Well I dont have the final draft saved on this computer but here is the rough draft which should be similar....feel free to steal it for your own educational use lol. Keep in mind this topic and position was assigned to me and so some of this was not necessarily what I really believe or think.
Euthanasia: Kill or Be Killed?
The history of Euthanasia is one that has been very controversial in society. In the past century it has been used by such tyrants as Hitler and Stalin to eliminate millions of people, but it also has its more positive uses such as its ability to alleviate pain in situations of terminal illness. In more recent years the world has seen euthanasia evolve into something more than what it was during the time of Hitler and Stalin. With the advent of modern medicine we are able to look at how it affects society in the present. One can see how even though with the advancements of medicine there are some illnesses that are still beyond treatment. Sometimes the best alternative can be euthanasia. We must also consider the families of those who are suffering from a terrible illness. Terminally ill patients should be able to choose whether or not they want to continue living in the face of extreme physical and/or psychological suffering, and patients should be able to choose whether or not they want to put their families through the stress that can accompany a terminal illness.
Euthanasia "is defined as the intentional ending of life by someone other than the patient at the patient's explicit request." according to M.C. Jansen-van der Weide, a researcher at VU University Medical Center and his associates (Jansen-van der Weide pg. 200). However, when one discusses euthanasia they can plainly see that there are several different types or branches of euthanasia. One knows that patients can initiate their own termination or a family member with a power of attorney can do so in cases of mental incompetence. The distinctions lead to different types of euthanasia. Shia Lavi of Tel Aviv University reveals that there are three different types of euthanasia and they are: active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide and active euthanasia are very similar with the only difference being who actually administers the fatal drugs. Assisted suicide occurs when a patient, that no longer wishes to live, contacts a physician and arranges for the doctor to assist them in ending their life, with the patient being the one to administer the fatal drug. This procedure can be carried out even if the patient is not suffering from any terminal illness or trauma but instead simply wishes to discontinue life. In an active euthanasia situation patients themselves do not administer the drugs, but a licensed physician does, (Lavi pg. 1) and just as with assisted suicide the patient does not have to be suffering from any illness for the procedure to be carried out. Passive euthanasia is the most common form, and usually occurs when a patient is no longer competent and cannot make their own decision about death, the patient does not have to be incompetent however and can themselves request that they be disconnected from a life sustaining device (Lavi pg. 1). The most common situation would be if a person was a victim in an automobile accident and went into a comatose state for which they required a life-support machine to remain alive. The most immediate family member or whoever holds a medical power of attorney could make the decision to remove the patient from the life-support and let them die naturally.
Euthanasia can be used in many of the previously mentioned situations but also in others such as, when a terminally ill patient doesn't wish to put a financial and/or emotional burden on their family. In other cases people can use assisted suicide to end their lives simply because they no longer wish to live. Most countries that allow any form of euthanasia require that the patient be suffering from a terminal illness before they are allowed to end their life.
Several places around the world practice various forms of Euthanasia. Denmark allows physician suicide, in cases of terminal illness only however it is "evolving toward active, involuntary euthanasia" states Kurt Darr a professor at The George Washington University. The state of Oregon in the U.S. allows physician assisted suicide in cases where the "patient is a resident of Oregon, at least 18 years old and has a terminal illness that will likely cause them to die within 6 months" (Darr pg. 4) plus additional testing of competence. This law is called The Death with Dignity Act and Oregon has had this law since 1995 (Lavi pg.1).
In some religions there has been a tradition of opposition to euthanasia, which is usually based on the religions holy text or teachings of its leaders. Catholics for example are more often opposed to physician assisted suicide and euthanasia than other sects of religion according to Joris Gielen of the Interdisciplinary Centre for study of Religion and World View. Based on the well known fact that Americans are among the most religious people in the world it would make sense to assume that most often when euthanasia has been opposed in the U.S. it has been on religious grounds.
