against euthanasia essay

Accessibility links

• Skip to content
• Skip to local navigation
• Skip to bbc.co.uk navigation
• Skip to bbc.co.uk search
• Accessibility Help

Ethics guide

Anti-euthanasia arguments

This page sets out the arguments against allowing euthanasia. Could euthanasia ever be safely regulated? Would legalising euthanasia have knock-on effects?

On this page

• Overview of arguments against euthanasia

Against the will of God

Sanctity of life, the slippery slope, devalues some lives, patient's best interests, proper palliative care, fears about regulation, it gives doctors too much power, pressure on the vulnerable, page options.

• Print this page

Overview of anti-euthanasia arguments

It's possible to argue about the way we've divided up the arguments, and many arguments could fall into more categories than we've used.

Ethical arguments

• Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life
• Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives (those of the disabled or sick) are worth less than others
• Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable
• Euthanasia might not be in a person's best interests
• Euthanasia affects other people's rights, not just those of the patient

Practical arguments

• Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary
• There's no way of properly regulating euthanasia
• Allowing euthanasia undermines the committment of doctors and nurses to saving 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 undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying, and good pain relief
• Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors
• Moral pressure on elderly relatives by selfish families
• Moral pressure to free up medical resources
• Patients who are abandoned by their families may feel euthanasia is the only solution

Historical arguments

Religious arguments.

• Euthanasia is against the word and will of God
• Suffering may have value

Religious people don't argue that we can't kill ourselves, or get others to do it. They know that we can do it because God has given us free will. Their argument is that it would be wrong for us to do so.

They believe that every human being is the creation of God, and that this imposes certain limits on us. Our lives are not only our lives for us to do with as we see fit.

To kill oneself, or to get someone else to do it for us, is to deny God, and to deny God's rights over our lives and his right to choose the length of our lives and the way our lives end.

The value of suffering

Religious people sometimes argue against euthanasia because they see positive value in suffering.

Down through the centuries and generations it has been seen that in suffering there is concealed a particular power that draws a person interiorly close to Christ, a special grace. Pope John Paul II: Salvifici Doloris, 1984

The religious attitude to suffering

Most religions would say something like this:

We should relieve suffering when we can, and be with those who suffer, helping them to bear their suffering, when we can't. We should never deal with the problem of suffering by eliminating those who suffer.

The nature of suffering

Christianity teaches that suffering can have a place in God's plan, in that it allows the sufferer to share in Christ's agony and his redeeming sacrifice. They believe that Christ will be present to share in the suffering of the believer.

Pope John Paul II wrote that "It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls."

However while the churches acknowledge that some Christians will want to accept some suffering for this reason, most Christians are not so heroic.

So there is nothing wrong in trying to relieve someone's suffering. In fact, Christians believe that it is a good to do so, as long as one does not intentionally cause death.

Dying is good for us

Some people think that dying is just one of the tests that God sets for human beings, and that the way we react to it shows the sort of person we are, and how deep our faith and trust in God is.

Others, while acknowledging that a loving God doesn't set his creations such a horrible test, say that the process of dying is the ultimate opportunity for human beings to develop their souls.

When people are dying they may be able, more than at any time in their life, to concentrate on the important things in life, and to set aside the present-day 'consumer culture', and their own ego and desire to control the world. Curtailing the process of dying would deny them this opportunity.

Eastern religions

Several Eastern religions believe that we live many lives and the quality of each life is set by the way we lived our previous lives.

Those who believe this think that suffering is part of the moral force of the universe, and that by cutting it short a person interferes with their progress towards ultimate liberation.

A non-religious view

Some non-religious people also believe that suffering has value. They think it provides an opportunity to grow in wisdom, character, and compassion.

Suffering is something which draws upon all the resources of a human being and enables them to reach the highest and noblest points of what they really are.

Suffering allows a person to be a good example to others by showing how to behave when things are bad.

M Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Travelled , has written that in a few weeks at the end of life, with pain properly controlled a person might learn

how to negotiate a middle path between control and total passivity, about how to welcome the responsible care of strangers, about how to be dependent once again ... about how to trust and maybe even, out of existential suffering, at least a little bit about how to pray or talk with God. M Scott Peck

It isn't easy to define suffering - most of us can decide when we are suffering but what is suffering for one person may not be suffering for another.

It's also impossible to measure suffering in any useful way, and it's particularly hard to come up with any objective idea of what constitutes unbearable suffering, since each individual will react to the same physical and mental conditions in a different way.

This argument says that euthanasia is bad because of the sanctity of human life.

There are four main reasons why people think we shouldn't kill human beings:

• All human beings are to be valued, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, social status or their potential for achievement
• Human life is a basic good as opposed to an instrumental good, a good in itself rather than as a means to an end
• Human life is sacred because it's a gift from God
• Therefore the deliberate taking of human life should be prohibited except in self-defence or the legitimate defence of others

We are valuable for ourselves

The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else. The fact that we are human has value in itself.

Our inherent value doesn't depend on anything else - it doesn't depend on whether we are having a good life that we enjoy, or whether we are making other people's lives better. We exist, so we have value.

Most of us agree with that - though we don't put it in philosopher-speak. We say that we don't think that we should use other people - which is a plain English way of saying that we shouldn't treat other people as a means to our own ends.

We must respect our own value

It applies to us too. We shouldn't treat ourselves as a means to our own ends.

And this means that we shouldn't end our lives just because it seems the most effective way of putting an end to our suffering. To do that is not to respect our inherent worth.

Many people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long before involuntary euthanasia would start to happen.

We concluded that it was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused. We were also concerned that vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed - would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death. Lord Walton, Chairman, House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics looking into euthanasia, 1993

This is called the slippery slope argument. In general form it says that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted.

Those who oppose this argument say that properly drafted legislation can draw a firm barrier across the slippery slope.

Various forms of the slippery slope argument

If we change the law and accept voluntary euthanasia, we will not be able to keep it under control.

• Proponents of euthanasia say: Euthanasia would never be legalised without proper regulation and control mechanisms in place

Doctors may soon start killing people without bothering with their permission.

• Proponents say: There is a huge difference between killing people who ask for death under appropriate circumstances, and killing people without their permission
• Very few people are so lacking in moral understanding that they would ignore this distinction
• Very few people are so lacking in intellect that they can't make the distinction above
• Any doctor who would ignore this distinction probably wouldn't worry about the law anyway

Health care costs will lead to doctors killing patients to save money or free up beds:

• Proponents say: The main reason some doctors support voluntary euthanasia is because they believe that they should respect their patients' right to be treated as autonomous human beings
• That is, when doctors are in favour of euthanasia it's because they want to respect the wishes of their patients
• So doctors are unlikely to kill people without their permission because that contradicts the whole motivation for allowing voluntary euthanasia
• But cost-conscious doctors are more likely to honour their patients' requests for death
• A 1998 study found that doctors who are cost-conscious and 'practice resource-conserving medicine' are significantly more likely to write a lethal prescription for terminally-ill patients [ Arch. Intern. Med., 5/11/98, p. 974 ]
• This suggests that medical costs do influence doctors' opinions in this area of medical ethics

The Nazis engaged in massive programmes of involuntary euthanasia, so we shouldn't place our trust in the good moral sense of doctors.

• Proponents say: The Nazis are not a useful moral example, because their actions are almost universally regarded as both criminal and morally wrong
• The Nazis embarked on invountary euthanasia as a deliberate political act - they didn't slip into it from voluntary euthanasia (although at first they did pretend it was for the benefit of the patient)
• What the Nazis did wasn't euthanasia by even the widest definition, it was the use of murder to get rid of people they disapproved of
• The universal horror at Nazi euthanasia demonstrates that almost everyone can make the distinction between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia
• The example of the Nazis has made people more sensitive to the dangers of involuntary euthanasia

Allowing voluntary euthanasia makes it easier to commit murder, since the perpetrators can disguise it as active voluntary euthanasia.

• Proponents say: The law is able to deal with the possibility of self-defence or suicide being used as disguises for murder. It will thus be able to deal with this case equally well
• To dress murder up as euthanasia will involve medical co-operation. The need for a conspiracy will make it an unattractive option

Many are needlessly condemned to suffering by the chief anti-euthanasia argument: that murder might lurk under the cloak of kindness. A C Grayling, Guardian 2001

Some people fear that allowing euthanasia sends the message, "it's better to be dead than sick or disabled".

The subtext is that some lives are not worth living. Not only does this put the sick or disabled at risk, it also downgrades their status as human beings while they are alive.

The disabled person's perspective

Part of the problem is that able-bodied people look at things from their own perspective and see life with a disability as a disaster, filled with suffering and frustration.

Some societies have regarded people with disabilities as inferior, or as a burden on society. Those in favour of eugenics go further, and say that society should prevent 'defective' people from having children. Others go further still and say that those who are a burden on society should be eliminated.

People with disabilities don't agree. They say:

• All people should have equal rights and opportunities to live good lives
• Many individuals with disabilities enjoy living
• Many individuals without disabilities don't enjoy living, and no-one is threatening them
• The proper approach to people with disabilities is to provide them with appropriate support, not to kill them
• The quality of a person's life should not be assessed by other people
• The quality of life of a person with disabilities should not be assessed without providing proper support first

Opposition to this argument

Supporters of euthanasia would respond that this argument includes a number of completely misleading suggestions, and refute them:

• Dying is not the same as never having been born
• The debate is nothing to do with preventing disabled babies being born, or preventing people with disabilities from becoming parents
• Nobody is asking for patients to be killed against their wishes - whether or not those patients are disabled
• The euthanasia procedure is intended for use by patients who are dying, or in a condition that will get worse - most disabilities don't come under that category
• The normal procedure for euthanasia would have to be initiated at the patient's request
• Disabled people who are not mentally impaired are just as capable as able-bodied people of deciding what they want
• Protections will be in place for patients who are mentally impaired, whether through disability or some other reason
• It is possible that someone who has just become disabled may feel depressed enough to ask for death, which is why any proposed system of euthanasia must include psychological support and assessment before the patient's wish is granted
• All people should have equal rights and opportunities to live, or to choose not to go on living

A serious problem for supporters of euthanasia are the number of cases in which a patient may ask for euthanasia, or feel obliged to ask for it, when it isn't in their best interest. Some examples are listed below:

• the diagnosis is wrong and the patient is not terminally ill
• the prognosis (the doctor's prediction as to how the disease will progress) is wrong and the patient is not going to die soon
• the patient is getting bad medical care and their suffering could be relieved by other means
• the doctor is unaware of all the non-fatal options that could be offered to the patient
• the patient's request for euthanasia is actually a 'cry for help', implying that life is not worth living now but could be worth living if various symptoms or fears were managed
• the patient is depressed and so believes things are much worse than they are
• the patient is confused and unable to make sensible judgements
• the patient has an unrealistic fear of the pain and suffering that lies ahead
• the patient is feeling vulnerable
• the patient feels that they are a worthless burden on others
• the patient feels that their sickness is causing unbearable anguish to their family
• the patient is under pressure from other people to feel that they are a burden
• the patient is under pressure because of a shortage of resources to care for them
• the patient requests euthanasia because of a passing phase of their disease, but is likely to feel much better in a while

Supporters of euthanasia say these are good reasons to make sure the euthanasia process will not be rushed, and agree that a well-designed system for euthanasia will have to take all these points into account. They say that most of these problems can be identified by assessing the patient properly, and, if necessary, the system should discriminate against the opinions of people who are particularly vulnerable.

Chochinov and colleagues found that fleeting or occasional thoughts of a desire for death were common in a study of people who were terminally ill, but few patients expressed a genuine desire for death. ( Chochinov HM, Tataryn D, Clinch JJ, Dudgeon D. Will to live in the terminally ill. Lancet 1999; 354: 816-819 )

They also found that the will to live fluctuates substantially in dying patients, particularly in relation to depression, anxiety, shortness of breath, and their sense of wellbeing.

Other people have rights too

Euthanasia is usually viewed from the viewpoint of the person who wants to die, but it affects other people too, and their rights should be considered.

• family and friends
• medical and other carers
• other people in a similar situation who may feel pressured by the decision of this patient
• society in general

Palliative care is physical, emotional and spiritual care for a dying person when cure is not possible. It includes compassion and support for family and friends.

Competent palliative care may well be enough to prevent a person feeling any need to contemplate euthanasia.

You matter because you are you. You matter to the last moment of your life and we will do all we can to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die. Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement

The key to successful palliative care is to treat the patient as a person, not as a set of symptoms, or medical problems.

The World Health Organisation states that palliative care affirms life and regards dying as a normal process; it neither hastens nor postpones death; it provides relief from pain and suffering; it integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of the patient.

Making things better for patient, family and friends

The patient's family and friends will need care too. Palliative care aims to enhance the quality of life for the family as well as the patient.

Effective palliative care gives the patient and their loved ones a chance to spend quality time together, with as much distress removed as possible. They can (if they want to) use this time to bring any unfinished business in their lives to a proper closure and to say their last goodbyes.

Palliative care should aim to make it easier and more attractive for family and friends to visit the dying person. A survey (USA 2001) showed that terminally ill patients actually spent the vast majority of their time on their own, with few visits from medical personnel or family members.

Spiritual care

Spiritual care may be important even for non-religious people. Spiritual care should be interpreted in a very wide sense, since patients and families facing death often want to search for the meaning of their lives in their own way.

Palliative care and euthanasia

Good palliative care is the alternative to euthanasia. If it was available to every patient, it would certainly reduce the desire for death to be brought about sooner.

But providing palliative care can be very hard work, both physically and psychologically. Ending a patient's life by injection is quicker and easier and cheaper. This may tempt people away from palliative care.

Legalising euthanasia may reduce the availability of palliative care

Some fear that the introduction of euthanasia will reduce the availability of palliative care in the community, because health systems will want to choose the most cost effective ways of dealing with dying patients.

Medical decision-makers already face difficult moral dilemmas in choosing between competing demands for their limited funds. So making euthanasia easier could exacerbate the slippery slope, pushing people towards euthanasia who may not otherwise choose it.

When palliative care is not enough

Palliative care will not always be an adequate solution:

• Pain: Some doctors estimate that about 5% of patients don't have their pain properly relieved during the terminal phase of their illness, despite good palliative and hospice care
• Dependency: Some patients may prefer death to dependency, because they hate relying on other people for all their bodily functions, and the consequent loss of privacy and dignity
• Lack of home care: Other patients will not wish to have palliative care if that means that they have to die in a hospital and not at home
• Loss of alertness: Some people would prefer to die while they are fully alert and and able to say goodbye to their family; they fear that palliative care would involve a level of pain-killing drugs that would leave them semi-anaesthetised
• Not in the final stages: Other people are grateful for palliative care to a certain point in their disease, but after that would prefer to die rather than live in a state of helplessness and distress, regardless of what is available in terms of pain-killing and comfort.

