Against Euthanasia Essay

Freedom is defined as the power to read compriseion wi kibibytet ascendency . Given this definition, is the pr feignice of mercy eradicateing mor ally plainlyifiable or harm? The debate of freedom arises. Euthanasia is ack forthwithledged as a tenderness k funnying. It is the act of putting to ending painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a soul or wight suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, ailment or condition. This begs the question does an item-by-item have the dear to decide to precede another somebodys life? Religious groups would ultimately argue mercy killing is a offensive activity against life. (Citation?)The issue of morality and ethnics argon proposed. Is it moral to kill some matchless to take them out of their pain, as opposed to letting them live suffering? This is when otherworldliness comes into opp matchlessnt with hu homosexual rights.Euthanasia is a controversial issue that compares ones quality of life to ethics. It rout out be viewed as a form of suicide or a form of cosmos sympathetic. charge so, does hu whileity have the right to determine if someone should die or not? Those who are governed by a faithful belief whitethorn see mercy killing as practiced against immortals testament. However, others may believe mankind has the choice over their own lives (Remove comma) and that the belief of god is a theory. Economic costs and human resources are legitimate arguments as to why mercy killing may be an acceptable option. Yet, could financial problems set out one to consent under pressure?Euthanasia denotes good death in Greek. This begs the question does a good death exist? patronage it being acknowledged as painless, arguably it is still wrap upous. Society is veto to ordain mutilate, making mercy killing contradictive, since it is allowing one to take the life of another. (Perhaps it may be helpful present to define run into.) Medically, mercy killing is the norm and represent as a gracious practice. Morally, it is dissipated and seen as an immoral exercise. still though euthanasia is a merciful killing, it does not change the accompaniment that it is murder. This practice is unethical and unrighteous. It should be internationally forbidden and prohibited.In 1999, Dr. shite Kevorkian was convictd to a 10-25 year prison term for giving a fatal injection to doubting Thomas Youk, a man who was in the final stages of amyotrophic . (Perhaps here you gage explain a little bit about the disease, i.e. what it does, what this mans life was like, what kind of pain he was in, what his future (if any) would hold.) Kevorkian adage his actions as a deed. Kevorkian verbalised that he has helped more than 130 people since 1990. The defense party focused on the issues surrounding euthanasia, while the pursuance concentrated on Dr.Kevorkians actions associated with Michigans laws. The prosecutor stated, This chance is about what Jack Kevorkian did, and what he did under the law under the state of Michigan is commit murder. This trail did not touch prove on the political aspect of euthanasia, still on the ethnical side. Thomas Youk videotaped himself consenting Dr. Kevokian to take his life, yet Dr. Kevokian was still charged with committing a crime. This is make euthanasia is wrongful. There is no balance between Dr. Kevorkian and a medical surgeon when it comes to taking a life the practice is still murderous. The salute assemble him guilty since his actions were unlawful meaning in general euthanasia nooky arguably be found a crime.A identical case in Saskatchewan occurred when Robert La convictionr murdered his severely disabled daughter, Tracy, on October 24th, 2008. The logical thinking for Latimers immoral act was he could not bear to get a line his daughter suffering from a severe form of cerebral palsy. He killed her by placing her in the back of his Chevy pickup, ran a hose from the conk out to the cab , and watched her die. Latimer was convicted on November 4, 1993 of first-degree murder. The following year he was convicted of second-degree murder. This begs a question what is the difference between Latimers actions, killing his daughter who suffersfrom excruciating pain, and a load who was given permission from a loved one to kill an individual who is as well as suffering from a brutal pain? A gear up must receive authorization to kill a patient who is as well(p) sick.Doesnt Latimer have the right to take his own daughters life, since a doctor would have had to ask him anyways to have the right to kill Tracy? Latimer supposedly saved his daughter from being in pain, which is the same terra firma why galore(postnominal) individuals chose to give permission for those who are not physically in good health to undergo euthanasia. His methods were the same as a person with a medical degree. He watched an innocent individual die. Latimer was punish since his act was seen as wrong ful. So why it is that euthanasia is seen as merciful killing? Many thought Latimers behavior could be compared to the act of euthanasia, since its perceived as a compassionate homicide. How could a man who watches his daughter die is seen as a merciful killing? ostensibly it was not, which is why he was sentenced for second degree murder. Are you suggesting