Should Euthanasia be Legalized?
Argumentative/Persuasive Essay
For this assignment students will write a persuasive paper in which they make a claim and then prove it. For this essay students will need to make some kind of claim, one which has at least TWO sides so it is able to be argued. The claim should be related to a topic selected for all of the Annotated Bibliography research, and in the essay students will need to use at least SIX sources in the essay.
The basic premise of the paper is that students will need to narrow down their chosen subject, make a CLAIM about that topic (essentially creating their thesis), compile EVIDENCE, and PERSUADE the audience that their side of the argument is the best. Some of the articles should help to prove the CLAIM/THESIS, and at least ONE source will cover the OPPOSITION and ensure that the arguer addresses both sides of the argument.
Students should also remember to tell the reader why this topic matters, and why their stance on this topic is important.
Requirements:
Your essay should be 8-10 pages long, no longer than 15 pages.
Your essay must have an original and intriguing title. “Argument” will not cut it. Untitled essays will not be read.
Use standard essay format: typed, double spaced, 12 point font, Times New Roman, 1” margins.
Your essay should also include a ‘Works Cited’ page. Works must be cited in MLA or APA format, and you must be consistent throughout the essay. Essays without a Works Cited/References page will automatically receive a ZERO.
At least 6 scholarly sources should be used to help prove the thesis.
Guidelines:
Students will also need to find at least 6 outside sources that help to prove the argument as well. This source should be reliable, and NOT something unreliable like a blog or Wikipedia. Neither of those are ‘real’ sources and should NEVER be used for research.
Use research/sources from the Annotated Bibliography if possible.
Tips:
For this essay you will need to choose a subject that has at least TWO sides. If your subject does not have an opposing viewpoint you will need to choose a new one.
Should Euthanasia be legalized?
Author’s Name:
Institution of Affiliation:
Course Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Date:
Should Euthanasia be legalized?
Every individual is at risk of getting ill at one point or another. Even though some illnesses could be treated easily, others could be terminal, which the patient could struggle to recover. This scenario has caused a discussion regarding euthanasia, where some people support it while others oppose it. Euthanasia is intentionally killing another person to save the person from pain and suffering. The common types of euthanasia are voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is the condition where the patient having a sound mind, consents to die. On the other hand, involuntary euthanasia is performed without the patient's consent because the patient is unconscious and the patient's wishes are not yet known. The debate regarding the legalization of euthanasia is one of the most controversial and contentious issues in the world currently. Some define the following concepts using biomedical research, religion, and politics. The common debate that people have been having in different countries is whether euthanasia should be legalized. Government should not legalize euthanasia due to inaccuracy in disease prediction, missing palliative care, violating human consent, lack of respect for life sacredness, violating maleficence, beneficence, and justice principle, an increase in deaths from non-terminally ill people, doctors offering false information, limiting medical options, and costly and long process of changing the law.
One reason why euthanasia should not be legalized is that terminal diagnosis prediction is rarely accurate. Similar to other diagnoses, there are instances where healthcare professionals make some mistakes. For example, some studies have shown that most patients live much longer than when the doctor recommended that they live. In this scenario, it could be wrong to employ euthanasia since it could cause harm to the majority of individuals. In this scenario, it could be negative to legalize euthanasia since it could likely cause more harm than good to the general population.
Moreover, euthanasia denies the patient the benefits of palliative care. One of the reasons why patients visit doctors is because they believe they can cure their condition. The doctor should therefore do whatever is possible to help the patient recover. Similarly, even when the patient has a terminal disease, the doctor should employ measures to improve it. However, rather than trying to improve it, euthanasia will be a process that looks forward to taking the remaining person's life from the individual. Rather than emphasizing euthanasia, the doctor should emphasize palliative care (Huemer et al., 2021). Individuals specializing in palliative care will likely benefit from spiritual, social, and physical problems resulting from their health. Moreover, people having non-fatal diagnoses are likely to benefit from palliative care. Furthermore, giving up on the patient's life due to the problems will send a negative message to the patient. Rather than giving up on the patient, the doctor should look for measures to improve it. Euthanasia should, therefore, not be legalized since it will deny the patient the benefits of palliative care.
Furthermore, there are some instances where euthanasia violates consent. Euthanasia is usually a process mainly involving two people; a doctor and a patient. However, in most cases, there are some instances where these two individuals struggle to agree. For example, there are instances where the doctors from a medical analysis understand that the patient will not recover and recommend they undergo euthanasia. However, despite the pain, some patients are not ready to die during this period and will try more. If the doctor continues to show the patient the benefits of euthanasia, it could be an uncomfortable environment that can make the patient doubt the doctor. Furthermore, this scenario could make the patients feel as if they are unworthy, which could negatively affect them psychologically. There are other conditions where the doctor could perform euthanasia on a terminally ill patient who could not be in a position to make informed decisions. This process will therefore violate the patient’s consent (Mahzaniar et al., 2021). Euthanasia should, therefore, not be legalized since sometimes it violates people's consent.
Moreover, euthanasia should not be legalized since it does not respect life's sacredness. Most religions believe that life is sacred. For example, in some religions, such as Christianity and Islam, individuals believe life is sacred since God gave people. Similarly, the individuals believe that the same way God gave life is the only one with the sole power to take it away. Euthanasia would seem to devalue a person’s life. For instance, in this scenario, permitting euthanasia could mean a person should be dead rather than disabled or sick (Picón-Jaimes et al., 2022). Furthermore, this scenario could, to some degree, show that some lives are not worth living. This message would, therefore, not only put the disabled or sick person at risk but also lower the human beings' status when they are living. Furthermore, to some degree, the government acknowledges that life is sacred and protects it at all costs. For example, it is a crime for a person to commit murder or suicide. Since the government acknowledges that life is sacred, it should protect it from anything that could increase the risk of taking it away. Since euthanasia is one way that could take an individual's life, the government should not legalize it in the process of protecting life.
Euthanasia is also violating the principle of maleficence, beneficence, and justice. For example, beneficence is the act of charity, kindness, and mercy where the individual is morally obligated to do good to others. On the other hand, the principle of nonmaleficence highlights that the physician is not obligated to harm the patient. The principle of justice highlights that there should be fairness and equitable treatment of all the patients within a facility. Euthanasia will violate the principle of beneficence even though it will allow the patient to end intolerable suffering (Gill, 2020). Similarly, it will violate the nonmaleficence principle, which gives the physician an obligation not to cause harm to the patient since administering a fatal dose will cause harm, thereby making the patient struggle to recover. Furthermore, it would violate the justice principle since it is not promoting fairness and equitable treatment among the patients. For example, it is unfair that when some patients are administered the right medication to recover, others are administered a fatal dose. The government should, therefore, not legalize euthanasia since it violates most ethical principles.
There are other instances where euthanasia will open a room for people to choose death for other reasons which are beyond the illness. In most instances, the original aim of euthanasia was so it can help patients who have a terminal condition to relieve pain. However, as time progresses...