There should be no law or morality that would limit a clinical team or doctor from administering the frequent dosages of pain medication that are necessary to free people's minds from pain that shrivels the spirit and leaves no time for speaking when, at times, there are very few hours or days left for such communication. Dr. David Roy, Director of the Centre for Bioethics, Clinical Research Institute of Montreal

Euthanasia opponents don't believe that it is possible to create a regulatory system for euthanasia that will prevent the abuse of euthanasia.

This argument often appears as 'doctors should not be allowed to play God'. Since God arguments are of no interest to people without faith, it's presented here with the God bit removed.

Doctors should not be allowed to decide when people die:

• Doctors do this all the time
• Any medical action that extends life changes the time when a person dies and we don't worry about that
• This is a different sort of decision, because it involves shortening life
• Doctors take this sort of decision all the time when they make choices about treatment
• As long as doctors recognise the seriousness of euthanasia and take decisions about it within a properly regulated structure and with proper safeguards, such decisions should be acceptable
• In most of these cases the decision will not be taken by the doctor, but by the patient. The doctor will provide information to the patient to help them make their decision

Since doctors give patients the information on which they will base their decisions about euthanasia, any legalisation of euthanasia, no matter how strictly regulated , puts doctors in an unacceptable position of power.

Doctors have been shown to take these decisions improperly, defying the guidelines of the British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council (UK), and the Royal College of Nursing:

• An Age Concern dossier in 2000 showed that doctors put Do Not Resuscitate orders in place on elderly patients without consulting them or their families
• Do Not Resuscitate orders are more commonly used for older people and, in the United States, for black people, alcohol misusers, non-English speakers, and people infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus. This suggests that doctors have stereotypes of who is not worth saving

This is another of those arguments that says that euthanasia should not be allowed because it will be abused.

The fear is that if euthanasia is allowed, vulnerable people will be put under pressure to end their lives. It would be difficult, and possibly impossible, to stop people using persuasion or coercion to get people to request euthanasia when they don't really want it.

I have seen . . . AIDS patients who have been totally abandoned by their parents, brothers and sisters and by their lovers. In a state of total isolation, cut off from every source of life and affection, they would see death as the only liberation open to them. In those circumstances, subtle pressure could bring people to request immediate, rapid, painless death, when what they want is close and powerful support and love. evidence to the Canadian Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

The pressure of feeling a burden

People who are ill and dependent can often feel worthless and an undue burden on those who love and care for them. They may actually be a burden, but those who love them may be happy to bear that burden.

Nonetheless, if euthanasia is available, the sick person may pressure themselves into asking for euthanasia.

Pressure from family and others

Family or others involved with the sick person may regard them as a burden that they don't wish to carry, and may put pressure (which may be very subtle) on the sick person to ask for euthanasia.

Increasing numbers of examples of the abuse or neglect of elderly people by their families makes this an important issue to consider.

Financial pressure

The last few months of a patient's life are often the most expensive in terms of medical and other care. Shortening this period through euthanasia could be seen as a way of relieving pressure on scarce medical resources, or family finances.

It's worth noting that cost of the lethal medication required for euthanasia is less than £50, which is much cheaper than continuing treatment for many medical conditions.

Some people argue that refusing patients drugs because they are too expensive is a form of euthanasia, and that while this produces public anger at present, legal euthanasia provides a less obvious solution to drug costs.

If there was 'ageism' in health services, and certain types of care were denied to those over a certain age, euthanasia could be seen as a logical extension of this practice.

« More on Euthanasia

• Religion and Ethics home

Around the BBC

• News - Q&A - Assisted suicide
• Health - Terminal illness
• Health - Palliative care in hospices
• Health - How to Have a Good Death
• Relationships - Coping with grief

Elsewhere on the web

• Care Not Killing
• Compassion in Dying
• Dignity in Dying
• National Council for Palliative Care

Search term:

BBC navigation

• Northern Ireland
• Full A-Z of BBC sites

You're using the Internet Explorer 6 browser to view the BBC website. Our site will work much better if you change to a more modern browser. It's free, quick and easy. Find out more about upgrading your browser here…

• Mobile site
• Terms of Use
• About the BBC
• Contact the BBC
• Parental Guidance

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.

Tips on How to Write a Euthanasia Argumentative Essay

Abortion, birth control, death sentencing, legalization of medical marijuana, and gender reassignment surgery remain the most controversial medical issues in contemporary society.  Euthanasia is also among the controversial topics in the medical field. It draws arguments from philosophy, ethics, and religious points of view.

By definition derives from a Greek term that means good death, and it is the practice where an experienced medical practitioner or a physician intentionally ends an individual's life to end pain and suffering. The names mercy killing or physician-assisted suicide also knows it.

Different countries have different laws as regards euthanasia. In the UK, physician-assisted suicide is illegal and can earn a medical practitioner 14 years imprisonment. All over the world, there is a fierce debate as regards mercy killing.

Like any other controversial topic, there are arguments for and against euthanasia. Thus, there are two sides to the debate. The proponents or those for euthanasia believe it is a personal choice issue, even when death is involved.

On the other hand, those against euthanasia or the opponents believe that physicians must only assist patients when the patients are sound to make such a decision. That is where the debate centers.

This article explores some of the important basics to follow when writing an exposition, argumentative, persuasive, or informative essay on euthanasia.

Steps in Writing a Paper on Euthanasia

When assigned homework on writing a research paper or essay on euthanasia, follow these steps to make it perfect.

1. Read the Prompt

The essay or research paper prompt always have instructions to follow when writing any academic work. Students, therefore, should read it to pick up the mind of the professor or teaching assistant on the assigned academic task. When reading the prompt, be keen to understand what approach the professor prefers. Besides, it should also tell you the type of essay you are required to write and the scope.

2. Choose a Captivating Topic

After reading the prompt, you are required to frame your euthanasia essay title. Make sure that the title you choose is captivating enough as it invites the audience to read your essay. The title of your essay must not divert from the topic, but make it catchy enough to lure and keep readers. An original and well-structured essay title on euthanasia should give an idea of what to expect in the body paragraphs. It simply gives them a reason to read your essay.

3. Decide on the Best Thesis Statement for your Euthanasia Essay

Creating a thesis statement for a euthanasia essay does not deviate from the conventions of essay writing. The same is consistent when writing a thesis statement for a euthanasia research paper. The thesis statement can be a sentence or two at the end of the introduction that sums up your stance on the topic of euthanasia. It should be brief, well crafted, straight to the point, and outstanding. Right from the start, it should flow with the rest of the essay and each preceding paragraph should support the thesis statement.

4. Write an Outline

An outline gives you a roadmap of what to write in each part of the essay, including the essay hook, introduction, thesis statement, body paragraphs, and the conclusion. We have provided a sample euthanasia essay outline in this article, be sure to look at it.

5. Write the First Draft

With all ingredients in place, it is now time to write your euthanasia essay by piecing up all the different parts. Begin with an essay hook, then the background information on the topic, then the thesis statement in the introduction. The body paragraphs should each contain an idea that is well supported with facts from books, journals, articles, and other scholarly sources. Be sure to follow the MLA, APA, Harvard, or Chicago formatting conventions when writing the paper as advised in the essay prompt.

6. Proofread and Edit the Essay

You have succeeded in skinning the elephant, and it is now time to cut the pieces and consume. Failure to proofread and edit an essay can be dangerous for your grade. There is always an illusion that you wrote it well after all. However, if you take some time off and come to it later, you will notice some mistakes. If you want somebody to proofread your euthanasia essay, you can use our essay editing service . All the same, proofreading an essay is necessary before turning the essay in.

Creating a Euthanasia Essay or Research Paper Outline

Like any other academic paper, having a blueprint of the entire essay on euthanasia makes it easy to write. Writing an outline is preceded by choosing a great topic. In your outline or structure of argumentative essay on euthanasia, you should highlight the main ideas such as the thesis statement, essay hook, introduction, topic sentences for the body paragraphs and supporting facts, and the concluding remarks. Here is a sample outline for a euthanasia argumentative essay.

This is a skeleton for your euthanasia essay:

Introduction

• Hook sentence/ attention grabber
• Thesis statement
• Background statement (history of euthanasia and definition)
• Transition to Main Body
• The legal landscape of euthanasia globally
• How euthanasia affects physician-patient relationships
• Biblical stance on euthanasia
• Consequences of illegal euthanasia
• Ethical and moral issues of euthanasia
• Philosophical stance on euthanasia
• Transition to Conclusion
• Restated thesis statement
• Unexpected twist or a final argument
• Food for thought

Sample Euthanasia Essay Outline

Title: Euthanasia is not justified

Essay hook - It is there on TV, but did you know that a situation could prompt a doctor to bring to an end suffering and pain to a terminally ill patient? There is more than meets the eye on euthanasia.

Thesis statement : despite the arguments for and against euthanasia, it is legally and morally wrong to kill any person, as it is disregard of the right to life of an individual and the value of human life.

Paragraph 1: Euthanasia should be condemned as it ends the sacred lives of human beings.

• Only God gives life and has the authority to take it and not humans.
• The bible says, Thou shalt not kill.
• The Quran states, "Whoever killed a Mujahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).

Paragraph 2: Euthanasia gives physicians the power to determine who lives and who dies.

• Doctors end up playing the role of God.
• It could be worse when doctors make mistakes or advance their self-interests to make money. They can liaise with family members to kill for the execution of a will.

Paragraph 3: it destroys the patient-physician relationship

• Patients trust the doctors for healing
• When performed on other patients, the remaining patients lose trust in the same doctor of the facility.
• Under the Hippocratic Oath, doctors are supposed to alleviate pain, end suffering, and protect life, not eliminate it.

Paragraph 4: euthanasia is a form of murder

• Life is lost in the end.
• There are chances that when tried with other therapeutic and non-therapeutic approaches, terminally ill patients can always get better.
• It is selfish to kill a patient based on a medical report, which in itself could be erratic.
• Patients respond well to advanced care approaches.

Paragraph 5: ( Counterargument) euthanasia proponents argue based on relieving suffering and pain as well as reducing the escalating cost of healthcare.

• Euthanasia helps families avoid spending much on treating a patient who might not get well.
• It is the wish of the patients who have made peace with the fact that they might not recover.

  Conclusion

In sum, advancement in technology in the medical field and the existence of palliative care are evidence enough that there is no need for mercy killing. Even though there are claims that it ends pain and suffering, it involves killing a patient who maybe could respond to novel approaches to treatment.

Abohaimed, S., Matar, B., Al-Shimali, H., Al-Thalji, K., Al-Othman, O., Zurba, Y., & Shah, N. (2019). Attitudes of Physicians towards Different Types of Euthanasia in Kuwait.  Medical Principles and Practice ,  28 (3), 199-207.

Attell, B. K. (2017). Changing attitudes toward euthanasia and suicide for terminally ill persons, 1977 to 2016: an age-period-cohort analysis.  OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying , 0030222817729612.

Barone, S., & Unguru, Y. (2017). Should Euthanasia Be Considered Iatrogenic? AMA journal of ethics, 19(8), 802-814.

Emanuel, E. (2017). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: focus on the data.  The Medical Journal of Australia ,  206 (8), 1-2e1.

Inbadas, H., Zaman, S., Whitelaw, S., & Clark, D. (2017). Declarations on euthanasia and assisted dying.  Death Studies, 41 (9), 574-584.

Jacobs, R. K., & Hendricks, M. (2018). Medical students' perspectives on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and their views on legalising these practices in South Africa.  South African Medical Journal ,  108 (6), 484-489.

Math, S. B., & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2012). Euthanasia: the right to life vs right to die.  The Indian journal of medical research, 136 (6), 899.

Reichlin, M. (2001). Euthanasia in the Netherlands.  KOS , (193), 22-29.

Saul, H. (2014, November 5). The Vatican Condemns Brittany Maynard's Decision to end her Life as �Absurd'.

Sulmasy, D. P., Travaline, J. M., & Louise, M. A. (2016). Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.  The Linacre Quarterly, 83 (3), 246-257.

Euthanasia Essay Introduction Ideas

An introduction is a gate into the compound of your well-reasoned thoughts, ideas, and opinions in an essay. As such, the introduction should be well structured in a manner that catches the attention of the readers from the onset.

While it seems the hardest thing to do, writing an introduction should never give you the fear of stress, blank page, or induce a writer's block. Instead, it should flow right from the essay hook to the thesis statement.

Given that you can access statistics, legal variations, and individual stories based on personal experiences with euthanasia online, writing a euthanasia essay introduction should be a walk in the park.

Ensure that the introduction to the essay is catchy, appealing, and informative. Here are some ideas to use:

• Rights of humans to life
• How euthanasia is carried out
• When euthanasia is legally allowed
• Stories from those with experience in euthanasia
• The stance of doctors on euthanasia
• Definition of euthanasia
• Countries that allow euthanasia
• Statistics of physicians assisted suicide in a given state, locality, or continent.
• Perception of the public given the diversity of culture

There are tons of ideas on how to start an essay on euthanasia.  You need to research, immerse yourself in the topic, and scoop the best evidence. Presenting facts in an argumentative essay on euthanasia will help convince the readers to argue for or against euthanasia. Based on your stance, make statements in favor of euthanasia or statements against euthanasia known from the onset through the strong thesis statement.

Essay Topics and Ideas on Euthanasia

• Should Euthanasia be legal?
• What are the different types of euthanasia?
• Is euthanasia morally justified?
• Cross-cultural comparison of attitudes and beliefs on euthanasia
• The history of euthanasia
• Euthanasia from a Patient's Point of View
• Should euthanasia be considered Iatrogenic?
• Does euthanasia epitomize failed medical approaches?
• How does euthanasia work?
• Should Physician-Assisted Suicide be legal?
• Sociology of Death and Dying
• Arguments for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide
• Euthanasia is a moral dilemma
• The euthanasia debate
• It Is Much Better to Die with Dignity Than to Live with Pain Essay
• Euthanasia Is a Moral, Ethical, and Proper
• Euthanasia Law of Euthanasia in California and New York
• Effect of Euthanasia on Special Population
• Euthanasia is inhuman
• Role of nurses in Euthanasia
• Are family and relative decisions considered during the euthanasia
• The biblical stance on euthanasia

Related Articles:

• Argumentative essay topics and Ideas
• Topics and ideas for informative essays

Get Help with Writing Euthanasia Argumentative Essay for School

We have covered the tips of writing an argumentative essay on euthanasia. Besides, we have also presented a sample euthanasia essay outline, which can help you write your essay. However, sometimes you might lack the motivation to write an essay on euthanasia, even when you have access to argumentative essay examples on euthanasia. 