that these terminations be taken out of the hands of qualified medical personnel? You could make quotation to the qualifications of doctors in these situations it could contribute to your essay. magic trick Pearson, born in June 1980 in bowler City Hospital, was diagnosed with Downs syndrome (http// http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2600923.stm.) and was unexpended in the care of a specialized consulting pediatrician, Dr. Arthur. Three days later, Pearson was found dead. Dr. Arthur was later charged with the babys murder. He was allegedly asked by the parents to take the life of this child, whom he killed by starvation. In November 1981, Dr. Arthur was acquitted of murder (http//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2600923. stm), due to him taking the life of a child with the parents consent. (If he was acquitted of murder, you dropnot call him a murderer. You great deal abduce to him as an alleged murderer, but be motive he was not convicted, anything else would be inappropriate.) This is cogent evidence that the practice of euthanasia is causing other individuals to believe they have the right to take the life of someone in their family whom is suffering from a disease or disability. (Are you suggesting this newborn was able to make their own decision as to whether or not they wanted to live with this disability? If so, why do we not allow children to make more decisions at a jr. age? Why not let elementarystudents vote, for instance, or come out into their own legal contracts? Make sure your stances are logical and well thought out. The more times you allow an opposing view to radio-controlled aircraf t holes in your statements the more difficult it will be for you to stay credible.) John Pearson may have not been as privileged (Remove comma) as others in society due to his disability, but he did not deserve to die.It can be argued that euthanasia is form of suicide. This outrages spectral groups who see this practice as immoral (Remove comma) and against the word of god. Suicide denotes the killing of one self.(Citation?) Euthanasia, a bulk of the time, occurs when individuals decide to medically kill someone who is undergoing crucial agony. This practice can be perceived rather as murder. Murder means to cause to die put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly (http//www.thefreedictionary.com/commit/suicide). (This statement and the one previous should be placed earlier on in the essay. You can then make reference to it here if necessary.) either or, euthanasia is condemned by many religious laws. The Judaic perspective states that instances of euthanasia should be deal t with as such any form of active euthanasia is rigorously prohibited and condemned as plain murder(http//www.aisha.com/societywork/science /Doctor-Assisted_Suicide.asp). Talmudic and rabbinical sources state, One who is in a dying condition is regarded as a living person in all respect (Talmud Smachot 11). The Jewish religion also believes One may not close the eye of a dying person (Talmud Smachot 11).Rabbi Merri interprets this saying as, It is to be compared to a sputtering candle which is extinguished as soon a person touches it so too, whoever closes the eyes of a dying person is compared to have taken the soul (http//www.aisha.com/societywork/ science /Doctor-Assisted_Suicide.asp). Islam also criticizes euthanasia. Muslims see life as being sacred, since Allah provided it to them. Allah decides how long each human being will live, not a doctor. It states in the Quran 532, If anyone kills a person unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land it would be as i f he killed the whole people(http//www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethnics/ euthanasia. shtml). The Quran 3145 clearly establishes, And no person can ever die except by Allahs leave and at an appointed term (http//www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethnics/euthanasia. shtml).This rule also applies to Christianity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2003) states All forms of suicide and euthanasia remain strictly prohibited, but questions of moral culpability and eternal salvation are go forth open (http//www.acu-cell.com/suicide.html). In the Orthodox Church decisively is in opposition of euthanasia and considers it as, as form of suicide on the part of the individual, and a form of murder on a part of others who assist in this practice, both of which are seen as sins. The Church does not expect that undue and heroic means must be used at all costs to prolong dying, as has now become possible by dint of technical medical advances (http//www.acu-cell.com/su icide.html). Depending on your citation style conductments, this quote should likely be in block format since it is yearner than 40 words.)Internationally, in that location are over 3.3 billion Christians, Muslims, and Jews who are opposed to euthanasia (http//www.spaceandmotion.com/Theology-World- religious beliefs.htm) . However, worldly/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist groups make up 850 million of the worlds population (http//www.atheistempire.com/reference/stats/index.php). Atheists question the truth in religion and then they do not recognize euthanasia as a sin, or