 1930’s, “Techniques that were used on the mentally ill included insulin-induced comas, lobotomies, malarial infections, and electroshock therapy.” The novel, Of Mice and Men, written by John Steinbeck, describes the story of two migrant workers named George and Lennie, and their adventure during the Great Depression. Lennie is a man who is challenged with mental retardation. During the Great Depression, this was not an acceptable thing in society, so George acts as his caretaker and has to cover for Lennie. Eventually, George and Lennie find themselves working on a ranch where they meet new people and find themselves in trouble. I think that George did the right thing by killing Lennie. If George would not have killed him, Lennie would have been taken to the mental hospital and treated badly, if Lennie was killed by anyone else, George would have had regrets, and Lennie was at risk of getting himself and George into more trouble.

Examples Of Euthanasia In Of Mice And Men

The decision of killing should not be looked upon as criminal. George does not have a cruel heart nor does he take pleasure in killing Lennie. George wants what is best for Lennie and he takes the time to set up a nice, peaceful conversation on a topic of interest to Lennie. He instructs Lennie to ?look down there acrost the river, like you can almost see the place? (106). He reassures Lennie that everyone will treat him pleasingly.

Of Mice And Men Compare And Contrast Essay

While mercy and murder do have some similarities there is one huge difference, mercy killing has consent, murder does not. Sometimes it is as clear as day if it is murder or mercy. One of these times was when a twenty nine year old “Brittany Maynard fulfilled her final wish… purposely ending her own life on her own schedule…” (Briggs). This is very different from what happens in Of Mice and Men By: John Steinbeck where George kills Lennie without his consent. In Of Mice and Men George and Lennie are best friends that go on the road with each other looking for jobs. They end up working at a ranch and made some friends and some enemies. Throughout this story it is shown that Lennie is mentally disabled and is obsessed with petting soft objects,

Mercy Killing in 'Of Mice and Men'

In John Steinbeck 's classic novella, Of Mice and Men, one of the predominant themes that govern the story and characters in the book is friendship. One of the ways in which friendship plays a large role is in the area of mercy killing, which affects the main characters as well as the supporting ones. The two major mercy killings that occur in the book are those of Carlson 's killing of Candy 's old dog, and of George 's killing of Lennie. In both of these examples, the killer kills the other out of mercy and love, not for the usual motives of hatred, rage, anger, etc.

Of Euthanizing Lennie In John Steinbeck's Of Mice And Men

Which leads to George having to put Lennie down. In this section of the book George just put Lennie down and he was told by Slim “You hadda, George. I swear you hadda” (John Steinbeck 107). This is the first reason as to why he needed to be euthanized.

Of Mice And Men By John Steinbeck: Murder Or Mercy?

George took it upon himself to take Lennie’s life because he knew if he didn’t do it himself, Lennie would have faced harsher consequences. Readers think that George mercy killed him but others think it is a non-legitimate and horrible act. It is thought that any kind of killing is murder but others think that this is an act of kindness.

The Best Laid Schemes O ' Of Mice And Men

“The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley. an’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain, for promis’d joy!” These famous words from Robert Burns’ poem “To a Mouse” inspired John Steinbeck’s title for Of Mice and Men. Just as it is useless for a mouse to try and protect its home from the blade of a plow, so are the human efforts and dreams for the unattainable in the face of natural and economic calamities. In the midst of the Great Depression, a man like Lennie who is incapable of thinking logically for himself renders it nearly impossible to survive without causing any trouble. George knew of this and tried to prolong the inevitable, but eventually had to face the ultimate price of taking away the life of the only friend he’s ever known and had. Mercy is defined as compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one’s power to punish or harm. Although mercy is the ideal side to choose, some readers think that George chose to kill Lennie because Lennie because Lennie is constantly in trouble and George was sick of solving all of Lennie’ problem. From murdering Lennie out of selfishness and murdering Lennie out of mercy, the basis of the debate on the intent of

Of Mice And Men Mercy Killing Analysis

Lennie was a dangerous character all throughout the book, and his quick, easy execution was the best solution possible. When the search for Lennie begins, George tries reasoning with Slim to which Slim replies, “An’ s’pose they lock him up an’ strap him down and put him in a cage. That ain’t no good, George” (Steinbeck 97). This line from Slim shows that any other discipline for Lennie will just end in Lennie living a life of

Related Topics

• Capital punishment

• How It Works
• All Projects
• Top-rated Pages
• Admission essay writing
• Book report writing
• Cheap essay writing
• Coursework writing
• Dissertation writing
• Essay editing
• MBA essay writing
• Scholarship essay writing
• Term paper writing
• Write my essay
• Free sample essays
• Writing blog

Best Persuasive Essay Examples

Mercy killing.