It is the right time to pay someone to write your argumentative essay . We have the best essay writers who have expertise in creating the best argumentative essays on any topic.  They understand the entire process of argumentative writing and can create a top-grade euthanasia essay within the shortest turnaround time.

Do not wait until it is too late; let our nerds help you ace your homework. Order an essay today and forget your academic writing woes.

Order Essay on Euthanasia!

Gradecrest is a professional writing service that provides original model papers. We offer personalized services along with research materials for assistance purposes only. All the materials from our website should be used with proper references. See our Terms of Use Page for proper details.

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
• v.83(3); 2016 Aug

Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia

Daniel P. Sulmasy

1 The Department of Medicine and Divinity School, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

John M. Travaline

2 Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Louise A. Mitchell

3 Catholic Medical Association, Bala Cynwyd, PA, USA

E. Wesley Ely

4 Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA

5 Veteran's Affairs Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center (GRECC) of the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN, USA

This article is a complement to “A Template for Non-Religious-Based Discussions Against Euthanasia” by Melissa Harintho, Nathaniel Bloodworth, and E. Wesley Ely which appeared in the February 2015 Linacre Quarterly . Herein we build upon Daniel Sulmasy's opening and closing arguments from the 2014 Intelligence Squared debate on legalizing assisted suicide, supplemented by other non-faith-based arguments and thoughts, providing four nontheistic arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: (1) “it offends me”; (2) slippery slope; (3) “pain can be alleviated”; (4) physician integrity and patient trust.

Lay Summary: Presented here are four non-religious, reasonable arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: (1) “it offends me,” suicide devalues human life; (2) slippery slope, the limits on euthanasia gradually erode; (3) “pain can be alleviated,” palliative care and modern therapeutics more and more adequately manage pain; (4) physician integrity and patient trust, participating in suicide violates the integrity of the physician and undermines the trust patients place in physicians to heal and not to harm.

Introduction

In its first issue of 2015, The Linacre Quarterly published the text of a secular debate held at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine ( Bloodworth et al. 2015 ), hoping it would re-kindle interest in formulating arguments and contribute to increasingly common discussions in society about physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia. As that paper was offered to engender dialog, it was hoped that other reflections would follow. As it happened, around the same time that the Bloodworth publication was being prepared, a debate was held by Intelligence Squared U.S. ( Intelligence Squared 2014a ) on legalizing physician-assisted suicide featuring Professors Peter Singer and Andrew Solomon “for” and Doctors Daniel Sulmasy and Ilora Finlay “against” the legalization of PAS. 1 Herein we build upon Doctor Sulmasy's opening and closing arguments from that debate, supplemented by other non-faith-based arguments and thoughts intended to further this conversation, focusing on objections to legalizing these practices. In this manuscript, we will thus review the Bloodworth article, present the Intelligence Squared opening and closing statements “against PAS” and then expound upon four key arguments against PAS: (1) “it offends me”; (2) slippery slope; (3) “pain can be alleviated”; (4) physician integrity and patient trust.

Before getting into Doctor Sulmasy's debate points, it is worthwhile to recount some points raised in the Bloodworth article ( Bloodworth et al. 2015 ). While the debate points presented at Vanderbilt were well-received, common criticisms to some of the assertions made in that piece are worth consideration. For example, one of the main bases for Doctor Ely's argument against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia involved an appeal to natural law. 2 Such appeal to natural law does not presuppose belief in God. The knowledge of natural law is discernible by reason and so it is not fundamentally theistic. While it is true that the Catholic Church in particular has made prominent use of natural law in formulating its ethical positions, natural law is not essentially rooted in any faith tradition (see, for example, Anderson 2005 ; Finnis 2001 ; Goyette, Latkovic, and Myers 2004 ; McInerny 1993 ; Veatch 1971 ). Nonetheless, appeal to natural law is commonly mistaken as an appeal to theism, which many in a secular society dismiss out of hand because of this misperception. These critics often forget the use of natural law reasoning by the founding fathers of the United States. The Vanderbilt debate, for instance, referenced the Declaration of Independence, which is a quintessentially natural law-based set of governing principles. Lastly, the references in that debate to C.S. Lewis from The Abolition of Man were placed strategically and without necessary dependence on Lewis's explicit arguments for theism as the ground of the natural law, and hence morality. Lewis's approach leaves natural law vulnerable to the charge of theism by those who do not accept an ultimate or transcendent justice or goodness as the rule and measure of human actions. Lewis's position regarding the theistic basis of natural law is not, however, widely accepted by natural law scholars, the authors of this paper, or the Catholic Church.

The Bloodworth article was, as billed, a mere starting point. Doctors Sulmasy and Finlay developed a sophisticated, philosophical “devil's advocate” approach that was ultimately successful. They discerned optimal premises for making the case against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia to avowed non-theistic practitioners of medicine. It is thus our privilege to publish here Doctor Sulmasy's points to continue building the case towards truth in respecting human life nearing its end in the context of the practice of the vocation of medicine. In the tradition of St. Thomas, we take four strong arguments for PAS that arose during the debate (patient autonomy, no slippery slope, unalleviated pain, physician's duty) and argue against them. We base our arguments in reason, with the conviction that the truth in a principle can be discerned and its implications drawn out to a logical conclusion, and an error can be shown to have a contradiction at its heart.

Doctor Sulmasy's Opening Statement 3

I am a physician. Part of my job is to help people die in comfort and with dignity. But I do not want to help you, or your daughter, or your uncle commit suicide. You should not want me to. I urge you to oppose physician-assisted suicide: it represents bad ethical reasoning, bad medicine, and bad policy. I am going to concentrate on the first of these lines of argument. Ilora will take up the latter two.

We strongly support the right of patients to refuse treatments and believe physicians have a duty to treat pain and other symptoms, even at the risk of hastening death. But empowering physicians to assist patients with suicide is quite another matter—striking at the heart not just of medical ethics, but at the core of ethics itself. That is because the very idea of interpersonal ethics depends upon our mutual recognition of each other's equal independent worth, the value we have simply because we are human. Some would have you believe that morality depends upon equal interests (usually defined by our preferences) and advance utilitarian arguments based on that assumption. 4

But which is morally more important, people or their interests? As Aristotle observed, small errors at the beginning of an argument lead to large errors at the end. 5 If interests take precedence over people, then assisting the suicide of a patient who has lost interest in living certainly is morally praiseworthy. But it also follows that active euthanasia ought to be permitted. It also follows that the severely demented can be euthanized once they no longer have interests. They can also freely be experimented upon as excellent human “models” for research. It also follows that infanticide ought to be permitted for infants with congenital illness.

Many would see these conclusions as frightful, but this is not just a slippery slope. They all follow logically from arguing for assisted suicide on the basis of maximizing personal interests. So if you do not believe in euthanasia for severely disabled children or the demented, you might want to re-think your support for assisted suicide. At least if you want to be consistent.

People often argue that they need assisted suicide to preserve their dignity, but that word has at least two senses. Proponents use the word in an attributed sense to denote the value others confer on them or the value they confer on themselves. But there is a deeper, intrinsic sense of dignity.

Human dignity ultimately rests not on a person's interests, but on the value of the person whose interests they are; and the value of the person is infinite. I do not need to ask you what your preferences are to know that you have incalculable worth, simply because you are human. Martin Luther King said that he learned this from his grandmother who told him, “Martin, don't let anybody ever tell you you're not a Somebody” ( Baker-Fletcher 1993 , 23). This some-bodiness, this intrinsic worth or dignity, was at the heart of the civil rights movement.

It does not matter what a person looks like, how productive the person might be, how others view that person, or even how that person may have come to view herself. What matters is that everybody, black or white, healthy or sick, is a somebody . Assisted suicide and euthanasia require us to accept that it is morally permissible to act with the specific intention-in-acting of making a somebody into a nobody , i.e., to make them dead.

Intentions, not just outcomes, matter in ethics. Intending that a somebody be turned into a nobody violates the fundamental basis of all of interpersonal ethics—the intrinsic dignity of the human.

Our society worships independence, youth, and beauty. Yet we know that illness and aging often bring dependence and disfigurement. The terminally ill, especially, need to be reminded of their value, their intrinsic dignity, at a time of fierce doubt. They need to know that their ultimate value does not depend upon their appearance, productivity, or independence.

You see, physician-assisted suicide flips the default switch. The question the terminally ill hear, even if never spoken, is, “You've become a burden to yourself and the rest of us. Why haven't you gotten rid of yourself yet?” A good utilitarian would think this a proper question—even a moral duty.

As a physician who cares for dying patients, however, I am more fearful of the burden this question imposes on the many who might otherwise choose to live , than the modest restriction imposed on a few, when physician-assisted suicide is illegal.

Assisted suicide should not be necessary. Pain and other symptoms can almost always be alleviated. As evidence, consider that pain or other symptoms rarely come up as reasons for assisted suicide. The top reasons are: fear of being a burden and wanting to be in control ( Oregon Public Health Division 2015 , 5).

You may ask, “Why shouldn't I have this option?” And yet we all realize that society puts many restrictions on individual liberty, and for a variety of reasons: to protect other parties, to promote the common good, and to safeguard the bases of law and morality. For example, we do not permit persons to drive when drunk, or to freely sell themselves into slavery.

Paradoxically, in physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, patients turn the control over to physicians, who assess their eligibility and provide the means. Further, death obliterates all liberty. Therefore, saying that respect for liberty justifies the obliteration of liberty actually undermines the value we place on human freedom.

Doctor Sulmasy's Closing Statement

I have been on talk shows and received call-in questions from patients who ask how I can be opposed to physician-assisted suicide when they are getting sick from chemotherapy, suffering complications from the big IV they have in their neck, have intense pain, and are spending more time in the hospital than outside it. But I ask them, why are you still getting chemotherapy? Why not have the IV removed? Why not ask for hospice or palliative care to control your pain? Why not just stay home? You should have no need for assisted suicide. 6 Most supporters of physician-assisted suicide want what opponents want—respect for their dignity and attention to their individual needs.

But we are all human beings—fragile, interdependent, and connected in bonds of mutual respect and support. Suicide is always an act of communication and has profound interpersonal implications. Many persons who raise the question of suicide are really testing the waters, asking us if we care enough to try to stop them. When we do not stop them, or even say, “I'll help you,” we confirm their deepest fears and make it difficult for them to see an alternative. And when the suicide happens, physicians and families must live for the rest of their lives with fact that they did not try to intervene.

We should not construct a society that makes assisted suicide easy or common. We should re-direct our energies towards making sure that all patients get the kind of care we all want—helping us live to the fullest even as we are dying. Vote for that kind of high quality, compassionate care at the end of life, and the sort of moral world that makes it possible, by voting No on physician-assisted suicide.

Debate Result and Some of the Arguments

Doctors Sulmasy and Finlay won the debate according to its rules, by persuading the most members of the live audience to change their minds. While the live audience in New York City began the debate with 65 percent in favor of legalizing assisted suicide, only 10 percent opposed, and 25 percent undecided, after the debate, 67 percent were in favor but 22 percent were opposed to legalization. The unofficial online polling changed from 5 percent opposed to legalization before the debate to 51 percent opposed as of March 21, 2016. (See the Results tab at Intelligence Squared 2014a )

In the rest of this article we highlight and expound upon some of the arguments against physician-assisted suicide gleaned from the debate and from the audience comments and questions following it: (1) “It offends me”; (2) the slippery slope; (3) “pain can be alleviated”; and (4) physician integrity and patient trust. We take care not to frame them within a faith-based context. While we believe that faith-based arguments are strong, our intention in arguing from reason is that all too many people are quickly dismissive of faith-based arguments. Our aim is to advance the conversation from this perspective. As noted earlier, the hope is to have new and other iterations of the pro-life arguments readily available to reach as broad a swath of people as possible, believers and non-believers alike.

“It Offends Me” Argument

Certainly everyone should strive not to be offensive to others, but whether one is offended or not, partly depends upon the person potentially offended. To offend someone is to attack, violate, or cause resentful displeasure to a person. This presupposes that the one offended recognizes the attack, violation, or resentment, and so the argument vis-à-vis assisted suicide is that when one willfully kills oneself, or requests to be killed, every other human being should rightfully be offended. Why? Because subsumed in the action of one killing oneself (or requesting to be killed) is the implied announcement that one's life (human life) is somehow not as valuable as it otherwise would be if one were not in a position to seek one's death (For to value life contradicts the act of killing, and if one values life, one does not commit suicide or ask to be killed.). To assert that one values human life, and at the same time to commit suicide is contradictory and illogical. So, to kill oneself (willfully, i.e., to distinguish this form of suicide from suicide in association with mental illness or other clinical pathology) necessarily devalues human life. And, because we are all human beings, therefore, every human being is (or should be) resentful of his or her life being devalued.