It does seem clear that in an indirect way the U.S. Declaration of Independence addresses euthanasia, although it is doubtful that it was the founding fathers intent to do so. In the Preamble the Declaration states that all citizens are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This would seem to indicate a support for euthanasia. One should have the right to life, or have the liberty to chose to not have life it if makes them happy. Although, as before mentioned, it is doubtful this was the founding fathers intent to directly support euthanasia, who is to say it wasn't? The Declaration of Independence is a civil rights document so perhaps the U.S.'s Declaration was designed in such a way that it could cover future civil rights issues too.
When one looks at euthanasia they must also look at the family of the person undergoing the procedure. Obviously many questions will arise and it can become a very stressful time for the family seeing their once vibrant relative reduced to a state that can be brought on by a terminal illness. Many patients often turn to euthanasia because the emotional turmoil that their families would be subjected to would be too great, and they believe it would be easier on the family if they died peacefully with no pain. Indeed, studies show that "although they may be sad that they are losing their loved one... relatives generally understand the patient’s wish, and that euthanasia does not always have a negative, but sometimes even a positive, influence on grief symptoms"(Jansen-van der Weide pg. 217).
Not only psychological effects play a big part in a family's recovery, physical effects are also important to note. Depression is often a symptom of having a close relative pass away, and studies have definitely shown that depression can have both emotional and physical effects on a person, but because the family is able to cope better after a family decides on euthanasia the amount of cases in which grief is a severe symptom are significantly less (Jansen-van der Weide p. 218) .
Studies also show that those families that have a visit with the attending physician before a euthanasia procedure value the experience as a coping mechanism (Jansen-van der Weide p. 218). When the family is able to ask the doctor questions it helps to allay many of the fears they have about euthanasia. Patients also benefit from a pre-operation consultation, as "4 out of 5 patients had positive experiences and in general the consultation wasn't a burden on the individual" (Jansen-van der Weide pg. 218).
There have been many notable cases of euthanasia especially in recent years, but an example that most people are familiar with is the case of Terry Schiavo. Terry Schiavo was a Florida woman who was severely injured in an automobile accident. Following her accident she went into a deep comatose state. She necessitated the use of a life-support machine in order to remain physically alive. After some time her husband, Michael Schiavo, made the difficult decision to remove her feeding tube and unhook her from the life-support system and let her die a natural death. Pro-life groups petitioned the courts to put a stop to Michael's actions and Terry's life was prolonged. Following an intense court battle Terry's feeding tube was finally removed and she was allowed to pass away peacefully. This case became a landmark trial involving the use of passive euthanasia. Because Michael Schiavo was able to lay his wife to rest it has opened the door for many others in similar situations to be able to let loved ones go peacefully. It is now seen that "most states...recognize a patient's right to withdraw unwanted life support machinery" (Lavi pg. 1)
Another notable case involving euthanasia is Dr. Jack Kevorkian often called "Dr. Death" (Darr pg. 1). Kevorkian was a retired pathologist from Michigan (Darr pg. 1) that practiced assisted suicide for patients with terminal illnesses. It is reported that he assisted more than 130 (Darr pg. 2) patients end their own lives. Kevorkian even recorded some of the events. He was closely watched by Michigan officials and he even continued to practice assisted suicides even after Michigan passed a law prohibiting assisted suicide and he had his medical license revoked (Darr pg. 1). He even displayed the videos of some of his patients (Darr pg. 2). He was arrested in 1998 after he released a video in which he himself was the one injecting the drugs, not the patient(Darr pg. 2). This effectively proved that he had practiced active euthanasia, which was considered a form of second degree murder in Michigan (Darr pg. 2). After his release in June 2007 Kevorkian continued to actively support euthanasia, although he has promised not assist in anymore suicides (Darr pg. 2).
Public opinion on euthanasia over the last few decades has changed significantly. We can see that this seems to be a norm on many social issues, and euthanasia is no exception. When we see how much of an impact religion and political views can have on one's view of euthanasia it is no wonder why opinion of it has changed. Just as any other social issue, euthanasia is interconnected with other issues and is affected right along with them.
