Introduction
The first thing that comes into mind when one thinks about euthanasia is an ethical contradiction. Euthanasia may be defined in two different ways. It can be viewed as an act of mercy. Some people, who suffer from chronic diseases and have no recovery prospection, tend to require death. Illnesses can be unbearable. Why should patients endure anguishing pains if there is no chance for them to get healthy? Euthanasia may be a solution for incurable diseases. Some experts argue that medical workers have no rights to make judgments on such issues as life and death. The moral side of the matter has to be considered. It is important to find out whether there the life termination and a prolongation of sufferings are correlated. This consideration can solve the dispute and answer the primary question, which is: “Should euthanasia be legalized or not?” Euthanasia may be extremely subjective as, it comes as a doctor’s decision. Patients are likely to ask medical workers about relieving their sufferings. Is it right to let ill people dispose of their lives? Some diseases damage mental health. It is completely unacceptable to conduct euthanasia for the patients, who have intellectual disabilities. The other patients can remain entirely sane while they suffer from physical health disorders. Such people are entitled to decide whether they want to proceed to fight for their lives or not. Some historical examples have to be taken into consideration while reviewing the topic. The aim is to persuade the readers of the appropriateness of euthanasia, which can be made by providing an efficient example. I can mention the story of American doctor Kevorkian, who conducted euthanasia illegally and was highly respected by his community. The conclusion summarizes the points and states the reasons for considering euthanasia prohibition illegal. The major argument recapitulates the point of the essay.
Breaking Down a Topic
General Topic
The correlation between ethical and legal considerations that regard euthanasia is reviewed.
The clarity of choice constitutes a core of the argument: conscious decisions vs. mistaking solutions are clearly explained. The human factor is taken into account by the medical workers.
A sanity gap that reveals appropriateness of life termination is defined. Beneficiary aspects of euthanasia are shown by the doctors, who take responsibilities for the patients’ well-being.
Specific Subtopics
One should emphasize the role of religious prohibitions in medicine, which are often regarded as the basic reasons for euthanasia illegality. The second subquestion is a matter of personal decisions of the medical workers, for they often contradict general laws. Finally, libertarian arguments account for the fundamental human rights.
Key Terms and Phrases
The essay contains a vast range of critical reflections. The issues that concern the central argument of the work are the following: morality, a culture of choice and decision, a legality of euthanasia, ethical contradictions, freedom and privacy, sanity implications.
Listing
Rebuttal of Opposing Ideas
- Religion as a non-scientific ground for euthanasia veto.
- Patients as conscious citizens that are not forced to choose death instead of living.
Central Argument Support
- Euthanasia as a legal medical relieving technique.
- People, who deserve the right for choice.
- Medical workers’ moral reflections and personal considerations.
- The civil character of euthanasia.
- Humanistic approach.
- The absence of theological interference in the sphere of science.