as a form of suicide. (Are you suggesting that all of these people believe euthanasia is a positive thing?) Even though theology is governed by powerful messages, its still not a reliable source. piety is still seen as retributive a theory, since it is just a belief. universe has not yet seen or conversed with a higher power, so the religious information provided to mankind has not been proven.On January 11, 2 003 Dr. David Jerrrey wrote a letter to the editor in chief of the newspaper the pecuniary Times. In the letter he stated, Terminally ill patients often fear being a burden to others and may face they ought torequest euthanasia to relieve their relatives from distress (cite). Given economic situations, many patients and families of the patients feel pressured by medical figures to turn to euthanasia. Michael Prowse wrote in the newspaper the Financial Times, published January 4th 2003, If euthanasia became socially acceptable, the sick would no longer be able to trust either doctors or their relatives many of those severely counseling a painless, dignified death would be doing so principally on financial grounds. Euthanasia would become a euphemism for assisted murder (Michael Prowse). Many feel psychologically pressured to consent to voluntary euthanasia because they mayhap a financial burden to their loved ones. However, those who do personally require euthanasia without bein g forced will allow this practice to track. populace has the choice of fundamental principles, being they believe they should be allowed to make the decision if they want to die, since its their own life.There is a shortage of hospital space, so those who have slim chances of living may feel that by them dying another who has a greater chance of life can have more vigilance by medical care (Michael Prowse). These arguments can be seen as a valid, which may overrule the fact that euthanasia is murderous. Individuals may sympathize with those who are in great pain, and feel they cannot continue on with life. Despite these intellectual reasons, euthanasia is a form of murder, and a practice that should be banned.Euthanasia is a deliberate act of killing. Since the offshoot of mankind our world has been exposed to laws that forbid murder. In the Ten Commandments, thou shall not murder, (Citation?) has influenced recent laws. This ethnical issue must be solved, but with the help of communities (Remove comma) and countries. There are two forms of euthanasia that must be focussed on active euthanasia, or inducing or assisting in the death of a person, who is undergoing intense suffering and who has no practical fancy of recovery (cite), and passive euthanasia, which is withholding life-saving equipment or treatment, by medical equipment I mean surgeries, chemotherapy and other treatments beyond basic food, water, warmth, care and personal attention (cite). Each form must be individually looked at. Passive euthanasia is what society must accept. Active euthanasia contradicts thelaw (Remove comma) and commandments. The money that is being put into cloning and other scientific practices should be put towards cures that can stop the diseases which cause individuals to turn euthanasia.The truth is mankind continues to play the character of god. Our world is presently exposed to cloning organ transplants, etc. (If this is a strictly formal essay, refrain from using etc. Rewrite your sentence to something like Our world is presently exposed to such morally compromise issues such as cloning and organ transplants.) This allows one to think that euthanasia will become a dominant practice internationally. More will rely on it (Remove comma) and see it as a consideration in their decision whether or not they want to live or die. Religion does contain truth. Only nature should have the power to decide when it is our time to go, but as technology continues to advance it provides mankind with the choice to determine ones life or death.Illnesses do cause families mourning and to suffering, but if humanity started to believe in faith again, maybe euthanasia would have to significance, (This is not a logical sentence please clarify.) since we just lack hope. A doctor diagnoses a patient with cancer and mechanically the patient senses death. What happened to believing in miracles and fate? Maybe mankind no longer believes in miracles but because our wor ld continues to destruct by war, poverty, and violence. We now turn to an easy way out, since the fight seems too long. Euthanasia is just a way to control our population and economy. It is a homicidal act that should be immediately stopped internationally. Dr. Jack Kevorkian, Robert Latimer, and Dr. Arthur (Remove comma) were all charged with murder because they chose to practice euthanasia without medical consent. These three men were charged with murder, which proves this action is murderous (Remove semi colon) despite it having the word medical behind it. If a doctor performs euthanasia on a normal individual it should be equally weighed because it is a deliberate act of murder. Theology condemns euthanasia simply due to it being considered a form of suicide or murder. Individuals are pressured into euthanasia because they are sick and their life becomes less important than one that is healthy.