Because euthanasia is so interrelated with other issues it is not surprising when one finds a correlation between euthanasia and abortion. A question arises then: Is abortion a form of euthanasia? It is a question to which it would be difficult to determine the answer. It is interesting to note that the U.S. and many other counties allow abortion; however they do not allow euthanasia, with the exception of Oregon. Why is that? Is there such a drastic difference in the two such as to allow one but not the other?
Why should patients suffering from terminal illnesses be made to suffer; the answer is they shouldn't. People should be allowed to end their lives if and when ever they so chose, and for whatever reasons. I am a strong proponent of all forms of euthanasia based on the Constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that anyone should have the right to chose whether or not they want to continue living and if they chose not to continue to live they should have a choice in how they would like to end their life, either through active euthanasia or assisted suicide. People in society need to have free will.
Euthanasia is and probably will always be a controversial subject. It should not be up to the government to regulate what one can do with their own lives. People need to have the right to chose.
"Hey guys, I just bought this thing called a sight ward...so it's GG." - MasterA in League of Legends
Carnage wrote:
Well I dont have the final draft saved on this computer but here is the rough draft which should be similar....feel free to steal it for your own educational use lol. Keep in mind this topic and position was assigned to me and so some of this was not necessarily what I really believe or think.
Euthanasia: Kill or Be Killed?
The history of Euthanasia is one that has been very controversial in society. In the past century it has been used by such tyrants as Hitler and Stalin to eliminate millions of people, but it also has its more positive uses such as its ability to alleviate pain in situations of terminal illness. In more recent years the world has seen euthanasia evolve into something more than what it was during the time of Hitler and Stalin. With the advent of modern medicine we are able to look at how it affects society in the present. One can see how even though with the advancements of medicine there are some illnesses that are still beyond treatment. Sometimes the best alternative can be euthanasia. We must also consider the families of those who are suffering from a terrible illness. Terminally ill patients should be able to choose whether or not they want to continue living in the face of extreme physical and/or psychological suffering, and patients should be able to choose whether or not they want to put their families through the stress that can accompany a terminal illness.
Euthanasia "is defined as the intentional ending of life by someone other than the patient at the patient's explicit request." according to M.C. Jansen-van der Weide, a researcher at VU University Medical Center and his associates (Jansen-van der Weide pg. 200). However, when one discusses euthanasia they can plainly see that there are several different types or branches of euthanasia. One knows that patients can initiate their own termination or a family member with a power of attorney can do so in cases of mental incompetence. The distinctions lead to different types of euthanasia. Shia Lavi of Tel Aviv University reveals that there are three different types of euthanasia and they are: active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide and active euthanasia are very similar with the only difference being who actually administers the fatal drugs. Assisted suicide occurs when a patient, that no longer wishes to live, contacts a physician and arranges for the doctor to assist them in ending their life, with the patient being the one to administer the fatal drug. This procedure can be carried out even if the patient is not suffering from any terminal illness or trauma but instead simply wishes to discontinue life. In an active euthanasia situation patients themselves do not administer the drugs, but a licensed physician does, (Lavi pg. 1) and just as with assisted suicide the patient does not have to be suffering from any illness for the procedure to be carried out. Passive euthanasia is the most common form, and usually occurs when a patient is no longer competent and cannot make their own decision about death, the patient does not have to be incompetent however and can themselves request that they be disconnected from a life sustaining device (Lavi pg. 1). The most common situation would be if a person was a victim in an automobile accident and went into a comatose state for which they required a life-support machine to remain alive. The most immediate family member or whoever holds a medical power of attorney could make the decision to remove the patient from the life-support and let them die naturally.
Euthanasia can be used in many of the previously mentioned situations but also in others such as, when a terminally ill patient doesn't wish to put a financial and/or emotional burden on their family. In other cases people can use assisted suicide to end their lives simply because they no longer wish to live. Most countries that allow any form of euthanasia require that the patient be suffering from a terminal illness before they are allowed to end their life.