Now some may grant that killing oneself is an expression of devaluing life, but only that individual person's life, and no one else's, arguing therefore, that there is no basis for one's willful suicide (or its request) to be offensive to anyone else. The fundamental problem, however, with this reasoning is that human beings are relational (natural law). It is part of the essence of being human to exist in a relationship to another. According to Thomas Aquinas, the third precept of the natural law is “an inclination to good, according to the nature of his reason … thus man has a natural inclination … to live in society” ( Aquinas 1948 , I–II, q. 94, a. 2). And Aristotle viewed a particular relationship, that of friendship, to be a virtue and “most indispensable for life” ( Aristotle 1962/1980 , bk. 8, ch. 1). Indeed the very origin of an individual necessitates the relationship of two other human beings—a mother and a father—and a human being exists in relationships with others by his or her very nature. Human beings then are always, and essentially a part of a community of persons, and as such because of this connection with others (as part of humanity), when another person kills him- or herself or allows him- or herself to be killed, life for every other human being is cheapened (devalued). Such an action says to some degree, that life is not worth it; and although the effect on others may be seemingly miniscule, the more it happens the greater the effect on others (like compounding interest on money). Moral actions very much and very often have consequences for others, even when there appears to be no connection. 7

The Slippery Slope Argument

One of the issues brought up in the debate over physician-assisted suicide is the slippery slope argument: If physician-assisted suicide is made legal, then other things will follow, with the final end being the legalizing of euthanasia for anyone for any reason or no reason. The experience of other countries shows that this is not theoretical. The Netherlands is an example of the slippery slope on which legalizing physician-assisted suicide puts us. In the 1980s the Dutch government stopped prosecuting physicians who committed voluntary euthanasia on their patients ( Jackson 2013 , 931–932; Patel and Rushefsky 2015 , 32–33). By the 1990s over 50 percent of acts of euthanasia were no longer voluntary. This is according to the 1991 Remmelink Report, a study on euthanasia requested by the Dutch government and conducted by the Dutch Committee to Study the Medical Practice Concerning Euthanasia ( Euthanasia.com 2014 ; Patients Rights Council 2013a ; Van Der Maas et al. 1991 ). In 2001 euthanasia was made legal. And in 2004 it was decided that children also could be euthanized. According to Wesley Smith, in a Weekly Standard article in 2004, “In the Netherlands, Groningen University Hospital has decided its doctors will euthanize children under the age of 12, if doctors believe their suffering is intolerable or if they have an incurable illness.” The hospital then developed the Groningen Protocol to decide who should die. Smith comments,

It took the Dutch almost 30 years for their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg. For those who object to this assertion by claiming that German doctors killed disabled babies during World War II without consent of parents, so too do many Dutch doctors: Approximately 21% of the infant euthanasia deaths occurred without request or consent of parents. ( Smith 2004 )

Euthanasia in the Netherlands went from illegal but not prosecuted, to legal, to including children . And it is not stopping there ( Schadenberg 2013 ). Now, in 2011, Radio Netherlands reported that “the Dutch Physicians Association (KNMG) says unbearable and lasting suffering should not be the only criteria physicians consider when a patient requests euthanasia.” The association published a new set of guidelines, “which says a combination of social factors and diseases and ailments that are not terminal may also qualify as unbearable and lasting suffering under the Euthanasia Act.” These social factors include “decline in other areas of life such as financial resources, social network, and social skills” ( RNW 2011 ). So a person with non-life threatening health problems but who is poor or lonely can request to be euthanized.

In another example of the slippery slope to which physician-assisted suicide leads, in 2002 Belgium “legaliz[ed] euthanasia for competent adults and emancipated minors.” In February of 2014, Belgium took the next step:

Belgium legalized euthanasia by lethal injection for children…. Young children will be allowed to end their lives with the help of a doctor in the world's most radical extension of a euthanasia law. Under the law there is no age limit to minors who can seek a lethal injection. Parents must agree with the decision, however, there are serious questions about how much pressure will be placed on parents and/or their children. ( Patients Rights Council 2013b )

Some say that the US state laws concerning physician-assisted suicide are very restrictive and so there is no chance of erosion such as has happened in the Netherlands or Belgium ( Intelligence Squared 2014b , 34). Yet, if there is no moral or philosophical basis for PAS laws in the common good, then there is no telling how far changes to PAS laws will go in the future, and no stopping the changes.

“Pain Can Be Alleviated” Argument

In medicine, we talk much these days about a “good death,” not necessarily one that is completely free of suffering, but a dying process in which we are attendant to pain and symptom management, optimize clear decision making, and affirm the whole person in as dignified a manner as possible. Importantly, this can often be effectively accomplished through incorporation of palliative care services. Palliative care is a healing act adjusted to the good possible even in the face of the realities of an incurable illness. Cure may be futile but care is never futile ( Pellegrino 2001 ). With appropriate utilization of palliative care, far fewer patients would be driven by fear to request that physicians actively end their lives via PAS/E.

Proponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia posit the scenario of uncontrollable pain as a straw man for advancing their cause. Such proponents apparently view death as the ultimate analgesic. In fact, in medical practice today, pain relief is almost always possible given modern therapeutics in analgesia and the medical specialty of pain management. Since pain can be alleviated, there is no basis to assert a need for PAS because of intractable pain. This may explain in part why many requests for PAS are no longer related to or initiated because of intolerable pain, but because of fear of such intolerable pain. Further, closely related to a patient's fear of intolerable pain, and sometimes associated with a patient's fear of being abandoned ( Coyle 2004 ), is a patient's request for PAS because of not wanting to burden others. This too poses a curious contradiction, for on the one hand there is not wanting to be a burden on a loved one, and on the other hand a fear of being alone and abandoned. Such a contradiction, once considered and coupled with the fact that pain can be addressed successfully through optimal palliative care implementation, enhances the power of this argument against PAS/E.

The Oregon law was enacted on the basis of intolerable pain — no one should be forced to endure pain that is uncontrollable and unendurable. Most of us can sympathize with that, but the law is not restricted to pain, and it is not pain that is the top reason people choose physician-assisted suicide in Oregon. The state's “Death with Dignity Act Annual Report” for 2014 shows that the top reason is “losing autonomy” ( Oregon Public Health Division 2015 , 5). Concern about pain was not even the second or third reason: “Less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable” and “Loss of dignity.” It was ranked sixth out of seven, above only financial concerns, and included not only “inadequate pain control,” but also “concern about it.” These patients were not necessarily in uncontrollable pain themselves, however they were concerned about it (as are we all). But even that concern did not rank high on their list of reasons that they wanted to commit suicide. Even if the line drawn is unbearable pain, how can that be restricted to only physical pain? Who can judge that mental anguish is not unbearable pain? Or that economic distress (or anything else that causes anguish) is not unbearable pain?

Physician Integrity and Patient Trust Argument

When a patient asks a physician to assist in killing him- or herself, not only is there disrespect shown to the physician's integrity, but a contradiction is created. Asking a physician to participate in PAS undermines the principled ethic and integrity of the physician whose noble profession is defined as one of compassionate service of the patient who is vulnerable, wounded, sick, alone, alienated, afraid; and undermines the integrity or wholesomeness of the patient, who him- or herself is in desperate need of trying to achieve. To ask and expect a physician to participate in the destructive act of suicide violates both personal and professional integrity of the physician, and leaves both the patient and the physician at risk for moral confusion about what is good, true, and beautiful about the human person.

The threat of euthanasia posed by legalizing PAS also undermines trust between physician and patient.

Both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide would undermine the medical profession by eroding the trust of patients in their physicians as caregivers. If doctors were permitted to engage in practices that harm their patients, then patients would never know if their doctors were truly acting in their best interests. ( Austriaco 2011 , 148)

Will your doctor kill you if he or she thinks you are too ill or in too much pain or unconscious? The Oath of Hippocrates has guided physicians for twenty-four hundred years. The Oath states,

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice…

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. ( Tyson 2001 )

Even with all the advances in medicine over the last one to two hundred years, the public perception is still that the Hippocratic Oath is an important indicator that the patient in his or her vulnerability can put trust in the physician ( Lederer 1999 , 102). Euthanasia by health-care professionals undermines that trust.

Lack of trust is not just something that may or may not happen if euthanasia is legalized. It is happening in countries that have legalized euthanasia. Austriaco points out that “many Dutch patients, before they will check themselves into hospitals, insist on writing contracts assuring that they will not be killed without their explicit consent” ( Austriaco 2011 , 148). As stated earlier, in the 1980s the Dutch government stopped prosecuting physicians who committed voluntary euthanasia on their patients. By the 1990s over 50 percent of acts of euthanasia were no longer voluntary. This has had a deleterious effect on the relationship of patients to health-care professionals. An article in 2011 in the Telegraph , a newspaper in the UK, stated that “Elderly people in the Netherlands are so fearful of being killed by doctors that they carry cards saying they do not want euthanasia” ( Beckford 2011 ). The Dutch elderly mistrust their own doctors.

Trust is not the only issue concerning the integrity of medicine: PAS also calls into question the very ends of medicine to cure and to care. Christopher Saliga, a nurse, explains that

One can rightly say that in Oregon, the balance has shifted such that respect for autonomy currently has greater weight among the principles hanging in the balance than it had prior to the legalization of assisted suicide. As a result, the contradictory patient outcomes of life and death via continued care or willful suicide respectively are considered equally valid. ( Saliga 2005 , 22–23)

Medicine and the medical profession traditionally aimed at curing and healing. Assisting in a suicide is neither cure nor healing. It pits the medical profession against itself: curing and caring versus killing.

We offer the following table of the salient points comprising the non-faith-based arguments against PAS (Table  1 ).

Table 1

Concluding remarks.

As the secular world pushes more and more the agenda of personal autonomy and relativism, breeches of long-held ethical standards and our oath as physicians are increasingly apparent. On this topic of PAS and euthanasia, it is worth pointing out that in the practice of critical care medicine at the highest level of academia, there are now movements to endorse “shortening of the dying process” (SDP), which is a euphemism for physician-assisted suicide at best, and in effect, a synonym for murder when unilaterally committed by a health-care professional in the absence of legal approval. In fact, in one Belgian statement, the authors endorsed using medications to end patients’ lives even in the absence of suffering ( Vincent et al. 2014 , n. 6), a practice that was found offensive and actively rebutted by a group of Dutch physicians ( Kompanje et al. 2014 ). Such SDP is a practice that was reported by 2 percent of physicians in seven European countries ( Sprung et al. 2003 ), but which is felt by 79 percent of physicians to be wrong and intolerable even if allowed by law ( Sprung et al. 2014 ). With such active conversations occurring, especially now that the Canadian Supreme Court has recently ruled in favor of physician-assisted suicide, it is more important than ever to be adept with defense of life arguments, which are also arguments in defense of the healing profession of medicine at large.

All is not lost in medicine just because we have no cure and see a patient's life nearing its end. This represents a time in which we as physicians must focus, as Edmund Pellegrino taught, on elevating human dignity and the preservation of self-worth for each and every patient:

To care, comfort, be present, help with coping, and to alleviate pain and suffering are healing acts as well as cure. In this sense, healing can occur when the patient is dying even when cure is impossible. Palliative care is a healing act adjusted to the good possible even in the face of the realities of an incurable illness. Cure may be futile but care is never futile. ( Pellegrino 2001 )

We invite others to contribute to this ongoing debate, and to continue the dialog, hoping that some of it will be captured on the pages of this journal.

Biographies

Daniel P. Sulmasy, M.D., Ph.D., is the Kilbride-Clinton Professor of Medicine and Ethics in the Department of Medicine and Divinity School; associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics in the Department of Medicine; director, Program on Medicine and Religion at the University of Chicago.

Deacon John M. Travaline, M.D., is a professor of Thoracic Medicine and Surgery at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Louise A. Mitchell, M.T.S., M.A., is associate editor of The Linacre Quarterly , and an adjunct professor of bioethics.

E. Wesley Ely, M.D., M.P.H., is a professor of Medicine and Critical Care at Vanderbilt University, the Vanderbilt Center for Health Services Research, and associate director of Research for the Tennessee Valley VA Geriatric Research Education Clinical Center in Nashville, TN, USA.

1 Intelligence Squared U.S. is a program which presents prominent figures before a live audience debating important timely issues of our time. More information can be found at http://intelligencesquaredus.org .

2 In essence, the natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie. Catechism of the Catholic Church (2000), n. 1954 .

3 Doctor Sulmasy's opening and closing statements are printed verbatim. A few notes and references have been added. For the transcript, see Intelligence Squared (2014b) .

4 See Singer (1993 , 13–14, 21–26, 57, 94–95).

5 Aristotle. On the heavens (I.5, 271b9–10), in The Basic Works of Aristotle , ed. Richard McKeon (New York: Random House, 1941), 404.

6 The authors' understanding of palliative care is that it is present first and foremost to help the patient (and family) live maximally in the face of life-threatening illness and, in that sense, can provide great benefit to the patient and loved ones well before he or she is imminently dying. Whenever it is deemed appropriate in the course of a patient's life and dying process, the palliative care team's focus on “iving maximally” may be best achieved by coordinating activities to optimize the patient's comfort, function, relationships, healing, dignity, and preparation for natural death.

7 Further, if we were to develop this line of reasoning in a faith-based model, it would involve the notion that there is no such thing as a private sin.

