An Analysis of the Essay Presenting Some of the Pros and Cons of Euthanasia

Due to advances in medicine, life can now be prolonged and death delayed. However, in many cases this has led to a decline in the overall quality of life of many individuals and has led them to seek a painless way to end their own lives. For these individuals, the solution lies in euthanasia.

Euthanasia, in its various forms, presents a moral dilemma. On the one hand, there are those who believe that we should all have the right to die and that euthanasia should be available to those who believe their lives are not worth living. On the other hand, many people equate euthanasia with murder and see the legalization of euthanasia as a decent down a slippery slope. The purpose of this paper will be to analyse the controversial issue of euthanasia, to examine the different viewpoints used to approach this contentious practice, and to investigate the current situation concerning euthanasia. This will be achieved by examining the different types of euthanasia, investigating the arguments presented by both euthanasia supporters and opponents, analyzing the Catholic stance on euthanasia along with the Christian holy texts position on the issue, and finally examining euthanasias current legal status and important historical information pertaining to the issue.

The definitions of euthanasia vary greatly, and the words euthanasia and assisted suicide are often used interchangeably. According to the World Medical Association, euthanasia is defined as the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient (World Medical Association, WMA Resolution on Euthanasia). However, according to the Canadian Medical Association, for an act to be considered euthanasia, the subject who will be euthanized must have voluntarily asked for his or her life to be ended. Since the definitions of euthanasia vary so greatly, even between well-known medical organizations, acts that are considered to be euthanasia according to certain definitions may not be considered euthanasia according to others. For example, non-voluntary euthanasia would not be considered euthanasia according to the definition of the Canadian Medical Association, because in non-voluntary euthanasia the subject has not voluntarily asked for his or her life to be ended.

Order custom essay An Analysis of the Essay Presenting Some of the Pros and Cons of Euthanasia with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

However, the definition of the World Medical Association will be used for the purposes of this research report. Assisted suicide is defined by the Canadian Medical Association as knowingly and intentionally providing a person with the knowledge or means or both required to commit suicide, including counselling about lethal doses of drugs, prescribing such lethal doses or supplying the drugs(Canadian Medical Association, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide). So if a doctor gave a patient a lethal injection at his request, this is considered euthanasia. But if the doctor explained to the patient how to give him or herself a lethal injection and left one for him or her to use if desired, this would be called assisted suicide.

Euthanasia can take several different forms. One common way to divide euthanasia is into passive and active forms. These forms relate to the means by which death is brought upon the person. In passive euthanasia, death is brought upon someone by not doing something. An example is someone who requires a dialysis machine to live being taken off the dialysis machine, and in the process is assured death in the near future. Active euthanasia on the other hand is when something is done to bring death upon the person. An example of active euthanasia would be if someone is given lethal drugs with the intention of causing death. Thus it can be said that in passive euthanasia, medical personnel who deprive their patients of what they need to live are not actually killing anyone, they are just not saving them.

On the other hand, it is very clear that in active euthanasia measures are taken that directly cause the patients death. Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia are divisions of euthanasia that concern the desire of the person receiving euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when euthanasia is carried out in accordance with the request of a competent individual. An example of this would be if someone who is suffering desires to die, and he or she takes lethal drugs knowing that death will be the result. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when the person who is euthanized did not request to be killed. This may be because the person is unable to make the decision for him or herself.

Examples of this scenario would include someone who is severely mentally handicapped, someone in a coma, or someone who is too young according to law to make such a decision. Involuntary euthanasia occurs when euthanasia is performed on someone even though the receiver of euthanasia wished to continue living. An example of this could be during a military conflict, where a soldier has suffered a fatal wound. In great pain, he asks the medic to save him. However the medic, knowing that the soldier will end up dying very soon, shoots him knowing that he saved him from unnecessary suffering. This type of euthanasia is usually regarded as murder, rather than euthanasia.

With some sources indicating that the vast majority of Canadians and Westerners support the legalization of some types of euthanasia and assisted suicide, it seems like the championing of the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide is becoming more and more popular for numerous reasons. Many proponents of euthanasia believe that the right to die if one wants to is a human right which the government should not be able to interfere. Many supporters of euthanasia support the legalization of euthanasia because they argue that deciding whether or not to live is a personal decision, not one that the government should enforce. Some believe that since every situation where euthanasia is to be considered is different, the government should just not interfere with the matter.