Several places around the world practice various forms of Euthanasia. Denmark allows physician suicide, in cases of terminal illness only however it is "evolving toward active, involuntary euthanasia" states Kurt Darr a professor at The George Washington University. The state of Oregon in the U.S. allows physician assisted suicide in cases where the "patient is a resident of Oregon, at least 18 years old and has a terminal illness that will likely cause them to die within 6 months" (Darr pg. 4) plus additional testing of competence. This law is called The Death with Dignity Act and Oregon has had this law since 1995 (Lavi pg.1).
In some religions there has been a tradition of opposition to euthanasia, which is usually based on the religions holy text or teachings of its leaders. Catholics for example are more often opposed to physician assisted suicide and euthanasia than other sects of religion according to Joris Gielen of the Interdisciplinary Centre for study of Religion and World View. Based on the well known fact that Americans are among the most religious people in the world it would make sense to assume that most often when euthanasia has been opposed in the U.S. it has been on religious grounds.
It does seem clear that in an indirect way the U.S. Declaration of Independence addresses euthanasia, although it is doubtful that it was the founding fathers intent to do so. In the Preamble the Declaration states that all citizens are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This would seem to indicate a support for euthanasia. One should have the right to life, or have the liberty to chose to not have life it if makes them happy. Although, as before mentioned, it is doubtful this was the founding fathers intent to directly support euthanasia, who is to say it wasn't? The Declaration of Independence is a civil rights document so perhaps the U.S.'s Declaration was designed in such a way that it could cover future civil rights issues too.
When one looks at euthanasia they must also look at the family of the person undergoing the procedure. Obviously many questions will arise and it can become a very stressful time for the family seeing their once vibrant relative reduced to a state that can be brought on by a terminal illness. Many patients often turn to euthanasia because the emotional turmoil that their families would be subjected to would be too great, and they believe it would be easier on the family if they died peacefully with no pain. Indeed, studies show that "although they may be sad that they are losing their loved one... relatives generally understand the patient’s wish, and that euthanasia does not always have a negative, but sometimes even a positive, influence on grief symptoms"(Jansen-van der Weide pg. 217).
Not only psychological effects play a big part in a family's recovery, physical effects are also important to note. Depression is often a symptom of having a close relative pass away, and studies have definitely shown that depression can have both emotional and physical effects on a person, but because the family is able to cope better after a family decides on euthanasia the amount of cases in which grief is a severe symptom are significantly less (Jansen-van der Weide p. 218) .
Studies also show that those families that have a visit with the attending physician before a euthanasia procedure value the experience as a coping mechanism (Jansen-van der Weide p. 218). When the family is able to ask the doctor questions it helps to allay many of the fears they have about euthanasia. Patients also benefit from a pre-operation consultation, as "4 out of 5 patients had positive experiences and in general the consultation wasn't a burden on the individual" (Jansen-van der Weide pg. 218).
There have been many notable cases of euthanasia especially in recent years, but an example that most people are familiar with is the case of Terry Schiavo. Terry Schiavo was a Florida woman who was severely injured in an automobile accident. Following her accident she went into a deep comatose state. She necessitated the use of a life-support machine in order to remain physically alive. After some time her husband, Michael Schiavo, made the difficult decision to remove her feeding tube and unhook her from the life-support system and let her die a natural death. Pro-life groups petitioned the courts to put a stop to Michael's actions and Terry's life was prolonged. Following an intense court battle Terry's feeding tube was finally removed and she was allowed to pass away peacefully. This case became a landmark trial involving the use of passive euthanasia. Because Michael Schiavo was able to lay his wife to rest it has opened the door for many others in similar situations to be able to let loved ones go peacefully. It is now seen that "most states...recognize a patient's right to withdraw unwanted life support machinery" (Lavi pg. 1)
Another notable case involving euthanasia is Dr. Jack Kevorkian often called "Dr. Death" (Darr pg. 1). Kevorkian was a retired pathologist from Michigan (Darr pg. 1) that practiced assisted suicide for patients with terminal illnesses. It is reported that he assisted more than 130 (Darr pg. 2) patients end their own lives. Kevorkian even recorded some of the events. He was closely watched by Michigan officials and he even continued to practice assisted suicides even after Michigan passed a law prohibiting assisted suicide and he had his medical license revoked (Darr pg. 1). He even displayed the videos of some of his patients (Darr pg. 2). He was arrested in 1998 after he released a video in which he himself was the one injecting the drugs, not the patient(Darr pg. 2). This effectively proved that he had practiced active euthanasia, which was considered a form of second degree murder in Michigan (Darr pg. 2). After his release in June 2007 Kevorkian continued to actively support euthanasia, although he has promised not assist in anymore suicides (Darr pg. 2).