1245 words | 5 page(s)

Zakyah Basri’s essay on mercy killing uses a rhetorical question as a title: Euthanasia: Which M is It? Mercy or Murder? While this title treats the subject a bit simplistically, it reflects the essence of the debate on mercy killing: whether it is an act of mercy or a simple murder. Proponents of mercy killing list numerous advantages of this practice for the person who undergoes mercy killing, his/her nearest and dearest, and the society as a whole. These benefits include allowing the patient end his/her sufferings, freeing relatives from psychological and financial burdens, releasing hospital beds and medical resources, and reducing the spread of diseases. While these arguments seem rational and well founded on the principles of social Darwinism and social science (Dowbiggin 7), they are inherently flawed both in terms of the issues of morality and culture, and, from a legal perspective. Therefore, logical disproval of these arguments will provide sufficient ground for stating: mercy killing cannot be justified by any means.

To begin with, let us examine the very meaning and formulation of the term ‘mercy killing’. While mercy killing is a buzzword in the world of contemporary media, its meaning often remains blurred. Whereas “mercy” suggests compassion and concern, “killing” suggests taking away somebody’s life, which has little to do with mercy. Mercy killing is often used as a general term for euthanasia, “the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition” (“Euthanasia”).

Use your promo and get a custom paper on "Mercy Killing".

Today, however, the term mercy killing has acquired an additional connotation: ending the life of another person without his or her request. In essence, a corresponding term to mercy killing, thus, may be involuntary euthanasia (killing which takes place despite the fact that the person has not explicitly asked for aid in dying). To compare, voluntary euthanasia refers to killing a person in response to her/his request, or as Margaret Sommerville, distinguishes between the two types of euthanasia: “euthanasia with or without an informed consent” (Somerville 27).

Based on these findings, the use of the word ‘mercy’ in ‘mercy killing’ seems a way too forced, especially given the contradictory nature of both words and the ambiguity of the word ‘mercy’. In addition, mercy killing should not be used as a medical or any other term because it is already biased. ‘Mercy’ evokes positive emotions and the associations of kindness and compassion. Therefore, it kind of justifies the second word – ‘killing’ – without giving sufficient argumentative basis for this.

The fact that ‘mercy killing’ is a deliberately biased word is supported by a range of facts in the media. For example, the newspapers Chicago Sun-Times and Daily Southtown covered the case of shooting of a 74 year-old woman by her husband while in hospital bed as a ‘mercy killing’. Before any legal investigation actually took place, the media had already labeled the murder case as a killing out of compassion. Yet, there were obviously more relevant terms to be used: domestic violence and murder (“A New Zealand Resource for Life Related Issues”). Therefore, the term ‘mercy killing’ is biased and inappropriate to refer to the practice of killing of terminally ill or old patients, since it does not have any clear boundaries nor does it have any justifiable foundations.

Having established the irrelevancy of the term ‘mercy killing’, let us focus on the benefits that proponents ascribe to euthanasia and mercy killing. Two key arguments are relieving a suffering person of pain and freeing relatives of a suffering person from the emotional burden of seeing how their close people suffer. While there are cases when people ask their doctors or family members to end their sufferings, many cases of euthanasia and mercy killings are done without any voluntary consent from the suffering party. What is more, sometimes the patients do not even need to be terminally ill. For example, in the Dutch legislation, before the adoption of a narrow definition of the term euthanasia, prior understanding of euthanasia “did not necessarily limit euthanasia to terminally ill people” (Somerville 27). Recently, the broadening of the term euthanasia has caused the situation to go out of hand. For instance, Rosenblatt in his article “The Quality of Mercy Killing” provides a list of murders when relatives of ill patients killed them allegedly out of mercy: Roswell Gilbert, aged 76, killed his wife Emily, aged 73, who had osteoporosis and Alzheimer’s disease, because he did not want to allow her to live as a “suffering animal”; in Fort Lauderdale, a man aged 79 shot his wife aged 62 in a hospital; in San Antonio, a man aged 69 shot his brother aged 72 while he stayed in a nursing home. Importantly, Rosenblatt observes, “the matter of mercy killing is getting rough” while the underlying motives still remain unclear. Was it really mercy or kindness? Or was it simply Gilbert’s lack of desire to take care of his spouse, accept her the way she was in her old years, and witness her sufferings? It seems Gilbert shot Emily more of love to himself. Thus, mercy killing cannot be justified in any case because it is based on an inherently flawed and subjective perception of mercy and may conceal real motives. Besides, it risks growing into a social practice of cleansing the society from old, disabled, and ill individuals given the fact it is advantageous for the society as a whole – pretty the same way it was in Nazi camps!