Also, since it is not the governments life, but rather the individuals, if the individual decides to end it because he or she feels that it is no longer worth living, the only people that would be affected would be those who were close to the individual, not the government or society. A proponent of euthanasia would argue that a law prohibiting euthanasia is unnecessary, as laws are made primarily to protect people from others, which is why there are such harsh penalties for murder and theft. However, since supporters of euthanasia see euthanasia not doing any harm to the community and only benefiting the individual undergoing euthanasia, it does not make sense that such a law would exist.

Finally, proponents of euthanasia would argue that since they are the masters of their own bodies, they should be able to decide what they can do to their bodies. This would include deciding to take lethal drugs with death as the motive. To an advocate of euthanasia, euthanasia is a private matter that the government should remain out of.

Supporters of euthanasia often mention the many apparent economic benefits of euthanasia. Those who believe in the legalization of euthanasia see euthanasia as greatly benefiting the community as a whole economically. An example of this is how euthanasia might free up costs associated with palliative care. For example, euthanasia would allow many people who currently live in palliative care to painlessly end their lives, and would free up the very expensive costs of palliative care. Currently in Canada, with our universal health care system, a fraction of taxpayers dollars goes to funding palliative care homes. Many people in these homes would like to be able to end their lives through euthanasia.

Allowing euthanasia would permit these people living in palliative care homes to end their lives, lowering the costs of palliative care, and allowing taxpayers dollars to be spent elsewhere. It would transfer medical resources currently being used on people who want to die to people who want to live. Palliative care homes rely heavily on volunteers and private donations. If euthanasia were legalized, palliative care homes would require less volunteers and donations, and volunteers could use their time more productively and the money given through private donations could also be used more productively, and could be invested. Another reason why advocates of euthanasia believe that euthanasia benefits the community economically is that many people who are likely to receive euthanasia, according to supporters of euthanasia, do not contribute economically to the community but rather take away from it.

An example would be the physically and mentally disabled who do not work. An example of this argument came from Germany under Adolf Hitler, and a well-known German advertisement with a picture of a disabled person promoting euthanasia reads: "60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the people's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too." Finally, people who support euthanasia might mention how euthanasia benefits the individual economically. Many countries, such as the United States, do not have the type of universal health care that we have here in Canada. Families themselves are forced to pay for relatives who require palliative care. Even in Canada, our universal health care system does not pay for certain drugs required in some types of palliative care.

Some families simply cannot afford having their relatives put into palliative care, and allowing their relative the option of euthanasia would help many families financially. There could also be tremendous pressure on the patient being put into palliative care, and he or she might become depressed because he or she feels like a financial burden to the family. To proponents of euthanasia, it is clear that euthanasias economic benefits indicate that it should be legalized.

Perhaps the most obvious reason why people might support the legalization of euthanasia is the fact that it ends what some people might consider unnecessary suffering. Many supporters ofeuthanasia believe that if someone is terminally ill and if they are living a very painful, unsatisfactory life, then there is no point in living. They might believe that if someone is terminally ill with no hope of survival and living a normal life, euthanasia is just speeding up death while relieving the unnecessary suffering. They might argue that forcing someone to live in excruciating pain is unethical and could be considered torture.

Another reason how euthanasia ends what some people call unnecessary suffering is because it can aid the family of the person who desires euthanasia. For example, according to a 2004 Ipsos-Reid survey, on average Canadians estimate that fifty-four hours per week would be needed to take care of a dying loved one in their homes, and sixty-four percent polled said they could not devote the necessary time (Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association, Fact Sheet: Hospice Palliative Care in Canada). Finding the time to care for someone for fifty four additional hours per week would be a serious challenge for anyone. This would most likely result in serious problems for the caretaker, which would likely include loss of sleep, increased anxiety and stress, a possible loss of employment and a decline in physical and mental health.

Euthanasia would permit the dying person to painfully pass away, and the caretaker would not have to put his or her career and health in jeopardy looking after the dying person. Finally, having to visit a relative who is in great pain could be an emotionally painful experience for the relative visiting. The constant thought that a loved one is in extreme pain is a thought that causes great discomfort. Relatives would not have to deal with troubling thoughts like the latter if their relative in pain were able to end their life peacefully through euthanasia. To a supporter of euthanasia, euthanasia is an effective solution to unnecessary suffering for those in pain and for those who are close to them.

Perhaps the most often used argument by critics of euthanasia is the slippery slope argument. The argument states that the legalization of passive voluntary euthanasia (which is regarded to most people as the most acceptable form of euthanasia) will eventually result in euthanasia laws becoming more and more liberal to the point where active non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia might even become legal and common. Adherents of this claim sometimes make reference to how in many countries abortion laws have become much more liberal over the years. Some believe that since many countries have gone from illegal abortion, to legalizing abortion if the mothers health was in danger, to now funding abortion clinics and allowing abortion upon request, that it is likely euthanasia laws would become less and less strict to the point at which they would allow active non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia.