Public opinion on euthanasia over the last few decades has changed significantly. We can see that this seems to be a norm on many social issues, and euthanasia is no exception. When we see how much of an impact religion and political views can have on one's view of euthanasia it is no wonder why opinion of it has changed. Just as any other social issue, euthanasia is interconnected with other issues and is affected right along with them.
Because euthanasia is so interrelated with other issues it is not surprising when one finds a correlation between euthanasia and abortion. A question arises then: Is abortion a form of euthanasia? It is a question to which it would be difficult to determine the answer. It is interesting to note that the U.S. and many other counties allow abortion; however they do not allow euthanasia, with the exception of Oregon. Why is that? Is there such a drastic difference in the two such as to allow one but not the other?
Why should patients suffering from terminal illnesses be made to suffer; the answer is they shouldn't. People should be allowed to end their lives if and when ever they so chose, and for whatever reasons. I am a strong proponent of all forms of euthanasia based on the Constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that anyone should have the right to chose whether or not they want to continue living and if they chose not to continue to live they should have a choice in how they would like to end their life, either through active euthanasia or assisted suicide. People in society need to have free will.
Euthanasia is and probably will always be a controversial subject. It should not be up to the government to regulate what one can do with their own lives. People need to have the right to chose.
What about GLaDOS, because I've killed her many times.
Thanks Carnage. I won't steal it, don't worry.
It's very interesting and well written. I like the comparison you make with abortion, and that does raise a controversial question over the Government's decision on the legalisation of euthanasia.
[b]za heystarface wrote:
We consider killing terminally wounded or sick animals an act of mercy - the same it should be for people. I think there should be a waiting period and counseling plus a display of alternatives, and if after all that - they decide they still want to die - it should be allowed.
Do you value human lives the same as those of animals? Most people don't, as we can see with the slaughter of animals for meat. You wouldn't dream of killing humans in this way, so I don't think that a comparison can be made between the two.
You're not understanding me - it is because I value human life more that I feel people who make the choice to be euthanized should be afforded the mercy we give to animals without batting an eye.
We give that mercy to animals, don't people deserve the same mercy?
@Ninja. no really i dont care, you can use it if you want to.
@Star I totally agree.
"Hey guys, I just bought this thing called a sight ward...so it's GG." - MasterA in League of Legends
In my tiny little opinion, people should have the right to choose if they would like to live or not. If they cannot decide, a family member or close friend. If one is not present, only then should it fall to the doctor. In any of theses cases, it should not be counted as murder. Just my input.
this woman was one of the cases that I used in my oral presentation of my paper. http://en.wikiped...%C3%A9bire http://3.bp.blogs...320/Sebire
That is her with her condition and holding a picture of what she used to look like. I think i would have killed myself too because it had to have hurt like a mf to have your eye pop out of your head.
"Hey guys, I just bought this thing called a sight ward...so it's GG." - MasterA in League of Legends
Oh okay. I understand what you're saying now, Star. I totally agree.
Carnage, I'm a mathematician/scientist - I don't write essays on stuff like this for school, that's why I'm interested to discuss it in my free time. Thanks for the offer though.
Cmon now people, this thread is getting boring... well, eventually SOMEONE has to be anti-euthanasia if this thread is kept up. Right now, it's not even an argument or a debate!
Personally, I think the only reason you should not be pro-euthanasia is for religious purposes, and if that is the case, you should be converted immediately.