• Anderson Owen. 2005. Is contemporary natural law theory a beneficial development? The attempt to study natural law and the human good without metaphysics . New Blackfriars 86 ( September ): 478–92. doi: 10.1111/j.0028-4289.2005.00102.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aquinas Thomas. 1948. Summa theologiae . Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aristotle 1962/1980. Nichomachean ethics . Translated by Martin Ostwald. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
• Austriaco Nicanor Pier Giorgio. 2011. Biomedicine and beatitude: An introduction to catholic bioethics . Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baker-Fletcher Garth. 1993. Somebodyness: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the theory of dignity . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckford Martin. 2011. Fearful elderly people carry “anti-euthanasia cards.” The Telegraph , April 21, 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8466996/Fearful-elderly-people-carry-anti-euthanasia-cards.html .
• Bloodworth M., Bloodworth N., and Ely E. W.. 2015. A template for non-religious-based discussions against euthanasia . The Linacre Quarterly 82 : 49–54. doi: 10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000036 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 2000. 2nd ed., translated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
• Coyle N. 2004. In their own words: Seven advanced cancer patients describe their experience with pain and the use of opioid drugs . Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 27 : 300–309. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2003.08.008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Euthanasia.com 2014. Euthanasia results in the Netherlands – Number of cases in 1990. Chart. www.euthanasia.com/hollchart.html .
• Finnis John. 2001. Natural law and natural rights . Oxford: Clarendon Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goyette John, Latkovic Mark S., and Myers Richard S., eds. 2004. St. Thomas Aquinas and the natural law tradition: Contemporary perspectives . Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Intelligence Squared 2014a. Legalize assisted suicide . November 13, 2014. http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/upcoming-debates/item/1160-legalize-assisted-suicide .
• Intelligence Squared 2014b. Legalize assisted suicide debate transcript. November 13, 2014. http://intelligencesquaredus.org/images/debates/past/transcripts/111314%20Assisted%20Suicide.pdf .
• Jackson Emily. 2013. Medical law: Text, cases, and materials . Oxford: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kompanje E. J., Epker J. L., and Bakker. J. 2014. Hastening death due to administration of sedatives and opioids after withdrawal of life-sustaining measures: Even in the absence of discomfort ? Journal of Critical Care 29 : 455–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.02.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lederer Susan E. 1999. Medical ethics and the media: Oaths, codes and popular culture . In The American medical ethics revolution: How the AMA's code of ethics has transformed physicians’ relationships to patients, professionals, and society , eds. Baker Robert B., Caplan Arthur L., Emanuel Linda L., and Latham Stephen R.. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• McInerny Ralph. 1993. The question of christian ethics . Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oregon Public Health Division 2015. Oregon's death with dignity act—2014 , February 12, 2015. https://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year17.pdf .
• Patel Kant, and Rushefsky Mark E.. 2015. Health care policy in an age of new technologies . Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patients Rights Council 2013a. Background about Euthanasia in the Netherlands. http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/holland-background/ .
• Patients Rights Council 2013b. Belgium. http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/belgium/ .
• Pellegrino E. D. 2001. The internal morality of clinical medicine: A paradigm for the ethics of the helping and healing professions . The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26 : 559–79. doi: 10.1076/jmep.26.6.559.2998 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• RNW 2011. Euthanasia advice redefines suffering , September 8, 2011. http://www.rnw.org/archive/euthanasia-advice-redefines-suffering .
• Saliga Christopher. 2005. Unpublished thesis for bioethics certificate . Boston: The National Catholic Bioethics Center. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schadenberg Alex. 2013. Netherlands 2012 euthanasia report: Sharp increase in euthanasia deaths. Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (blog). September 24, 2013. http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com.tr/2013/09/netherlands-euthanasia-report-indicates.html .
• Singer Peter. 1993. Practical ethics . 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith Wesley. 2004. Now they want to euthanize children. The Weekly Standard , September 13, 2004. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/616jszlg.asp .
• Sprung C. L., Cohen S. L., Sjokvist P., Baras M., Bulow H. H., Hovilehto S., Ledoux D., Lippert A., Maia P., Phelan D., Schobersberger W., Wennberg E., Woodcock T., and Ethicus Study, Group 2003. End-of-life practices in European intensive care units: The ethicus study . JAMA 290 : 790–7. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.6.790 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sprung C. L., Truog R. D., Curtis J. R., Joynt G. M., Baras M., Michalsen A., Briegel J., Kesecioglu J., Efferen L., De Robertis E., Bulpa P., Metnitz P., Patil N., Hawryluck L., Manthous C., Moreno R., Leonard S., Hill N. S., Wennberg E., Mcdermid R. C., Mikstacki A., Mularski R. A., Hartog C. S., and Avidan A. 2014. Seeking worldwide professional consensus on the principles of end-of-life care for the critically ill. The consensus for worldwide end-of-life practice for patients in intensive care units (WELPICUS) study . American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 190 : 855–66. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201403-0593CC [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tyson Peter. 2001. The hippocratic oath today. Nova . http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath-today.html .
• Van Der Maas P. J., Van Delden J. J., Pijnenborg L., and Looman C. W.. 1991. Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life . The Lancet 338 , no. 8768 (September 14 ): 669–74. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)91241-L [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Veatch Henry B. 1971. For an ontology of morals: A critique of contemporary ethical theory . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vincent J. L., Schetz M., De Waele J. J., De Clety S. C., Michaux I., Sottiaux T., Hoste E., Ledoux D., De Weerdt A., Wilmer A., and Belgian Society Of Intensive Care 2014. “Piece” of mind: End of life in the intensive care unit statement of the Belgian society of intensive care medicine . Journal of Critical Care 29 : 174–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2013.08.025 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

An Argument Against Euthanasia

There are many approaches to the concept and practice of euthanasia. In one definition, euthanasia is described as a quick death in which pain is almost absent. 1 However, there is one common understanding of euthanasia in the modern society.

Euthanasia is the ending of a person’s life to help the particular individual avoid pain and suffering that would have otherwise been inevitable if he or she had continued living. 2 In many countries, euthanasia is illegal.

However, some countries allow euthanasia to be performed on individuals on their own consent or with the approval of a next of kin. This means that when a person’s life becomes so painful that it is not worth living anymore, euthanasia can be performed to alleviate the immense suffering.

Euthanasia has been a subject of arguments among religious authorities. It has also been a subject of controversy and study in the complex field of philosophy. 3 While several authorities in philosophy support euthanasia through their theories, most oppose it.

Some of the philosophies revolve around the extent to which life may not be worth living, while other theories revolve around the duty of the parties involved in a case of euthanasia. Deontology has been against euthanasia from many perspectives.

Many ethicists and authors who have used deontology against euthanasia have relied on the concept of duty. 4 However, it is important to note that deontology in philosophy revolves around one’s duties and the manner in which they are executed. 5

Generally, it is contrary to the duty of the subject of euthanasia and that of those who intend to perform the mercy killing to take one’s life based on their own assessment of the quality of one’s life.

Philosophical deontology revolves around principles of duty. One is obligated to perform duties even when odds are against success. There are various forms of philosophical deontology.

One of the most popular approaches to deontology is the Kantian philosophy of duty. Kant’s postulations regarding perfect duties can be used to build a solid argument against euthanasia. 6

Other authors such as Brian Kane have indirectly used deontology to present an argument favoring preservation of life. 7 In his analysis of euthanasia, Kane also explores many arguments that people present when advocating for euthanasia.

Thus, when deontology is applied to euthanasia, it revolves around the duty to preserve life. 8 However, in other settings, deontology may go against the duty to preserve life. This arises from contradictions such as those presented by Kant’s interpretation of the duty not to lie and the duty not to kill.

According to Kant, one must not lie to a potential murderer to alleviate an almost certain act of murder. 9 However, Kant’s deontology argues against actions such as suicide and euthanasia since these practices violate an individual’s duties to oneself.

Deontology provides one of the strongest arguments against euthanasia. This theory and its interpretation depend on one’s view of life. However, in the quest to establish an argument against euthanasia, it is necessary to have a positive attitude towards living.

From that point, it is possible to establish a solid argument against euthanasia using deontology. Brian Kane uses Hippocratic philosophy to argue against euthanasia. This philosophy alludes to one’s duty not to kill. When one performs the contrary action of killing, then this is considered murder.

There is an exception of those people who are killed for their transgressions against ethical principles of a society. Thus, killing for any other reason, including mercy, is murder. 10 According to this author, human beings always had the ability to take life.

On the contrary, the ability to extend life and heal diseases and other afflictions has been acquired by humanity through laborious research and enlightenment. Thus, it is our duty to preserve life rather than kill. 11

Kane observes that killing does not change its nature even when technology and modern medicine are used to camouflage the negligence of duty behind euthanasia. He later argues that even Christian doctrines and other religious beliefs consider life it all its different forms, a sanctified gift from God. 12

Furthermore, when one perform euthanasia on a patient that has been for while under the individual’s care, this becomes a contradiction of one’s moral principles. In that case, euthanasia is considered a betrayal of the person under care. 13

Brian Kane’s deduction based on deontology is a reasonable ground for one to reject euthanasia as an immoral action. The decision to perform a mercy killing on a suffering individual is abandonment of a person with whom the medic performing the euthanasia has shown immeasurable solidarity earlier by providing care and support.

Euthanasia also goes against the universal principles of practice of the medical profession.

On the other hand, Kantian deontology has its own special argument against euthanasia. All aspects of Kantian philosophy revolve around duty, goodwill and categorical imperative, the philosophy of pure reason. 14

One should observe duties at all time despite the odds. In one illustration, Kant argues that it is immoral to lie to a murderer in order to alleviate occurrence of the murder. He argues that lying to anyone denies one the freedom to make a rational deduction. 15

In the case of euthanasia, Kantian philosophy can be applied to imply that we must preserve life at all costs. 16 Throughout history, it has been the practice of people to preserve life at all odds. This has led to development of modern medicine, which is a universal practice.

For this reason, it is a universal duty for everybody to work towards extending life in its various forms regardless of the situation. Thus, it would be immoral for one to end another person’s life for any reason. Doing so would go against the duty to preserve life.

I agree with Kant’s philosophy of duty to oneself and duty to not to kill. Consider medics personnel who spend most of their time making decisions aimed at prolonging other people’s lives. These people have been charged with the duty to preserve life through application of technology and modern medicine.

This universally accepted practice is applied in all societies in the world. A medic should thus, not perform euthanasia under any circumstances. If it is the patient’s will that euthanasia be performed, the medic is morally obliged to decline to perform euthanasia.

In addition, the medic must go to the furthest extent in his or her quest to observe the duty to preserve life.

Kantian philosophy can also be applied from another perspective to the same effect. When it is a patient’s wish to die to avoid immense suffering, he or she must not be aided to take his or her life. Kantian deontology directly addresses the issue of duty to oneself.

According to Kant, every person has a duty to preserve one’s life. 17 This is a universal law accepted and applied in every society. This makes it a perfect duty not to take an innocent person’s life for any reason. The same kind of reasoning is applied to suicide.

It is immoral to take one’s life since such an action does not apply universally. In fact, suicide is not acceptable in many societies. Similarly, it is universally unacceptable to take any life since it goes against ones duty as it is universally defined.

If it were universally acceptable that people can take their own lives, then there would be a significant possibility that the human race would not exist. This is a deduction by Immanuel Kant in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.

Kant lays a strong foundation for deontology, particularly regarding professional conduct in all disciplines. Fields such as medicine, which require a substantial moral foundation for productive practice, are affected by Kant’s philosophical reasoning.

According to Kant, deontology opposes any action that goes against universally accepted norms. 18 Incidentally, euthanasia falls in this category of actions that are accepted in some instances but are not universally acceptable. Kant’s philosophy is a reasonable ground for the medical society to decline to practice euthanasia.

Deontology explicitly outlines the universal purpose of medicine, technology and medical personnel, which is to preserve life. For this reason, it is immoral for anyone to assist any individual to die for whatever reason.

Another author, Robert Young, considers euthanasia as a rational act by qualified personnel to end suffering of a patient. He says that it is prudent for a qualified medic to induce death or allow a patient to die to alleviate pain and suffering. 19

For such an action to be morally acceptable, the euthanasia should not have a beneficial effect to any other person other than the patient.

Thus, euthanasia is performed for the sake of the suffering individual. 20 While expressing his view, Young seeks to exclude instances where people kill themselves to alleviate suffering without any assistance. He maintains that the decision to perform euthanasia should be a result of an assessment by a qualified person.

Young also excludes cases of people who are such an invalid state that they are not in a position to decide whether to have euthanasia performed or not 21 .

For a case of euthanasia to be of moral value, the patient must request for the procedure, and the medic involved must be in a position to assess the condition of the patient and ascertain that the patient indeed suffering. Young further cites David Hume, who sought to append moral justification to suicide. 22

He says that personal autonomy is paramount and should be respected. For him, it is immoral to keep a suffering person alive against one’s will. Thus, euthanasia should be morally acceptable when it is done within certain defined moral guidelines that involve the authority of the subject to euthanasia.

David Hume dismissed religious authorities as unfair to those people who committed suicide by denying them the freedom to choose not to live when life becomes unbearable. Thus, under certain circumstances, euthanasia is acceptable according to Young.

Robert Young’s position seems to approve some forms of euthanasia. It is impossible for any medic, however competent, to accurately determine the validity and extent of suffering of any individual. Moreover, it is impossible to ascertain the motive of the patient’s will despite the perceived suffering.

For this reason, I disagree with his proposition that some experts are able to determine when life becomes unbearable.

Furthermore, it is the duty of the medic to prolong life regardless of the utterances and expressions of the patient. This is justified by the fact that no one can accurately assess the mental situation of another person.

There are several strengths and weaknesses in the theories pertaining euthanasia as presented by Kant, Kane and Young. Kane’s theory seeks to maintain a disciplined practice in the medical profession. In that case, a medic observes duty without allowing emotional consequences to alter the course of his or her actions.

This way, the medical practitioner is able to give service to the suffering people objectively. However, Kane has postulated that the sole duty and obligation of the medical profession is to prolong life when it s possible to do so. He has not adequately tried to exclude euthanasia as one of the duties the medics have to perform.

In addition, he has not presented facts that adequately support the theory that the duty of medical practitioners is to prolong life. One can still claim that it is the ultimate aim of medical profession to alleviate pain and suffering, consequently including euthanasia as one of the profession’s duties.

On the other hand, Kant defines actions of moral value as those that are universally acceptable. His theory succeeds in excluding actions such as euthanasia among those that are universally acceptable. This is important since it prevents humans from engaging in morally questionable practices.

He simply seeks to avoid approving actions that have moral doubt for universal practice. The only weakness in Kant’s deontology is the concept of universal acceptance. Even vices such as murder are not universally condemned since there are societies where they are accepted.

Primitive societies, even in developed nations, have occasionally accepted murder as an action with moral value. It cannot be preservation of life is not a universal practice acceptable to all societies. Some societies allow people to perform euthanasia based on age or ailment.

Thus, one can argue that preservation of life is not universally acceptable.

Robert young’s theory has little strength. It may be beneficial to those who are living by sparing them the ordeal of seeing a person to whom they are emotionally connected suffer. However, there is a major weakness in the definition of qualified personnel competent enough to perform euthanasia.

It is impossible to assess the effects of death since no one knows what follows once one is pronounced clinically dead. It is only assumed that one’s sensory functionalities cease to exist, alleviating pain. No single experiment has succeeded in establishing the experience after death. 23

Whether the experience is painful or not euthanasia relies on an assumption. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, it is impossible for any person to determine the degree of suffering experienced by another with accuracy. 24

Similarly, it impossible to establish the motive of the subject to euthanasia in requesting for a mercy killing. Thus, while the medic performing the procedure might have goodwill, he or she might be an accessory to achieve other motives other than alleviation of pain.

For these reasons, young’s theory is weaker than Kant’s philosophy and Kane’s deontology.

Brian Kane’s approach to deontology is analogous to Kant’s philosophy. Both authors refer to universal practices. Kant’s validates all universally accepted practices as morally upright. On the other hand, Kane observes that it is the universal duty of medical practitioners to prolong life whenever it is possible.

These two theories come to a consensus that universal pratices have a moral value. Thus if the universal duty of medical practitioners is aimed at prolonging life, it is only morally right to work towards achievement of this objective rather than act otherwise.

Kane’s deontology and Kant’s philosophy do not support euthanasia. It is morally unacceptable to assist anyone to die according to the direct analysis of the issue by Brian Kane. Similarly, Application of Kantian deontology automatically makes euthanasia immoral.

Robert Young postulates that it is the duty of the medics to alleviate pain and suffering through euthanasia, a contradiction of Kant’s theory. However, young’s theory agrees with Kane and Kant’s perspective on suicide and euthanasia without the consent of the subject.

He does not append any moral value to euthanasia without the consent of the subject. Robert young’s theory may need to be refined to be accepted as a universal clinical practice.

This refinement involves creation of standard to assess the level of qualification of a medical practitioner to determine the degree of suffering of a potential subject of euthanasia.

Although such a standard is difficult to establish, it is a necessity for euthanasia of people with the consent of the subject to be universally accepted as a duty of medical practitioners.

Currently, euthanasia is largely an unacceptable practice in many societies. It is bound to remain unacceptable until sufficient grounds for its practice are established. However, such grounds are also not possible in the near future.

Darwall, Stephen L.. Deontology . Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2003.

Kane, Brian. The Blessing of Life: An Introduction to Catholic Bioethics . Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011.

Kant, Immanuel, Allen W. Wood, and J. B. Schneewind. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals . New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.

Lammers, Stephen E., and Allen Verhey. On moral medicine: theological perspectives in medical ethics . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987.

Snyder, Carrie L.. Euthanasia . Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006.

Young, Robert. Medically assisted death . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

1 Snyder, Euthanasia, 33.

2 Ibid., 44.

3 Ibid., 65.

4 Darwall, Deontology, 81.

5 Ibid., 83.

6 Kant et al., Groundwork, 31.

7 Kane, Brian. The Blessing of Life,128.

8 Ibid., 132.

9 Kant et al., Groundwork, 34.

10 Kane, Brian. The Blessing of Life,135.

11 Ibid., 137.

12 Ibid., 138.

13 Ibid., 142.

14 Kant et al., Groundwork, 6.

15 Ibid., 7.

16 Ibid., 9.

18 Ibid., 13.

19 Young, Medically assisted death, 5.

20 Ibid., 6.

21 Ibid., 7.

22 Ibid., 9.

23 Lammers & Verhey, On moral medicine, 52.

24 Ibid., 55

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 22). An Argument Against Euthanasia. https://ivypanda.com/essays/an-argument-against-euthanasia/

"An Argument Against Euthanasia." IvyPanda , 22 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/an-argument-against-euthanasia/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'An Argument Against Euthanasia'. 22 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "An Argument Against Euthanasia." November 22, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/an-argument-against-euthanasia/.

1. IvyPanda . "An Argument Against Euthanasia." November 22, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/an-argument-against-euthanasia/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "An Argument Against Euthanasia." November 22, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/an-argument-against-euthanasia/.

• RX-Alert Project: Wireless Medic
• The "Citizen Kane" Film Analysis
• Citizen Kane and The Verdict
• Principles of Ethics Among Biomedical Practitioners
• Euthanasia: Every For and Against
• Classical Hollywood Cinema: The "Citizen Kane" Film
• Reflection of the Historical Period in Welles' "Citizen Kane"
• The Rosebud Functions in the Citizen Kane Film
• “The Aviator” and “Citizen Kane”
• Why Active Euthanasia is Morally Wrong
• Delivering Ethical Health Care
• Ethical Issues in Organ Donation
• Should Parents Be Allowed to Choose the Characteristics of Their Children Through Genetic Manipulation?
• A Sick Medicaid System
• Arguments for the Sale of Organs

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• Euthanasia and...

Euthanasia and assisted dying: the illusion of autonomy—an essay by Ole Hartling

Read our coverage of the assisted dying debate.

• Related content
• Peer review
• Ole Hartling , former chairman
• Danish Council of Ethics, Denmark
• hartling{at}dadlnet.dk

As a medical doctor I have, with some worry, followed the assisted dying debate that regularly hits headlines in many parts of the world. The main arguments for legalisation are respecting self-determination and alleviating suffering. Since those arguments appear self-evident, my book Euthanasia and the Ethics of a Doctor’s Decisions—An Argument Against Assisted Dying 1 aimed to contribute to the international debate on this matter.

I found it worthwhile to look into the arguments for legalisation more closely, with the hope of sowing a little doubt in the minds of those who exhibit absolute certainty in the matter. This essay focuses on one point: the concept of “autonomy.”

(While there are several definitions of voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary euthanasia as well as assisted dying, assisted suicide, and physician assisted suicide, for the purposes of brevity in this essay, I use “assisted dying” throughout.)

Currently, in richer countries, arguments for legalising assisted dying frequently refer to the right to self-determination—or autonomy and free will. Our ability to self-determine seems to be unlimited and our right to it inviolable. The public’s response to opinion poll questions on voluntary euthanasia show that people can scarcely imagine not being able to make up their own minds, nor can they imagine not having the choice. Moreover, a healthy person answering a poll may have difficulty imagining being in a predicament where they simply would not wish to be given the choice.

I question whether self-determination is genuinely possible when choosing your own death. In my book, I explain that the choice will always be made in the context of a non-autonomous assessment of your quality of life—that is, an assessment outside your control. 1

All essential decisions that we make are made in relation to other people. Our decisions are affected by other people, and they affect other people. Although healthy people find it difficult to imagine themselves in situations where they do not decide freely, it is also true that all of us are vulnerable and dependent on others.

Yet autonomy in relation to assisted dying is often viewed in the same way as our fundamental right to choose our own course in life. If we are able to control our lives, then surely we can also control our death. Autonomy with respect to your own death, however, is already halved: you can choose to die if you don’t want to live, but you cannot choose to live if you are about to die.

Decisions about your own death are not made in normal day-to-day contexts. The wish to die arises against a backdrop: of desperation, a feeling of hopelessness, possibly a feeling of being superfluous. Otherwise, the wish would not be there. Thus, it is under these circumstances that the right to self-determination is exercised and the decision is made. Such a situation is a fragile basis for autonomy and an even more fragile basis for decision making. The choice regarding your own death is therefore completely different from most other choices usually associated with the concept of autonomy.

Here are just some of the critical matters that would arise if assisted dying were legalised.

A duty to die

The possibility of choosing to die would inhabit everyone’s consciousness—the patient, the doctor, the relatives, and the care staff—even if not formulated as an out-and-out offer. But if a law on assisted dying gives the patient a right to die, that right may turn into a duty to die. How autonomously can the weakest people act when the world around them deems their ill, dependent, and pained quality of life as beyond recovery?

Patients can find themselves directly or indirectly under duress to choose that option if they consider themselves sufficiently pained and their quality of life sufficiently low. Patients must be at liberty to choose assisted dying freely, of course—that is how it is presented—but the point is that the patient cannot get out of having to choose. It has been called the “prison of freedom.”

Internalised external pressure

Pressure on the patient does not have to be direct or articulated. As pointed out by the US professor of biomedical ethics Daniel Sulmasy it may exist as an “internalised external pressure.” 2 Likewise, the French bioethicist Emmanuel Hirsch states that individual autonomy can be an illusion. The theologian Nigel Biggar quotes Hirsch saying that a patient “may truly want to die, but this desire is not the fruit of his freedom alone, it may be—and most often is—the translation of the attitude of those around him, if not of society as a whole which no longer believes in the value of his life and signals this to him in all sorts of ways. Here we have a supreme paradox: someone is cast out of the land of the living and then thinks that he, personally, wants to die.” 3

The end of autonomy

An inherent problem of autonomy in connection with assisted dying is that a person who uses his or her presumed right to self-determination to choose death definitively precludes himself or herself from deciding or choosing anything. Where death is concerned, your right to self- determination can be exerted only by disposing of it for good. By your autonomy, in other words, you opt to no longer have autonomy. And those around must respect the right to self-determination. The respect refers to a person who is respected, but this is precisely the person who disappears.

Danish philosopher Johannes Sløk, who supported legalisation, said, “The actual concept of death has no content, for death is the same as nothing, and one cannot choose between life and nothing. Rather, therefore, one must speak of opting out; one opts out of life, without thereby choosing anything else. Death is not ‘something other’ than life; it is the cessation or annihilation of life.”

Autonomy is a consistent principle running through the care and management of patients and is enshrined in law. However, a patient’s autonomy means that he or she has the right to decline any treatment. It does not entail a right to have any treatment the patient might wish for. Patients do not have the right to demand treatment that signifies another’s duty to fulfil that right. If that were so, autonomy would be the same as “autocracy”—rule of the self over others. Even though patients have the right to reject any intervention, they do not have the right to demand any intervention. Rejecting any claim that the person might make is not a violation of a patient’s self- determination—for example, there may be sound medical reasons for not complying with a demand. The doctor also has autonomy, allowing him or her to say no. Refusing to kill a person or assist in killing cannot be a violation of that person’s autonomy.

The killing ban

Assisted dying requires the doctor’s moral and physical help. It is a binding agreement between two people: the one who is to be killed and the one who is to kill or assist in killing. But our society does not condone killing as a relationship between two legally competent, consenting people. Exemptions from the killing ban involve war or self-defence and are not justified on the grounds that the killing is done for the “benefit” of someone else.

Valuation of a life

If the action is to be decriminalised, as some people wish, it means the doctor will have to enter into deliberations and arguments for and against a request for assisted dying each time. That is, whether he or she is willing to grant it. The alternative would be to refer the patient to another doctor who might be willing to help—that doctor would still have to assess whether the patient’s life was worth preserving.

Thus, autonomy is not the only factor or even always the key factor when deciding whether assisted dying can be granted. It is not only the patient’s own evaluation that is crucial. The value of the patient’s life must also be assessed as sufficiently low. This demonstrates the limitation of the patient’s self-determination.

Relieving suffering

If a competent and legally capable person must have the option of voluntarily choosing assisted dying in the event of unbearable suffering, why does suffering have to be a requirement? The answer is straightforward: our concepts of assisted dying imply that compassion must form a crucial aspect of the decision—mercy killing and compassionate killing are synonyms. But this leads instantly to the question of why we should not also perform assisted dying on people who are not in a position to ask for it themselves but are also suffering.

Some people find the reasoning unproblematic. It stands to reason that relieving suffering is a duty after all. But in this context it is not unproblematic, because it effectively shifts the focus from the autonomy claimed. According to prevailing ideas about autonomy, patients initially evaluate their quality of life themselves, but ultimately it is those around them who end up gauging that quality and the value of their life. That is to say, the justification for assisted dying is borne on the premise that certain lives are not worth living rather than the presence of a request. The whole point is that in the process, respect for the right to self-determination becomes relative.

Autonomy is largely an illusion in the case of assisted dying. 1 A patient overwhelmed by suffering may be more in need of compassion, care, and love than of a kind offer to help end his or her life. It is not a question of whether people have a right to say that they are unworthy. It is a question of whether they have a right to be believed when saying it.

Ole Hartling is a physician of over 30 years standing, doctor of medical sciences at the University of Copenhagen, professor of health promotion at the University of Roskilde, and an author and co-author of several books and scientific articles published mainly in Scandinavia. Between 2000 and 2007 he was a member of the Danish Council of Ethics and its chair for five years. During this time, the council extensively debated the ethics of euthanasia and assisted dying.

Competing interests: I have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

• Gastmans C ,
• MacKellar C

Euthanasia - Essay Samples And Topic Ideas For Free

Euthanasia, also known as assisted dying or mercy killing, remains a deeply contested ethical and legal issue. Essays could delve into the various forms of euthanasia, such as voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary euthanasia, discussing the moral and legal implications of each. The discourse might extend to the examination of the cultural, religious, and societal attitudes towards euthanasia, exploring how different societies and religious groups perceive the right to die. Discussions could also focus on the experiences of countries and regions that have legalized euthanasia, examining the impact on healthcare practices, legal frameworks, and societal attitudes. Moreover, the broader implications of euthanasia on medical ethics, patient autonomy, and the sanctity of life could be explored to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding euthanasia and the ongoing debates on its legalization and practice. A substantial compilation of free essay instances related to Euthanasia you can find at Papersowl. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Euthanasia: is it Ethical

While doing research on the topic of Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide, I have come to see that people have a hard time believing that this should be an option for people who have terminal illnesses. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect […]

Arguments for and against Euthanasia

Euthanasia is also known as physician-assisted suicide or good death. It refers to the method where animals that are suffering or in discomfort are helped to rest in death. Many pet owners consider Euthanasia a more compassionate manner of bidding their beloved animals goodbye. In the case of people, many states have not legalized euthanasia for people with dementia or those suffering from incurable diseases. Euthanasia creates an ethical dilemma on three main lines: legal, medical, and philosophical. There are […]

Ethics Behind Physician-Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide is the act of intentionally killing yourself with the assistance of someone else. In the United States, physician-assisted suicide is when a physician provides a patient, who meets the criteria of having a terminal illness, with medication in order to terminate their life to relieve pain and/or suffering. Physician-assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia. Euthanasia is illegal in the US. It requires a doctor, or another individual, to administer the medication to the patient. Other terms for […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Why Euthanasia should be Legalised

Did you know that the word euthanasia comes from Greek which means good death? However, Only 9 out of the 196 countries in the world have legalised euthanasia or assisted death, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Japan. - posted on Deccan Chronicle. These are all first world countries that value freedom and I strongly believe that Euthanasia should be extended to all other countries. There are 4 different types of euthanasia voluntary, involuntary, active and passive euthanasia. First, I […]

The Ban on Euthanasia

Imagine your girl best friend gets into a car crash. After the incident, you find out she suffered major spinal cord damage and her legs will be paralyzed for the rest of her life. You go to visit her in the hospital the same week but arrive to shocking news. She tells you she has lost the will to live and wants to be euthanized, or painlessly killed. She tells you she is worried about how this accident will affect […]

Assisted Suicide the Rights we have

The right to assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics ever discussed because of the fact that other people control your life when you are unable to. But some people think that they can stop you from dying even though death is inevitable when one is terminally ill. They think that because of religious and moral reasons they could stop someone from ending their own life. Assisted suicide also known as ""Euthanasia"" is used to make a painless […]

Economic Benefits of Euthanasia

Euthanasia is assisted suicide, it is an action taken by a doctor with consent of the patient in order to relieve immense pain and suffering. However, is the overall process of Euthanasia beneficial for the economy? Based on research, euthanasia is beneficial to the economy, and saves a vast amount of money for families for hospital stays, private insurance companies, taxpayers, and medicare each year. For a hospital stay, the average cost per inpatient day is $2,534.00 for a local […]

Euthanasia Debate

The intention to deliberately help someone accelerate the death of an incurable patient, even to stop his or her suffering has never been an easy task. The ethics of euthanasia is one that has been debated over since the fourth century B.C. Euthanasia is translated from Greek as "good death" or "easy death. At first, the term referred to painless and peaceful natural deaths in old age that occurred in comfortable and familiar surroundings. Today the word is currently understood […]

Physician-assisted Suicide: Right to Die

You may have heard of Physician-assisted suicide before, but what exactly is it? Physician-Assisted suicide is when someone who is terminally ill and completely competent of making choices the right to take their own life, legally with the help of a doctor. Though it seems as if they should be able to do that, in most states the law does get in the way of that. There are ethical and moral issues surrounding this issue. Regardless of those issues, those […]

Religious Perspectives on Euthanasia

Death is one of the most important things that religions deal with. All faiths offer meaning and explanations for death and dying; all faiths try to find a place for death and dying within human experience. Most religions disapprove of euthanasia. Some of them absolutely forbid it. Virtually all religions state that those who become vulnerable through illness or disability deserve special care and protection and that proper end of life care is a much better thing than euthanasia. Religions […]

Active and Passive Euthanasia

Euthanasia is the termination of a terminally ill person's life in order to relieve patients of their severe and untreatable pain. It is further broken down into two types: active and passive. In this paper, I will be focusing on active euthanasia and will argue that it is morally justifiable for a physician to alleviate agony for a patient and their family via direct action. Active euthanasia is morally permissible when a patient explicitly states their consent due to the […]

Physician Assisted Suicide: Medical Practice

Physician assisted suicide is when a physician provides a patient with the necessary means and information to help the patient perform a life ending act. Physician assisted suicide is when is when a person gets prescribed a lethal dose of medication from their physician that they can take when they get ready too. Physician assisted suicide has become an option for those around the world and even legal in certain States in the US. This option is legal in 6 […]

The Controversy over Euthanasia

Euthanasia, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. The growing euthanasia epidemic has raised a profusion of controversy in recent years due to the legal and moral implications. Although described as relatively painless,euthanasia is something that should be methodically and thoroughly thought through because of the permanent effect it […]

Euthanasia and Death Penalty

Euthanasia and death penalty are two controversy topics, that get a lot of attention in today's life. The subject itself has the roots deep in the beginning of the humankind. It is interesting and maybe useful to learn the answer and if there is right or wrong in those actions. The decision if a person should live or die depends on the state laws. There are both opponents and supporters of the subject. However different the opinions are, the state […]

Physician Assisted Suicide: the Growing Issue of Dying with Dignity and Euthanasia

Is someone wanting to die with dignity more important than the conscience of a doctor who provides care for others? The issue of physician-assisted death can be summed up by simply saying it has a snowball effect. What starts as physician-assisted death turns into euthanizing and from there it could end up in the killing of patients without their full comprehension as to what they agreed to. The solution to this issue is accepting there is a problem and figuring […]

Definition of Euthanasia

Euthanasia defined as an intentionally ending of the life of the terminally ill person in order to relieve pain or suffering, done by a physician, legally. This is not to be confused with the similar physician assisted suicide, the suicide of patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drug by a doctor for this purpose. It is legal in only a few places of the world, and the laws vary by the places. That means […]

Physician Assisted Suicide

Healthcare isn't as perfect as we think it should be considering there are so many medications and treatments that can help restore or cure one's illness. When needing the assistance of a healthcare facility, there are many different challenges that can impact patients and their families. Challenges that include life or death decision making, insurance coverage, the need for medications, cost of services, and so on. As these challenges may seem as if they are minor to some, they truly […]

Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide

In a documentary, Charles Scott was a man who loved to read, sing, and enjoy being outdoors. He was diagnosed with lymphoma. Struggling every day just to breathe after walking 10 steps to the bathroom and dealing with his eyesight deteriorating, He found life to be full of pain instead of joy. He found no want in having to wait through multiple medications, operations, pain, hospice, and finally him dying suffocating trying to catch his breath” he wished to die […]

Physician-Assisted Euthanasia/Suicide

Part 1: Ethical Question Should doctors have a choice to opt out of assisting terminally ill patients with euthanasia/suicide? Part 2: Introduction Some people think being a physician is an exciting job for the most part. However, physicians have the task of making tough decisions that could hurt many people emotionally. The morality of assisted euthanasia and suicide has been questioned by many people. Some may consider euthanasia and suicide immoral any wrong. Unfortunately, euthanasia and suicide may be the […]

Arguments for Legalizing Euthanasia

I once heard euthanasia is a heart-wrenching kindness and i believe that to be true.Although we as vet techs know it is the right thing to do, being apart of ending there pain and suffering,it is hard being the one to end it knowing the bond an animal has with its owner.Everyone has their own thoughts about this topic and how we prefer to handle it.There are different tolerances everyone has on how it should be done and what the […]

Why Active Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide should be Legalized

This reference source gives us an overview of why euthanasia should be legalized. It goes into depth about how patients and doctors are affected by the decision to end a person's life, and moral issues, and whether it is right or wrong to purposely end someone's life. This source highlights that euthanasia should be in the best interest of the patient who is suffering from an illness, such as an incurable disease or a serious health issue. Doctors should be […]

Physician-assisted Suicide is not Federally Mandated

Physician-assisted suicide is not federally mandated due to the lack of bipartisanship in Congress, the principles of federalism, and contributions from conservative organizations and interest groups. The attitudes and moral acceptability about certain behaviors and actions differ significantly among Republicans and Democrats. According to a 2007 survey, 62% of Democrats support doctors assisting a terminally ill patient to commit suicide, while only 49% of Republicans support this notion (Gallup, Inc 2007). 59% of Democrats also find physician-assisted suicide to be […]

Physician-assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia have become some of the most highly controversial topics discussed in medicine, making those who have medicine as an occupation question the morality behind the act. A common misconception people often times make is confusing the fact that physician-assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia as the same thing. The NCI dictionary of cancer terms states euthanasia is accessibility to ""[a]n easy or painless death or the intentional ending of the life of a person suffering from […]

Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide

Sometimes people criticize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide from what is called "pro-life" perspectives and other times from "pro-death" perspectives; each perspective has a different argument about their position and the side they are on in this debate. This paper will review some of these arguments that have been made to date, as well as some of the more recent developments in this issue (Dieterle 129). To begin with, many people argue that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are morally acceptable because […]

Hinduism and Buddhist Perspective of Suicide and Euthanasia

The principle of ahimsa, or no violence, is fervently held in Hinduism and is reflective in followers' everyday lives. This concept extends to oneself as well as others. For one, suicide is condemned in this religion because all life is considered sacred. Humans life is perceived as precious because only through one of the three human realms can liberation be achieved. Other living things, such as insects and animals, do not receive the same opportunity, so it is crucial followers […]

Euthanasia – One of the most Debated Topics Today

The topic of euthanasia is one of the most debated topics today. Elderly patients can be pressured into a decision they don't want to make. Citizens can also be unfairly euthanized as well. Euthanasia should stay illegal due to the obligation to elderly patients, non permitted euthanization, of an individual, and which can open hopefully widen perspective on this issue, as well as many others. Euthanasia is a complex topic that can't be described simply and without depth. Euthanasia can […]

Physician-assisted Suicide Debate

Let's say a patient is in incredible pain or has an incurable illness and the patient can only be kept alive by machines or by enduring their pain. Should any patient who is in these circumstances be allowed to choose death over this life? Many people go against assisted suicide because of religion and or whatever they believe in. Another reason why people may disagree is that the patients who are not in the right mind and or are too […]

Ethics and Challenges of Euthanasia

As there are other patients who have a higher chance of living, euthanizing the patient was the more practical option. Euthanasia advocates argue that futile care may harm others. For instance, a young child with an acute respiratory disease, who has a potentially higher chance of getting cured, could not get a bed and ventilator in the ICU because others were using it even though they are not getting any personal benefit from the treatment (Niederman & Berger, 2010). This […]

Euthanasia: Merciful Death or Playing God

A death by suicide. Just hearing the word suicide can send chills down one's spine. How could someone get to the point of self-termination? Why would anybody ever consider such a terrible way to die? The thing is, suicide does not have to be a terrible or scary way to die if one is faced with insurmountable troubles accompanying an untreatable disease. With assistance from licensed professionals, it can give those suffering a painless option if they so choose to […]

What is Euthanasia?

Euthanasia is a easy death, some may say euthanasia is a undeviating act for taking a life through prescription drugs. A patient that has a short expand of life can address such an issue with their healthcare provider. Counseling can be provided before the final decision is made by doctor and the patient. At anytime the patient reserves the right to with draw from the process. The patient however must have good reason for the process before a doctor will […]

Related topic

Additional example essays.

• Euthanasia and the Catholic Church: An Ethical Conundrum
• Legalizing Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia for a Dignified End
• Euthanasia Pros and Cons
• The Advantages and Disadvantages to Living in a Big City or Small Town
• Discrimination in Health Care: Examining the Inequality and Disparities
• Madisonian Democracy
• Poverty and Homelessness in America
• Unemployment a Major Cause of Homelessness
• Causes and Effects of Immigration: Examining the Impact on the United States
• Discrimination against blacks in A Raisin in the sun
• Discrimination Between Boys and Girls in Educational Environments
• Poverty as the Mother of All Crimes: Unveiling the Truth

How To Write An Essay On Euthanasia

Introduction to the concept of euthanasia.

When embarking on an essay about euthanasia, it’s crucial to begin with a clear definition of what euthanasia entails. Euthanasia, often referred to as "mercy killing," is the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve them of suffering, typically from a terminal illness or an incurable condition. In your introduction, outline the various types of euthanasia, such as voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary, and the ethical, legal, and moral questions they raise. This introductory segment sets the stage for an in-depth exploration of the arguments for and against euthanasia and its implications in the realms of medicine, ethics, and law.

Exploring the Arguments For and Against Euthanasia

The body of your essay should delve into the complex arguments surrounding euthanasia. On one hand, proponents argue that euthanasia is a compassionate response to unbearable suffering, respecting an individual's right to choose death over prolonged pain. They may also cite the importance of dignity in death and the reduction of medical costs for terminally ill patients. On the other hand, opponents raise concerns about the sanctity of life, the potential for abuse, and the slippery slope towards non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. They may also discuss the moral obligations of medical professionals to preserve life. This section should present a balanced view of the debate, providing a comprehensive understanding of the various perspectives on euthanasia.

Ethical and Legal Considerations

A crucial aspect of your essay should be an examination of the ethical and legal considerations surrounding euthanasia. Discuss the ethical principles involved, such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Explore how different countries and cultures view and legislate euthanasia, noting the variations in legal frameworks and the criteria required for it to be carried out. This analysis should provide insight into the complexities of legalizing and regulating euthanasia, and the ethical dilemmas faced by healthcare providers, patients, and their families.

Concluding with Personal Reflections and Broader Implications

Conclude your essay by summarizing the key points and offering personal reflections on the topic. Reflect on the implications of euthanasia for society and the field of healthcare. Consider how advances in medical technology and changes in societal attitudes might influence the future of euthanasia. Your conclusion should not only provide closure to your essay but also encourage further thought and dialogue on this sensitive and contentious issue, highlighting the ongoing importance of ethical deliberation in decisions about life and death.

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Against Euthanasia Essay

Arguments Against Euthanasia

Society Euthanasia beyond any doubt does not have a place in our civilised society. It is undoubtedly murder and people who are severely disabled or terminally ill should unquestionably still die naturally. Euthanasia is the act of causing somebody to die gently and without pain. there are two types of euthanasia. One is active euthanasia which involves a lethal injection given to someone who is severely disabled or terminally ill. The other is passive euthanasia which

The Reasons For And Against Euthanasia

1.0 Introduction Euthanasia is a widely discussed topic around Australia. Many individuals are in favour however, other individuals are strongly opposed to it. This report will investigate the reasons for and against euthanasia and suggest amendments to the law to enhance the legislation. Euthanasia should be governed by legislation however leniency should be extended to certain individuals under strict guidelines. Establishing the optimal result is very difficult due to the complexity of the subject

A spoken word euthanasia of Daniel Callahan by self- determination is an adequate representation of the human issue that faces not only a nation but as a world. In the self-determination, he expertly points out the many misconceptions humanity has mad about the human. Some belief the euthanasia to be restful, while others believe there can never be peaceful for any consequences for our actions (Daniel, 344). Throughout this essay, I aim to not only argue against euthanasia but also to provide some

The Case Against Euthanasia

• 7 Works Cited

(Kirkey 2). Euthanasia is defined as assisting a terminally ill patient with dying early. In many countries the legalization of this practice is being debated in many countries. All doctors against assisted suicide, including the 44 percent in Canada, are on the right side of the argument. Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is unnatural, it violates the Hippocratic Oath, and laws are to extensive. Protecting life is the ethical view of society today, and legalizing euthanasia offsets that

Pro And Cons Against Euthanasia

that you would rather die than to bear the pain? Euthanasia literally means good (eu) death (thanatos) and it is an act causing a painless death under the patient’s or family member’s permission In the world, there are millions of people who suffer intolerable pain and request for euthanasia, and people have been arguing for years on various cases of euthanasia whether a person can refuse their life or not. Even though some people treat euthanasia as crime, there are stronger points and evidences

Suetonius Arguments Against Euthanasia

The way that Euthanasia works is that it is, “performed by the attending physician administering a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient on his or her express request.” (Euthanasia) The word Euthanasia derives from the Greek words, Eu (good) and Thanatosis (death), it means “Good Death” or “Gentle and Easy Death”. The earliest recordings of the use of the word was by Suetonius, a Roman historian, in his De Vita Caesarum - Divus Augustus in order to describe the death of Augustus. Despite

Ethical Argument Against Euthanasia

relates to the ethical spectrum as well, when can a mentally ill person be treated against their will? Is it a crime for any doctor to practice a form of euthanasia? Where better to start medical ethics, than with the complex topic of euthanasia. The main idea of euthanasia goes against the oldest and most famous moral instructions in religion, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ [Exodus 20:13]. To be technical, the practice of euthanasia is morally required by the two main principles of medical practice: the respect

Arguments For And Against Euthanasia Essay

• 6 Works Cited

Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as “intentional killing” ( Patelarou, Vardavas, Fioraki, Alegakis, Dafermou, & Ntzilepi, 2009). Euthanasia is a controversial topic which has raised a great deal of debate globally. Although euthanasia has received great exposure in the professional media, there are some

Kamisar's Argument Against Euthanasia

center of the debate around the practice of euthanasia, a medical procedure in which a patient with a terminal or incurable illness is permitted to die in a painless manner (“Euthanasia”). While one might think that allowing one who

Persuasive Essay Against Euthanasia

in the past decade is whether or not euthanasia should be legalized throughout the United States. Euthanasia, also known as physician assisted suicide, is the practice of ending the life of a patient (Euthanasia). There are different forms of euthanasia; they include direct/indirect, voluntary/involuntary. However, euthanasia in its entirety is what has been debated. Although some oppose the idea, others are in favor of people having the option of euthanasia. Religious concerns may give the process

Popular Topics

• Baseball vs. Softball Essay
• The Ways of Meeting Oppression Essay
• Migrants by Bruce Dawe Essay
• Representative Bodies Relevant to the Education Sector and Your School Essay
• A Soccer Game Essay
• Dementia Essay
• Implications of Financial Sources: Legal and Financial Dilution of Control and Bankruptcy Essay
• Animal Bill of Rights Essay
• Greek Art and Roman Art Essay
• The Roaring 20s Essay

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Euthanasia — The Ethics of Euthanasia

The Ethics of Euthanasia

• Categories: Euthanasia

About this sample

Words: 804 |

Published: Jan 30, 2024

Words: 804 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, advantages of euthanasia, disadvantages of euthanasia, counterarguments and rebuttals, relieving pain and suffering, autonomy and personal choice, reducing medical costs, moral and ethical implications, the risk of abuse, impact on medical professionals, ethical considerations and alternatives, safeguards against abuse and potential solutions.

• New England Journal of Medicine. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0804651
• Journal of Medical Ethics. https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2013/05/15/medethics-2012-101093

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 / 1865 words

6 pages / 2955 words

6 pages / 2615 words

2 pages / 1011 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 Euthanasia

Darren, Sweeper. "Euthanasia - Pros and Cons of Mercy Killing." (n.d.). 2010. Web. "Definition of Euthanasia." 1998. Web. Fletcher, Joseph. "The Courts and Euthanasia." Law, Medicine & Health Care 15.4 (1987/1988): 223-230. [...]

Euthanasia, the practice of ending the life of a suffering patient through the use of barbiturate or paralytic injections, remains a highly controversial medical procedure. While it is legal in the majority of European Union [...]

Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve their suffering. This controversial topic has been the subject of much debate and ethical consideration in the medical and [...]

Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve them from suffering. Voluntary euthanasia is when an individual makes a conscious decision to end their life with the [...]

Battin, M. P., Rhodes, R., & Silvers, A. (2015). The Patient as Victim and Vector: Can Ethics Abandon the Ideal of the Autonomous Patient? The American Journal of Bioethics, 15(3), 3-14.Pereira, J. M. (2011). Legalizing [...]

Imagine facing a terminal illness with no hope for recovery, only prolonged suffering and pain. In such situations, the concept of euthanasia, or assisted suicide, becomes a controversial but increasingly relevant topic. [...]

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

Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay

Euthanasia is a debatable topic that has recently gained a lot of attention. It is also referred to as physician assisted suicide. Euthanasia was first created and used for terminally ill patients or patients who live with very painful diseases. It is an option that some terminally-ill patients have considered and in my opinion, an option that every terminally-ill patient should have available to them. Euthanasia enables individuals to make a tough decision, but a decision that should be up to an individual to make; whether a terminally ill individual wants to die should be their decision without an outsider’s input. Euthanasia gives a terminally ill individual the opportunity to end the misery they feel they are in. As human beings, we are constantly expected to make decisions for ourselves. If an individual wants to die, it should be their decision and …show more content…

One of the main arguments is that euthanasia could be an ethical issue and can be seen as assisted murder. Physicians are not forced to provide the euthanasia doses; the physicians who do, have agreed to do so. As well as the patient is asking to die, they are not being killed against their will. Another argument is that medical resources and money will be spent for a patient to kill themselves, when they can just commit suicide on their own free will. More medical resources would be spent on keeping that patient alive, than it would euthanize them. It is true that the patient can commit suicide on their own free will, but there can be complications with that. The patient could possibly be too weak to commit suicide, as well as if they committed suicide, another individual would find their body. Finding a dead body can be very detrimental to another human being and can cause them further complications including hurting their mental and emotional health. This could be very unhealthy for the person who finds the body of the suicide

Physician Assisted Death Argumentative Essay

Their argument is that the medical practice of physician-assisted death is unethical because it violates the bioethical principle of nonmaleficence, which refers to the obligation of the physician to not cause needless harm. Physician-assisted death is not causing needless harm because the patient themselves is requesting the death-dealing medication and taking them, or not taking them, when, and if, they feel ready to die. It would be needless harm if the physician in question actively euthanatized the patient by administering the death-dealing medications without the patient’s consent. However, from a legal standpoint, physician-assisted death does not include active euthanasia, which is illegal in all fifty states; it simply requires the physician to provide the mentally competent patient with the information they asked for regarding the process and a prescription for the death dealing medication. The physician is not causing needless harm to a terminally ill patient who wishes to die mercifully on their own time instead of six months down the line in possible pain and suffering.

Essay On Physician Assisted Suicide

Looking on the other end of the spectrum, what in case if the patient did not have terminal illness. For instance, a patient who is born deaf and blind. Even though he or she might have longer life span or not be bed bound, those patients might be suffering everyday and wish to end their life sooner rather than live a miserable and unsatisfying lifestyle. Thus, people with non-terminal illness should have the option as well to decide if they would like to end their life via Physician-assisted suicide.

A Rhetorical Analysis Of Euthanasia By Philippa Foot

The argument that I am analyzing is found in Philippa Foot’s article Euthanasia. This specific section starts at the beginning on page 88. This argument starts once she talks about the true meaning of Euthanasia and the difficulty in how people see or perceive it. In Foot 's article, she wants to prove that an act of euthanasia is morally permissible, as long as you’re performing it for the right cause or reasons. Foot defines euthanasia as "a matter of opting for death for the good of the one who is to die."

Thesis Statement For Physician Assisted Suicide

The Right to Die 1) Introduction a) Thesis statement: Physician assisted suicide offers patients a choice of getting out of their pain and misery, presents a way to help those who are already dead mentally because of how much a disease has taken over them, proves to be a great option in many states its legal in, and puts the family at ease knowing their love one is out of pain. i) The use of physician assisted death is used in many different countries and some states. ii) Many people who chose this option are fighting a terminal illness.

Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

People may ask “Why is it the right thing to do?” In order for people to have an answer to that question they must first know what Euthanasia is and how that if you have the mind set of all life is precious like Kant’s exert in the article of euthanasia chapter three of contemporary moral issues you are being selfish. According to Dictionary.com the definition of Euthanasia is “mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or

Euthanasia Gurwitch Rhetorical Analysis

Euthanasia? Is it okay to kill someone that has been suffering for years? This has been a controversy for many years. Some individuals have to make a hard decision whether or not to kill their beloved one. They’re tired of seeing them in pain and not being able to do anything for them, many of them turn towards euthanasia.

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.

Ethical Arguments Against Euthanasia

A controversial practice that invokes a debate over how beneficial its intentions are is the use of euthanasia. The argument switches between whether or not putting terminally ill patients to death with the assistance of a physician is justifiable and right. Legalizing the practice of euthanasia is a significant topic among many people in society, including doctors and nurses in the medical field, as it forces people to decide where to draw the line between relieving pain and simply killing. While some people see euthanasia as a way to helping a patient by eliminating their pain, it is completely rejected by others who see it as a method of killing.

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.

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.

Essay On Legalization Of Euthanasia

Euthanasia can be interpreted in different ways depending on the person/point of view. Euthanasia is another word for mercy-killing, those who are in great pain and their treatments show no sign of progress can choose euthanasia as an option to die mercifully and with dignity. When a person goes through euthanasia, they consume a euthanasia solution through a vein or by drinking it. Then, they rest as the solution kills them. There have been many controversies on whether euthanasia should be legalized.

Argumentative Essay: The Right To Die

One reason why patients would want to end their life with euthanasia is because of their disorders and immobility to get around and enjoy things. Euthanasia is a physician assisted

Persuasive Essay Against Euthanasia

One question that most people ask about this subject is: Does euthanasia devalue life? The answer is yes it does. As most already know, euthanasia is a form of suicide. Most people who commit suicide suffer from mental illnesses and should not have the immediate option of using the procedure as a painless death. It lowers the potential of that person’s life as they look towards euthanasia as an escape plan.

INTRODUCTION Euthanasia alludes to the act of deliberately close a life keeping in mind the end goal to assuage torment and enduring. There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".[1] In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient"". Euthanasia is sorted in diverse ways, which incorporate voluntary, non-voluntary, or automatic.

The most common location for the euthanasia act is in Netherlands but also in some other locations around the world. In the Netherlands euthanasia is also allowed without a parents or guardians consent. My argument is that I am pro euthanasia just because when you put yourself in a person shoes you would understand what they been through and the suffering pain they endure every day after the cause of illness. My opinion on this topic is that if I was in this predicament I would want to be able to choose whether or not I would like to choose a quick and painless death than suffering from pain and suffering on a daily basis.    The cost for the medication or what the lethal dosing item is less than 100 dollars but the cost of a assisted suicide can cost up to 100,000 dollars just to insure proper care of the patient to help the family in grief.

More about Arguments Against Euthanasia Essay

Related topics.

• Medical ethics

• 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.

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:

Join Now: CSAT Course

• 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

Take a Test: Analyse Your Progress

Aim IAS, IPS, or IFS?

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...

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Euthanasia: 100, 200 and 300 Words Samples

• Updated on  
• Feb 22, 2024

Essay on Euthanasia: Euthanasia refers to the act of killing a person without any emotions or mercy. Euthanasia is an ethnically complex and controversial topic, with different perspectives and legal regulations on different topics. School students and individuals preparing for competitive exams are given assigned topics like essays on euthanasia. The objective of such topics is to check the candidate’s perspectives and what punishment should be morally and legally right according to them. 

If you are assigned an essay on euthanasia, it means your examiner or teacher wants to know your level of understanding of the topic. In this article, we will provide you with some samples of essays on euthanasia. Feel free to take ideas from the essays discussed below.

Master the art of essay writing with our blog on How to Write an Essay in English .

Table of Contents

• 1 Essay on Euthanasia in 150 Words
• 2.1 Euthanasia Vs Physician-Assisted Suicide
• 2.2 Euthanasia Classification
• 3 Is Euthanasia Bad?

Essay on Euthanasia in 150 Words

Euthanasia or mercy killing is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life.  This term was coined by Sir Francis Bacon. Different countries have their perspectives and laws against such harmful acts. The Government of India, 2016, drafted a bill on passive euthanasia and called it ‘The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patient’s Bill (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners). 

Euthanasia is divided into different classifications: Voluntary, Involuntary and Non-Voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, with the patient’s consent. On one side, some supporters argue for an individual’s right to autonomy and a dignified death. On the other hand, the opponents raise concerns about the sanctity of life, the potential for abuse, and the slippery slope towards devaluing human existence. The ethical debate extends to questions of consent, quality of life, and societal implications.

Also Read: Essay on National Science Day for Students in English

Essay on Euthanasia in 350 Words

The term ‘Euthanasia’ was first coined by Sir Francis Bacon, who referred to an easy and painless death, without necessarily implying intentional or assisted actions. In recent years, different countries have come up with different approaches, and legal regulations against euthanasia have been put forward. 

In 2016, the government of India drafted a bill, where euthanasia was categorised as a punishable offence. According to Sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, any attempt to commit suicide and abetment of suicide is a punishable offence. However, if a person is brain dead, only then he or she can be taken off life support only with the help of family members.

Euthanasia Vs Physician-Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia is the act of intentionally causing the death of a person to relieve their suffering, typically due to a terminal illness or unbearable pain. 

Physician-assisted suicide involves a medical professional providing the means or information necessary for a person to end their own life, typically by prescribing a lethal dose of medication.

In euthanasia, a third party, often a healthcare professional, administers a lethal substance or performs an action directly causing the person’s death.

It is the final decision of the patient that brings out the decision of their death.

Euthanasia Classification

Voluntary Euthanasia

It refers to the situation when the person who is suffering explicitly requests or consents to euthanasia. A patient with a terminal illness may express his or her clear and informed desire to end their life to a medical professional.

Involuntary

It refers to the situation when euthanasia is performed without the explicit consent of the person, often due to the individual being unable to communicate their wishes.

Non-Voluntary

In this situation, euthanasia is performed without the explicit consent of the person, and the person’s wishes are unknown.

Active euthanasia refers to the deliberate action of causing a person’s death, such as administering a lethal dose of medication.

It means allowing a person to die by withholding or withdrawing treatment or life-sustaining measures.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are a defeat for all. We are called never to abandon those who are suffering, never giving up but caring and loving to restore hope. — Pope Francis (@Pontifex) June 5, 2019

Also Read: Essay on Cleanliness

Is Euthanasia Bad?

Euthanasia is a subjective term and its perspectives vary from person to person. Different cultures, countries and religions have their own set of values and beliefs. Life is sacred and gifted to us by god or nature. Therefore, intentionally causing death goes against moral and religious beliefs. 

However, some people have raised concerns about the potential for a slippery slope, where the acceptance of euthanasia could lead to the devaluation of human life, involuntary euthanasia, or abuse of the practice. Some even argue that euthanasia conflicts with their traditional medical ethics of preserving life and prioritizing the well-being of the patient.

Today, countries like the Netherlands and Belgium have legalised euthanasia. In India, the USA and the UK, it is a punishable offence with varying sentences and fines. Euthanasia is a complex and controversial topic and creating a law against or for it requires a comprehensive study by experts and the opinions of all sections of society. 

Ans: Euthanasia refers to the act of killing a person without any emotions or mercy. Euthanasia is an ethnically complex and controversial topic, with different perspectives and legal regulations on different topics.

Ans: The term ‘Euthanasia’ was first coined by Sir Francis Bacon, who referred to an easy and painless death, without necessarily implying intentional or assisted actions. In recent years, different countries have come up with different approaches, and legal regulations against euthanasia have been put forward.  In 2016, the government of India drafted a bill, where euthanasia was categorised as a punishable offence. According to Sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, any attempt to commit suicide and abetment of suicide is a punishable offence. However, if a person is brain dead, only then he or she can be taken off life support only with the help of family members.

Ans: Belgium and the Netherlands have legalised euthanasia. However, it is banned in India.

Related Articles

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.

Shiva Tyagi

With an experience of over a year, I've developed a passion for writing blogs on wide range of topics. I am mostly inspired from topics related to social and environmental fields, where you come up with a positive outcome.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

Euthenasia essay