The critics argue that since the number of people and laws that regard abortion as murder have dropped over the years, involuntary euthanasia (the killing of someone who has expressed their desire to live), which is regarded as murder by most people and governments today, will eventually be acceptable to society and be legalized by governments. An opponent of euthanasia might also mention how laws concerning euthanasia have become more and more liberal over the years. Currently euthanasia is legal in three countries; Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. However, since becoming legal, the requirements for euthanasia ever since it became legal have changed in these countries. For example, in the Netherlands, Dutch law has gone from only permitting assisted suicide to permitting some types of euthanasia. In order to qualify for euthanasia, one first had to be terminally ill.

However, eventually the chronically ill could seek euthanasia. Modifications later included euthanasia for those suffering from mental illness in addition to those who were suffering from physical illness. Nowadays Dutch law allows euthanasia for those in mental suffering, such as depression, and considers loneliness, loss of autonomy and loss of function acceptable criteria for euthanasia (Hermina Dykxhoorn, Euthanasia in the Netherlands). The Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide act, which oversees euthanasia in the Netherlands, states that people twelve to sixteen years old may seek euthanasia from a physician, provided that the parents agree with the decision. The act states that people aged sixteen to eighteen who request euthanasia may receive euthanasia if their parents were involved in the decision process.

Since euthanasia has been legalized, the requirements for euthanasia in the Netherlands have become more relaxed and more people can currently qualify for euthanasia than when euthanasia was first legalized. A critic of euthanasia might be able to persuade someone that euthanasia should stay illegal by arguing that this is proof that the slippery slope scenario is indeed happening and will happen wherever any type of euthanasia is legalized.

Critics of euthanasia argue that it would be very dangerous to legalize even voluntary euthanasia because there might be cases where apparent voluntary euthanasia could actually be non-voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia. This could be caused by factors that pressure the person debating whether or not to receive euthanasia to accept euthanasia when they do not actually desire it. An example of this could be pressure from family. The family of the person debating euthanasia could, for whatever reason, pressure and convince the person considering euthanasia to complete the legal requirements for euthanasia even though the person debating euthanasia in reality would rather not go through with the procedure.

The person, according to law, would now be receiving voluntary euthanasia because he or she signed the legal documents for the procedure to be carried out. Meanwhile, he or she never desired euthanasia and it should really be considered involuntary euthanasia. Another situation where an example of voluntary euthanasia could be considered non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia is the case of someone giving permission for them to be euthanized because they feel guilty. For example, someone might sign up to be euthanized strictly because they feel like a burden. They might feel this way because they feel like they are using too many resources, as it is much less expensive to be euthanized than to rely on medical equipment. They might also feel like a burden to their family, and might feel guilty because their family members are forced to visit them and have to give up so much time just because of their illness.

They might also feel pressure from society, believing that they are taking more away from society and not contributing to it at all. They might also feel compelled to seek euthanasia just because many others are receiving it. Those who oppose euthanasia often do so because they believe that it is often out of guilt that people chose euthanasia, and that such an important decision should not be determined by guilt. Lastly, opponents of euthanasia might argue that the mentally vulnerable will become victims of euthanasia. The depressed, anxious and confused might not be able to think rationally about their current situation and might be more vulnerable to opting for euthanasia. To most people against euthanasia, there is no doubt that we will not always be able to distinguish voluntary euthanasia from involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia, and we are better off illegalizing all forms of euthanasia.

Many opponents of euthanasia believe that it should remain illegal because they see palliative care as the alternative to euthanasia. Palliative care focuses on improving the quality of life of patients and also that of their families. It can, according to many critics of euthanasia, counter the argument that states that euthanasia is the best means to end unnecessary suffering. It is estimated that with good palliative care ninety-five percent of pain can be effectively controlled (The British Broadcasting Corporation, When Palliative Care Is Not Enough). Palliative care centres are often funded by the government and private donations and aided by volunteers and religious people. Critics of euthanasia contend that effective palliative care can ease suffering and should be an alternative to euthanasia.