Finally, mercy killing cannot be justified purely for moral reasons. While there are a number of options to replace mercy killing (including simple administration of quality painkillers), the society ignores them. As Peck shows in his article “Living is the Mystery”, the problem is inflated (Peck, “Living is the Mystery”). It could have been resolved by a better means: patients who are terminally ill should be assisted in understanding what life is and exploring the meaning of life rather than helped to avoid facing life by murdering themselves. Besides, euthanasia is not justifiable because it reflects only one direction – a secular one. No religious tradition (Christian, for example) justifies euthanasia. Essentially, the philosophy of mercy killing denies the very existence of soul and focuses on a simplistic solution of dealing with life’s hardships: finding a way out. Hence, it should not be legally supported due to its limitations and secular basis.

Overall, mercy killing can never be justified for a set of reasons. Firstly, no killing is merciful because taking somebody’s life is already an act of murder. Secondly, mercy killing is growing to become a social practice of cleansing the society from ill, old, and invalid people. Thirdly, mercy killing is a forced problem which has a few other solutions that will benefit the person and the society, in particular through philosophical and religious guidance in understanding of the meaning of life and death. Fourthly, mercy killing is a secular-based practice and it does not consider the cultural and religious traditions, so it is one-sided and unreliable in any case.

• A New Zealand Resource for Life Related Issues. “Mercy Killing”. 2011. Web. 22 October 2012.
• Dowbiggin, Ian. A Merciful End : The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. Oxford University Press, 2002. Print.
• Peck, Scott. “Living is the Mystery”. N.d. Web. 22 October 2013.
• Rosenblatt, Roger. “The Quality of Mercy Killing”. N.d. Web. 22 October 2013.
• Somerville, Margaret. Death Talk: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. McGill-Queen’s Press, 2001. Print.

Have a team of vetted experts take you to the top, with professionally written papers in every area of study.

Thesis Statement for Persuasive Essay

Thesis statement generator for persuasive essay.

Crafting a compelling thesis for a persuasive essay is fundamental in anchoring your argument and driving your message home. A persuasive thesis not only states your position but also presents the argument you’ll use to sway your reader. This guide unveils the art of formulating influential persuasive essay thesis statements , offering examples and expert tips to ensure your essay resonates with conviction and persuasive power. Dive in to fortify your argumentative prowess.

What is a Persuasive Essay Thesis Statement? – Definition

A persuasive essay thesis statement is a concise summary of the main point or claim of the essay. It serves as a roadmap for readers, indicating the stance the writer is taking on a particular issue or topic and the key arguments they will use to convince readers of their perspective. Essentially, it’s the heart of your argument, capturing the essence of what you’re trying to persuade your audience to believe or do.

What is the Best Thesis Statement Example for Persuasive Essay?

While the “best” thesis statement is subjective and depends on the topic and target audience, a strong example might be:

“Given the environmental, economic, and health benefits, cities should invest more in cycling infrastructure to promote bicycle commuting, reduce traffic congestion, and decrease air pollution.”

This good thesis statement not only clearly states the writer’s perspective but also outlines the main arguments they’ll use to persuade readers.

100 Thesis Statement Examples for Persuasive Essay

Size: 206 KB

A persuasive essay thesis is a declarative sentence that condenses the central argument you intend to make. It’s more than just a statement of intent: it’s a bold proclamation of your viewpoint on an issue. A compelling thesis can differentiate a strong essay from a weak one. Dive into these examples to understand the diversity and depth a persuasive essay thesis can achieve.

• “School uniforms should be mandatory as they foster equality, reduce distractions, and improve student focus.”
• “Solar energy is not only environmentally friendly but also economically viable, and governments should provide more incentives for its adoption.”
• “Animal testing for cosmetics is both unethical and unnecessary and should be banned globally.”
• “Fast food chains should be required to display calorie counts on their menus to promote healthier eating habits.”
• “Online education provides flexibility, accessibility, and personalized learning experiences, making it superior to traditional classroom settings.”
• “The death penalty is an outdated form of punishment and should be abolished due to its potential for wrongful executions.”
• “Parents should monitor their children’s internet use to protect them from the dangers of cyberbullying and exposure to inappropriate content.”
• “Companies should prioritize corporate social responsibility over profits to ensure sustainable and ethical operations.”
• “Vaccinations should be mandatory for public school entry to protect the greater community from preventable diseases.”
• “Single-use plastics are a major environmental concern, and there should be a global ban on their production and sale.”
• “Public transport should be made free to decrease traffic congestion and reduce air pollution.”
• “Professional athletes should be held to higher standards of behavior due to their influence on younger fans.”
• “Parents should have an active role in their children’s education, including the right to choose schools and curricula.”
• “Governments should regulate and limit the exposure of children to advertising to protect them from consumerist indoctrination.”
• “The age for legal alcohol consumption should be raised to 21 to combat the rise in youth alcohol-related incidents.”
• “The government should fund and promote STEM education to ensure a competitive workforce in the global market.”
• “Smoking in public places should be banned due to its detrimental health effects on non-smokers.”
• “Teens under 18 should not be allowed to access social media platforms to protect their mental health.”
• “The global community should take more aggressive actions to combat climate change and protect future generations.”
• “Freedom of the press is essential for a functioning democracy, and any attempts to limit it are detrimental to society.”
• “The gig economy exploits workers and lacks job security; therefore, stricter regulations should be enforced.”
• “GMO foods, when properly regulated, can solve global hunger issues and should be embraced.”
• “Gender pay gaps exist and are a result of systemic sexism; companies should be mandated to ensure equal pay.”
• “Limiting screen time for children promotes healthier physical and mental development.”
• “Mandatory voting ensures everyone’s voice is heard and should be implemented to strengthen democratic processes.”
• “Public figures should have a limited right to privacy due to their influence and role in society.”
• “Advertisements targeting children should be banned to prevent early consumerism.”
• “Body cameras for law enforcement officers are essential to promote transparency and accountability.”
• “Whistleblowers play a crucial role in democratic societies and should be protected by law from retaliation.”
• “Cultural appropriation in fashion and art belittles original traditions and should be discouraged.”
• “Educational institutions should focus more on practical skills rather than theoretical knowledge to prepare students for real-world challenges.”
• “Restricting the sale of sugary beverages can lead to a significant reduction in obesity rates.”
• “Children’s exposure to violent video games directly correlates with aggressive behavior, and such games should have age restrictions.”
• “The censorship of art is a violation of freedom of expression and stifles the creative spirit.”
• “Mental health education should be a mandatory part of school curricula to address and destigmatize mental health issues.”
• “Homeschooling, when done effectively, can offer a more personalized and efficient education than traditional schools.”
• “Organic farming practices should be promoted and subsidized by governments due to their environmental and health benefits.”
• “The excessive use of antibiotics in agriculture poses long-term health risks, necessitating stricter regulations.”
• “Workplace wellness programs not only benefit employees but also lead to increased productivity and should be adopted by all companies.”
• “Governments should impose heavier taxes on junk food to curb the increasing rates of health issues related to poor diet.”
• “Higher education should be made affordable for all, as it’s a fundamental right and not a luxury.”
• “Celebrities endorsing political candidates can unduly influence the public, and such endorsements should be approached with skepticism.”
• “Urban planning must prioritize green spaces due to their psychological and environmental benefits.”
• “Euthanasia, when done under strict regulations, is an act of mercy and should be legally allowed.”
• “The global community must cooperate to tackle the refugee crisis and ensure safe resettlement and support.”
• “Artificial intelligence, without proper ethical guidelines, poses a threat to job markets and privacy.”
• “Zero-waste lifestyles are crucial for sustainability, and consumer practices should align with this goal.”
• “Fast fashion contributes to environmental degradation, and consumers should support sustainable clothing brands.”
• “Limitations on free speech in the name of national security can lead to authoritarianism and should be scrutinized.”
• “Digital literacy is as fundamental as reading and writing in the 21st century, and schools should integrate it into their curricula.”
• “The increasing privatization of natural resources threatens public access and should be regulated.”
• “Adopting a plant-based diet can dramatically reduce one’s carbon footprint and combat climate change.”
• “In an era of misinformation, critical thinking skills are paramount and should be emphasized in education.”
• “Universal healthcare is a fundamental human right and should not be tied to employment or economic status.”
• “Cybersecurity measures are not just an IT concern but are crucial for national security.”
• “Regulating tech giants is essential to prevent monopolies and protect user data.”
• “Banning beauty contests can help alleviate societal pressures and stereotypes regarding physical appearance.”
• “Space exploration, beyond its scientific benefits, can unify humanity and should be pursued more aggressively.”
• “Sports organizations should take a stricter stance against doping to maintain the integrity of competitions.”
• “Mandatory parental leave can ensure better family bonding and equalize career opportunities between genders.”
• “Animal testing for cosmetics is not only cruel but also ineffective and outdated, necessitating its global ban.”
• “Educational reforms should emphasize financial literacy to equip students with the skills to navigate the modern economic landscape.”
• “Promotion of renewable energy sources over fossil fuels is not just environmentally beneficial but also economically viable in the long run.”
• “Public transport should be heavily subsidized to encourage use and combat urban air pollution.”
• “Parents should limit screen time for children due to its detrimental effects on physical health and cognitive development.”
• “In light of the opioid crisis, holistic and non-addictive pain management methods should be promoted and made more accessible.”
• “Cultural appropriation in the fashion and entertainment industries perpetuates stereotypes and should be addressed through increased awareness and regulations.”
• “Privacy rights are increasingly jeopardized in the digital age, necessitating stronger data protection laws.”
• “The gender wage gap is not only a matter of fairness but also an economic inefficiency that should be addressed through legislative reforms.”
• “The rise of isolationism in global politics undermines international collaboration and poses threats to global security and prosperity.”
• “Teachers should be remunerated based on skill and effectiveness rather than years of service, promoting a merit-based system.”
• “The legal drinking age should be reconsidered in light of scientific evidence on brain development and societal impacts.”
• “The portrayal of mental health in media, if inaccurate, can perpetuate stigma, emphasizing the need for informed and sensitive representation.”
• “Trade wars harm global economies more than they protect local industries and should be approached with caution.”
• “Gerrymandering undermines the principles of democracy, and independent bodies should be responsible for electoral redistricting.”
• “Public libraries play a crucial role in community development and should receive adequate funding and support.”
• “The proliferation of fake news can be curbed through media literacy education and stricter platform regulations.”
• “The decriminalization of certain drugs can lead to reduced criminal activity and better health outcomes.”
• “Historical monuments associated with divisive figures should be placed in context rather than removed, promoting education over erasure.”
• “The adoption of electric vehicles should be incentivized to rapidly reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change.”
• “Childhood vaccinations should be mandatory, given their role in preventing outbreaks of life-threatening diseases.”
• “Modern education should evolve to incorporate emotional intelligence training to foster empathy and interpersonal skills.”
• “Prohibitive costs of tertiary education perpetuate socio-economic disparities; governments should implement tuition-free university policies.”
• “Whistleblowers play a crucial role in maintaining institutional integrity and should be protected from retaliation.”
• “Plastic waste is one of the prime environmental threats; introducing biodegradable alternatives should be a priority for industries.”
• “Diverse representation in film and television is not just about fairness but also about accurately reflecting the world we live in.”
• “Urban agriculture can address food security issues in growing cities and should be promoted through policies and community initiatives.”
• “Excessive consumerism contributes to environmental degradation; embracing minimalism can lead to a more sustainable future.”
• “Telecommuting, propelled by technological advancements, can lead to better work-life balance and reduced city congestion.”
• “Unregulated cryptocurrency can pose financial risks; there is a pressing need for standardized global regulations.”
• “Limiting advertisement in children’s TV programming can lead to healthier eating habits and reduce materialistic tendencies.”
• “Promoting bilingual education from an early age can lead to cognitive benefits and cultural appreciation.”
• “Offshore drilling poses significant environmental risks, and its expansion should be curbed in favor of sustainable energy sources.”
• “Body cameras for law enforcement officers can ensure transparency and accountability in policing.”
• “The modern gig economy, while offering flexibility, often circumvents labor rights and needs comprehensive regulation.”
• “Online data breaches are becoming common, and companies should face stricter penalties for compromising user data.”
• “Promotion of community gardens can foster social ties and address urban food deserts.”
• “Implementing a universal basic income can address wealth disparities and provide a safety net in rapidly changing job markets.”
• “Arts education, often undervalued, plays a crucial role in fostering creativity and should receive equal emphasis as STEM subjects.”
• “Sustainable tourism ensures local community benefits and environmental protection, and should be the industry standard.”

Persuasive Essay Thesis Statement Examples for High School

High school students often grapple with formulating compelling arguments in their essays. These thesis statement for high school examples are tailored to the perspectives and concerns of high schoolers, offering a starting point to craft persuasive essays on various contemporary issues.

• Uniforms in School: “Mandatory school uniforms stifle individual expression and fail to address the underlying issues of bullying and peer pressure in schools.”
• Homework Volume: “The excessive amount of homework assigned to high school students is counterproductive to learning, leading to burnout and diminishing returns on student effort.”
• School Start Times: “High schools should start later in the morning to align with adolescent sleep patterns, thereby improving academic performance and mental health.”
• Standardized Testing: “Reliance on standardized testing for college admissions is an outdated approach that doesn’t truly reflect a student’s capabilities or potential.”
• Extra-Curricular Importance: “Extra-curricular activities are as vital as academic subjects in developing a well-rounded education and should be given equal importance in school evaluations.”
• Cellphones in Class: “Banning cellphones in classrooms ignores their potential as valuable learning tools and overlooks the importance of teaching digital responsibility.”
• Sports in School: “High school sports programs, while beneficial, receive disproportionate funding at the expense of other crucial educational programs.”
• Summer Vacations: “Extended summer vacations are an outdated model; year-round schooling with more frequent short breaks would better support learning retention.”
• Student Council Power: “Student councils should have a tangible say in school operations, encouraging youth civic engagement and responsibility.”
• Health Education: “Comprehensive sex education in high schools is crucial for informed decision-making and reducing teen pregnancies and STIs.”

Persuasive Essay Thesis Statement Examples for College

College-level persuasive essays demand a higher degree of critical thinking and specificity. These thesis statement examples delve into deeper societal and academic issues, providing college students with a foundation to develop nuanced arguments and insights in their writings.

• Tuition Fees: “The skyrocketing cost of college tuition limits access to higher education and exacerbates socio-economic disparities.”
• Curriculum Flexibility: “Colleges should offer more interdisciplinary courses, allowing students to tailor their education to align with their career and personal interests.”
• Campus Safety: “Increased measures for campus safety are imperative to foster a conducive learning environment and protect students.”
• Online Learning: “Online courses should be given the same credence as in-person classes, offering flexibility and catering to the modern learner’s needs.”
• Fraternity and Sorority Culture: “Greek life in colleges, while rich in tradition, needs comprehensive reforms to address issues of hazing and exclusionary practices.”
• Mental Health Services: “With rising cases of mental health issues among college students, universities must prioritize and expand on-campus mental health services.”
• Internship Opportunities: “Colleges should actively integrate more internship opportunities into curricula, bridging the gap between academic learning and real-world application.”
• Diversity and Inclusion: “Higher education institutions must actively promote diversity and inclusion, not just in enrollment, but also in curriculum and campus culture.”
• Foreign Language Requirements: “Mandating foreign language courses for all majors is unnecessary and restricts students from exploring more relevant subjects.”
• Textbook Costs: “The exorbitant cost of college textbooks is unjustified, urging the need for universities to promote open-source or affordable alternatives.”

These thesis statements resonate with the concerns and challenges faced by students at high school and college levels, making them ideal starting points for persuasive essays. Y ou may also be interested to browse through our other  Analytical Essay thesis statement .

What is a thesis statement used for in persuasive writing?

A thesis statement in persuasive writing serves as the anchor of the entire essay. It states the primary argument or claim that the writer seeks to prove. Acting as a roadmap, it informs the reader about the main topic and the stance of the writer on that topic. The efficacy of a persuasive essay largely hinges on how compelling and clear its strong thesis statement is. Without it, readers might be left unsure about the writer’s intent or the purpose of the essay.

