Euthanasia is spurring a political and moral debate of unprecedented intensity in American society. Physician-assisted suicide has been an issue of court disputes for a long time; it has suddenly been the issue of debate in Congress, White House, and both political parties. The fact that such a private issue has come to be a public affair is despicable. Euthanasia is a beacon of light for some people in their private time of need. Euthanasia should be kept a private affair for people to practice without government interference.
Incurable diseases may lead to doctor-assisted suicide. Cancer, AIDS, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are just a few of the terminal illnesses that cause pain and suffering too many people in the world today. These diseases go on with out a cure and the only way to ease the patient’s pain is with medicines that sometimes have little effect. Euthanasia gleams a sign of hope for those who have none, in a desperate time of need. Additionally, Chemotherapy is one of the only medical devices that prevent cancer from spreading through out the body. After chemo a patient will experience excess vomiting, lack of movement and communication, loss of hair, and even skin tone. Patients will do this sometimes twice a month and have to go through all of these effects over and over again. It seems as though it would just be better to not have to go through this painful ordeal. The use of doctor-assisted suicide is an option that will relieve the persons suffering, indefinitely. Euthanasia may be the only alternative when afflicted persons can not even communicate to the one’s they love.
Project –Part 3 * * Tim McDougald Legalized Euthanasia Would Not Lead to Involuntary Killing. Independent Variables: PAS (patient assistant suicide), euthanasia, patient right to die, Netherlands, Nazis, Hitler Dependent Variables: death, slippery slope arguments, legalization of euthanasia/PAS, and modern America. This article addresses the issue that euthanasia would not lead to involuntary ...
Euthanasia is a moral standard that should be kept. mercy killing has long been apart of our history, books, and religions. To end one’s life in a fashion that shows compassion to a victim of misfortune – is a mercy killing. Doctors have done this for patients in their last moments of life, to ease the agony that death brings on the body. That is not any different than doing the exact same action at an earlier date in their prolonged suffering. Moreover, mercy killing not only benefits the afflicted patient, but the close friends and family, too. It aids in emotional and financial damage. The emotional strain on both the patient and their loved ones is sometimes too great, and may be prevented. The fact that people would know when and where their loved one is going to die, will shine some light on grim moment. Also, health care is expensive in the United States, especially when there is some one on life support for an extended period of time. This would decrease the cost of money spent on what could be a lost cause for a family. Legal documentation in a will or a writ would prevent anyone from trying to misuse this ethical right of suicide.
The use of euthanasia is a right. Freedom is given to all Americans, and freedom governs our rights to practice our own religions, speak our minds clearly, and the right to the pursuit of happiness. It does not state that society must die in pain and agony; nor to let our loved ones pass away in such away that it demoralizes America as we know it. Freedom allows us to have privacy, and death should be a private event. It should not be exploited by the press, or even to let anyone know about the gloomy event. Furthermore, death is a sensitive subject that society and our government should not be able to decide how it should come about. Our government sends people to the front lines knowing that the soldiers have a good chance of dying. So why are average citizens not able to choose their fate of death? Euthanasia would not have to be endorsed by the government, but the government should respect the individual needs of every civilian. Our government should not be able to choose whether this person can take a lethal dose of medicine to end what could be months and even years of anguish. It is wrong to keep someone from their pursuit of happiness which is given to us in our Constitution.
... Opposers of euthanasia feel that a person should not have the right to end their life. They think that the patient may consider ... Oregon Death With Dignity Act. Both of these acts have written statements that must be filled out and sent to the government. ... occasions (Groliers Encyc). In support of euthanasia I feel that everyone should have the freedom of choice and the final say over ...
It is hard to conceive that people in America would allow a freedom blessed country to whither. Euthanasia is a freedom, a right, and a private affair. The government has nothing to do with the way that some one dies. If someone should choose to go through with such an operation as euthanasia and there is probable cause; then why should anyone keep that from them? That would be putting out their light of hope in a time when all they need is something to shine. The pursuit of happiness not only deals with the facts of life; it deals with the certainty of death, too.