Although many supporters of euthanasia espouse euthanasias apparent economic benefits, a critic of euthanasia might see economics as a reason why euthanasia should remain illegal. Critics of euthanasia often argue that we are playing a very dangerous game when we consider the killing of individuals for economic benefit. They argue that the life of a person is much more important than any amount of money, and that it is ethically wrong to consider the ending of a life because money is at stake. A lethal injection costs about fifty dollars, yet it can cost tens of thousands of dollars to put someone on life support. This could lead to a dangerous situation in which doctors could be encouraged by governments and hospitals to promote the use of lethal medication and prescribe more of it because it would free up more hospital beds and save the healthcare system money. Another economic reason why some opponents of euthanasia want to see it remain illegal is because of the controversial phenomenon known as suicide tourism.

Suicide tourism occurs when someone travels to another country (usually Belgium, Switzerland or the Netherlands) where some type of euthanasia is legal with the intention of receiving euthanasia in that country. This is usually because their native country has not legalized euthanasia. Critics of euthanasia find this to be a disturbing concept because of how the organizers of the euthanasia clinics are making a profit for each tourist that they kill. Finally, many opponents of euthanasia find it troublesome that people might be encouraged to be euthanized so that their family members and people close to them would benefit from money and possessions they receive through their wills. During a time of financial crisis, a relative could be pressured by his or her family to opt for euthanasia because the family is in need of money. To many critics of euthanasia, euthanasia should remain illegal because life is far more important that any amount of money and the alleged economic benefits of euthanasia could lead to euthanasia being sought for ethically wrong reasons.

The Catholic Church has a very clear opinion on euthanasia and has made it known many times that she does not support any kind of euthanasia. In fact, the current pope, Benedict XVI, once said that Political projects that legalize abortion and euthanasia must be opposed in the name of the Gospel. The Catholic Church also makes her opinion on euthanasia clear by stating that

It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying (Franjo Cardinal Seper, Declaration on Euthanasia).

In addition to this according to the Church no one can demand to be euthanized or suggest that someone be euthanized or perform euthanasia on someone. However, the Church believes that there are alternatives to euthanasia. According to the Church, people in times of physical and mental suffering need love, along with medical care, and to be surrounded by people who can comfort them. The Church has given specific guidance to those who are in the field of medicine on what they can and cannot do to relieve their patient`s suffering. The Church believes that those who work in the medical profession should not neglect making their skills available to the sick and dying because service to people according to the Church is service to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church warns against medicines that render their subject unconscious, as a person during the last moments of their life should be preparing themselves for meeting Christ.

Being a Christian organization, the basis of the Catholic Church's opinion on euthanasia is the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, which is found in the Bible. One major theme of Catholic social teaching, the Dignity of the Human Person, is the foundation of all Catholic social teaching and is the basis for the Church's opinion on euthanasia. The Catholic Church believes that human life if sacred, which is why the Catholic Church condemns the taking of human life in any form. To the Catholic Church, the taking of life is contrary to the dignity of the human being. The Catholic Church condemns the taking of life through euthanasia, but also in the forms of murder and the death penalty. Someone who supports euthanasia might believe that there is a point, where suffering is so great, that life simply is not worth living.

However, the Catholic Church disagrees with that way of thinking, and believes that life is a thing of value in itself and that the extent of which life is valuable does not depend on how enjoyable it is. Therefore suffering is not a reason for ending life. The Catholic Church believes that the dignity of the human person is the starting point for a moral vision for society. Since the Church believes that life is sacred, we are not to speed up death. In fact, the Catholic Church has such a high regard for human life that it sees euthanasia, or mercy killing, as being equally wrong as murder. Many euthanasia supporters believe that we all have a right to die. The Church has dismissed this claim and has said that we are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us, and it is not ours to dispose of. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2280) Defending the dignity of the human person, the Church has stated that euthanasia is an offense against the dignity of the human person and a crime against life, along with being an attack on humanity.

The Church, along with many other people who oppose euthanasia, believes that the apparent economic benefits of euthanasia suggest that euthanasia should be illegal, since the Church has stated that men being treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free responsible persons, insults human dignity (Gaudium Et Spes, #27). Finally, there are many occasions where people faced great suffering in the Bible and God did not suggest suicide as a solution. Jesus never took his life even though he suffered greatly, and nor did Job when he was suffering. Catholics therefore believe that this should serve as motivation not to end our lives when we are faced with extreme suffering.

One of the main reasons why the Catholic Church has such a firm stance on euthanasia is because of the commandment Thou shall not kill, which is found in the Decalogue. The Catholic opinion on this commandment states that this commandment prohibits killing in any form unless it is in the act of self defense against an aggressor. Therefore mercy killing, or euthanasia, is by no means acceptable to the Catholic Church.