Is a claim a thesis statement for a persuasive essay?

Yes, in persuasive writing, the thesis statement is often referred to as a claim. While all thesis statements express the main idea of a piece, in persuasive essays, this statement specifically claims a position that the writer will argue for. This claim seeks to persuade the reader of its validity, backed by evidence in the body of the essay. It’s essential that the claim is debatable, meaning there must be opposing viewpoints on the topic, so the writer has something to persuade the reader about.

How do you write a thesis statement for a persuasive essay? – Step by Step Guide

• Choose a Debatable Topic: Ensure the topic has multiple viewpoints, giving you something to persuade your reader about.
• Take a Stance: Decide your position on the topic. This becomes the foundation of your claim.
• Research Supporting Evidence: Before finalizing your thesis, research to ensure there’s ample evidence to support your claim.
• Be Specific: Your thesis statement should be clear and specific. Avoid vague or general statements.
• Keep it Concise: Ideally, a thesis statement should be one or two sentences long. It needs to be straightforward and to the point.
• Positioning: Place your thesis statement at the end of your introductory paragraph to provide readers with a clear guide to your essay’s direction.
• Revisit and Revise: As you write, you might find your direction slightly shifting. Always revisit your thesis statement to ensure it aligns with the content of your essay.

Tips for Writing a Descriptive Essay Thesis Statement

• Be Clear and Vivid: Since descriptive essays aim to paint a picture, ensure your thesis provides a snapshot of what you’ll describe.
• Engage the Senses: Allude to the sensory details you’ll include in your essay. This sets the tone for the vivid descriptions to follow.
• Avoid Subjectivity: While your experience is personal, avoid overtly subjective statements. Let the descriptions evoke feelings in the reader.
• Stay Focused: A descriptive thesis should focus on a single object, event, person, or place, ensuring the essay remains cohesive.
• Use Strong Language: Use powerful adjectives and verbs to convey emotion and create a strong mental image for the reader.

Remember, while the specific thesis statement provides direction, it’s the body of the essay that elaborates and brings the description to life. Ensure coherence between the thesis and the detailed descriptions that follow.

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

Write a Thesis Statement for Persuasive Essay advocating for climate change action.

Create a Thesis Statement for Persuasive Essay on the necessity of education reform.

Woman gets 58 years in prison for killing landlord, dismembering her body

Sandra Kolalou, 38, was convicted in April of murdering 69-year-old Frances Walker. She faced a maximum sentence of more than 150 years in prison, Cook County prosecutors said.

Crime scene tape hangs in October 2022 from the porch of 69-year-old Frances Walker, whose head and other body parts were discovered in a kitchen freezer.

Ashlee Rezin/Sun-Times file

A woman was sentenced to 58 years in prison Wednesday for killing her landlord and dismembering the body after being told she was being evicted.

In handing down the sentence, Judge Ursula Walowski repeatedly called Kolalou’s actions “horrific” and said the evidence presented against her at the trial was substantial.

Walker’s family said they were pleased by the judge’s ruling, which will keep Kolalou behind bars into her 90s. “Sandra asked the judge for mercy, but she didn’t give my sister any mercy,” Frances Walker’s sister Benita Walker told reporters after the hearing.

Kolalou continued to deny that she murdered Walker in her statement to the court, while also saying she hoped Walker’s family would receive some closure.

“I do want the families to know, from the bottom of my heart, I had nothing to do with Fran’s death,” Kolalou said.

Kolalou used much of her statement to accuse the sheriff’s office of mistreatment while she was being held at the Cook County Jail, saying she had been threatened, made fun of and harassed for her Muslim faith by correctional officers.

But earlier in the hearing, a correctional officer said Kolalou had attacked her last fall, scratching her face and causing her to break her ankle.

Prosecutors also called a senior sheriff’s official who said Kolalou was found guilty at 11 disciplinary hearings for her conduct, which included repeatedly threatening and sexually harassing correctional officers.

The sheriff’s office claimed Kolalou told a correctional officer to “look her up” and threatened to do to the officer “as she did with the landlord.”

Kolalou had been renting a room in Walker’s converted two-flat building in the Arcadia Terrace neighborhood, but had been told she was being evicted after getting into disputes with other tenants.

Prosecutors accused Kolalou of killing Walker during a heated argument overheard by another tenant on Oct. 9, 2022. Tenants in the building became concerned about Walker’s well-being the next day and called police.

Kolalou was briefly detained by officers while carrying a garbage bag to a tow truck that she had called to take her to Foster Beach, where she said her car had broken down.

She was released after police quickly searched the apartment and found nothing to arrest her on.

Some of the building’s tenants followed Kolalou to the beach and called police again after she was seen putting the garbage bag in a waste container, which was later found to contain rags soaked with Walker’s blood.

Kolalou was taken into custody by police who were trailing the tow truck after the driver claimed Kolalou threatened him with a knife.

A more thorough search of the Walker’s building led to investigators discovering the landlord’s severed head, arms and legs in a freezer.

Her torso has never been recovered, but video played at trial showed Kolalou hauling a large suitcase to her car that day, which prosecutors said they believed she threw into Montrose Harbor.

At the trial, Kolalou’s defense frequently suggested that she was being framed for the murder and didn’t know that a bag she was seen throwing away contained bloody rags — a claim that Walowski said “no reasonable person” could believe in light of the evidence presented at trial.

In victim impact statements, the family of Walker told the judge of her abilities as a pianist and how she played the organ for nearly a dozen churches on the Northwest Side.

Walker’s family and her community “are all now more alone,” her brother Arnold Walker said.

• Share full article

He Was Sent to Prison for Killing His Baby. What if He Didn’t Do It?

Flawed science helped convict Russell Maze more than 20 years ago. The D.A.’s office now says it got it wrong. Why is he still behind bars?

Russell Lee Maze with his son, Alex, in 1999. Credit... Jamie Chung for The New York Times. Source photograph: Kaye Maze.

Supported by

By Pamela Colloff

Pamela Colloff is a staff writer at the magazine and a reporter at ProPublica, covering criminal justice. She frequently writes about the factors that lead to wrongful convictions, including junk forensic science.

• Published July 11, 2024 Updated July 12, 2024

Sunny Eaton never imagined herself working at the district attorney’s office. A former public defender, she once represented Nashville’s least powerful people, and she liked being the only person in a room willing to stand by someone when no one else would. She spent a decade building her own private practice, but in 2020, she took an unusual job as the director of the conviction-review unit in the Nashville D.A.’s office. Her assignment was to investigate past cases her office had prosecuted and identify convictions for which there was new evidence of innocence.

Listen to this article, read by Julia Whelan

The enormousness of the task struck her on her first day on the job, when she stood in the unit’s storage room and took in the view: Three-ring binders, each holding a case flagged for evaluation, stretched from floor to ceiling. The sheer number of cases reflected how much the world had changed over the previous 30 years. DNA analysis and scientific research had exposed the deficiencies of evidence that had, for decades, helped prosecutors win convictions. Many forensic disciplines — from hair and fiber comparison to the analysis of blood spatter, bite marks, burn patterns, shoe and tire impressions and handwriting — were revealed to lack a strong scientific foundation, with some amounting to quackery. Eyewitness identification turned out to be unreliable. Confessions could be elicited from innocent people.

Puzzling out which cases to pursue was not easy, but Eaton did her best work when she treaded into uncertain territory. Early in her career, as she learned her way around the courthouse, she felt, she says, like “an outsider in every way — a queer Puerto Rican woman with no name and no connections.” That outsider sensibility never completely left her, and it served her well at the D.A.’s office, where she was armed with a mandate that required her to be independent of any institutional loyalties. She saw her job as a chance to change the system from within. Beneath the water-stained ceiling of her new office, she hung a framed Toni Morrison quote on the wall: “The function of freedom is to free someone else.”

If Eaton concluded that a conviction was no longer supported by the evidence, she was expected to go back to court and try to undo that conviction. The advent of DNA analysis, and the revelations that followed, did not automatically free people who were convicted on debunked evidence or discredited forensics. Many remain locked up, stuck in a system that gives them limited grounds for appeal. In the absence of any broad, national effort to rectify these convictions, the work of unwinding them has fallen to a patchwork of law-school clinics, innocence projects and, increasingly, conviction-review units in reform-minded offices like Nashville’s. Working with only one other full-time attorney, Anna Hamilton, Eaton proceeded at a ferocious pace, recruiting law students and cajoling a rotating cast of colleagues to help her.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Advertisement