The Judging Others section of the Sermon on the Mount can help to justify the illegalization of euthanasia when applied to the topic of euthanasia. This section of Jesus sermon instructs us to not judge others, so that we may not be judged. This is significant because one of the main reasons why euthanasia is carried out is because people might judge that, for whatever reasons, a certain life is not worth living. An example of this could be how society might hint at the euthanization of a disabled person due to his or her perceived low quality of life. However, Christ teaches during his Sermon on the Mount that it is not up to us to judge, and therefore applied to the context of euthanasia it is not appropriate for us to end our life because we think it is not worth living or believe that somebodys life should be ended because we judge it not worth living. Thus non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia clearly contradict the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount.

As of December 6th, 2011, there are currently three countries that have legalized some types of voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands. Non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia have not been legalized by any government to this day. Switzerland allows only assisted suicide and only considers assisted suicide a crime if the motive is selfish. Those receiving assisted suicide do not need the involvement of a physician nor do they need to be terminally ill. Belgium became the second country to legalize euthanasia, after the Netherlands, in late 2002.

Euthanasia in Belgium is overseen by the Belgian Act on Euthanasia. To qualify for euthanasia in Belgium, one must be an adult and be in unbearable mental and physical suffering, must repeatedly request to be euthanized, and be under no external pressure to do so. The Netherlands legalized euthanasia in early 2002. The Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act oversees euthanasia and assisted suicide in the Netherlands. As previously mentioned, Dutch law permits assisted suicide along with voluntary euthanasia. Regarded as having some of the most liberal euthanasia laws, in the Netherlands one may seek euthanasia even if one is not terminally ill, and people as young as twelve may receive euthanasia under certain conditions.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are considered illegal under Canadian law. In fact, they are both regarded as murder under Canadian law. This is due to section two hundred and twenty nine of the Canadian Criminal Code, which states that it is murder when a person who causes the death of a human being means to cause his death. Section fourteen of the Canadian Criminal Code states that no person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and that such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.

Therefore if a doctor fulfilled a patient's request by prescribing him or her lethal drugs with the intention of causing death, he or she would be liable by law. Section two hundred and nineteen states that everyone is criminally negligent who in doing anything or in omitting to do anything that is his duty to do shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. Therefore voluntary passive euthanasia, such as taking somebody off a life support machine if it is the only reason why they are continuing to live, is illegal under Canadian law because this would qualify as omitting to do anything that is his duty to do as it is the doctor's responsibility to keep his or her patients alive.

Finally, section two hundred and forty five of the Criminal Code states that everyone who administers or causes to be administered to any person or causes any person to take poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is guilty of an indictable offence and liable. Therefore active euthanasia such as lethal injection is forbidden under Canadian law along with assisted suicide.

One important historical example pertaining to euthanasia is the Robert Latimer case. Robert Latimer was a farmer from Saskatchewan who killed his twelve year old daughter on October 24th, 1993. Robert never denied doing this, and said he killed her out of compassion (Geoff Howe, Compassionate Homicide: The Law and Robert Latimer). His twelve year old daughter, who had severe cerebral palsy and possessed the intelligence of a four month old baby, could not voluntarily move her body and was constantly in pain. When it was time for his daughter to receive more painful surgery, Robert killed her painlessly through carbon monoxide poisoning from the exhaust from his truck. Robert Latimer was charged with murder.

The Robert Latimer case sparked a nationwide debate concerning whether Mr. Latimer should or should not have been punished. It divided Canadians on the issue of euthanasia and on who benefitted from the situation and those who faced injustice. Those who supported Latimer claimed that he was a hero, having painlessly ended the life of his daughter, a life painful that to many it was not worth living. Many claim that it was an act of mercy. Among them is Ozzy Osbourne, who wrote the song Latimers Mercy because of the Latimer case. Latimers supporters claim that his daughter benefited from the situation, and that there was no injustice as Robert committed the killing of his daughter out of love and compassion. Those who oppose the actions of Robert Latimer believe that he was a murderer as his daughter never requested to be killed. They claim that his daughter faced great injustice and did not benefit from being killed. Canadians remain divided on the issue

In conclusion, euthanasia remains a moral dilemma. Proponents argue that human beings have the basic right to die, that euthanasia ends unnecessary suffering for both the sufferer and his or her family, and that it presents widespread economic benefits. Opponents of euthanasia, including the Catholic Church, believe that euthanasia is murder and should remain illegal, that it allows for a slippery slope of potential abuse, and that viable alternatives exist. The issue of euthanasia is a complex problem with no easy solution.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer