The most famous doctor of death is Dr. Jack Kevorkian, This topic of Euthanasia or assisted suicide has been in debate for at least 4 decades now. “Kevorkian provided services to at least 45 and possibly more satisfied customers” (Soylent, P.1). In recent years this debate has caused many legal, emotional, and ethical issues let alone the heartache that come with losing a loved one. The old definition of Euthanasia is “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death 
of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” (Webster). There need to be some changes made to incorporate more than just the sick. Euthanasia is the taking of life of a being with a terminal non-mental disease or convict through a painless process.
Probably the most understood aspect of Euthanasia is for when there are terminally ill people or animals. Helping something suffer no longer is a generous action when they cannot help themselves evade that misery. There was an article in a Belgium newspaper that showed a study where those who had to be euthanized asked for donor requests “The report notes, All donors expressed their wish for organ donation once their request for euthanasia was granted according to Belgian legislation. All donors suffered from an unbearable non-malignant disorder” (Baklinski, P.1). This is a good process because we can help two people, by helping someone die in a peaceful way that does not harm the organ that the other person can use.
The case of Terri Schiavo was in the media for the majority of 2004. This excerpt from the NNDB website gives some insight on the case. “As the insanity moved to the federal level, Schiavo's feeding tube was finally removed on March 18, 2005, and her heart stopped beating 13 days later. In a final postscript to Schiavo's short life, the autopsy conducted after her death established that her brain damage was even worse than experts had said while she was alive, and that virtually everything the "save Terri" activists had said was incorrect. Schiavo's brain weighed about half what a healthy human brain weighs, damage that left her unable to think, feel, see, or interact in any way with her environment. There was no chance she could have recovered, and no evidence she had ever been abused” (Soylent, P.1). This particular case could have been carried out a little more humanely. Rather than stop feeding her they could have given her an injection to help her body shut down, rather than dragging it out for 13 days. Circumstances like these are not uncommon in today’s world and we need to find out who has the authority to make these tough decisions.
The legality behind every euthanasia case is different and they need to be looked at individually. There are countless families fighting for the right to make the decision on keeping a loved one alive and in a vegetative state or letting their loved ones pass on. Doctors are having a hard time making the choices themselves, they know that the patient may be asking for help in ending the suffering but the doctor would still have to be the bearer of bad news to the family of the deceased. Some doctors say “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” ( BBC, P.1)
Some may be asking how does taking the life of a known killer or someone else on death row fit in to euthanasia. The answer is this: when a dog bites a child and the parents think that it is the best option to put that dog down, and society agrees with that choice it is called Euthanasia. It is the same thing with criminals because once you are found guilty of a crime it is up to the state and in most cases the federal justice department to figure out what to do with them. In the constitution there is nothing in it that says we (as a people) have a right to life. Meaning that the government is not responsible for providing us with the necessities of life, I understand that this does not mean they are allowed to kill anyone they want but we have a justice system that we elected into power and are now abiding by. The death sentence follows this definition because it follows the painless part. It doesn’t matter what the crime or how horrid the murder all death row inmates have the lethal injection, which just puts them to sleep and stops their heart. However back when the electric chair was being used as the death sentence it would not qualify as euthanasia because that was not painless actually it was used because it caused pain and we wanted to have the criminal suffer the way their victims did. The legality of the situation is that if it is a terminally ill person and they say that it is their time, a person who is unable to make the choice but has been unresponsive for a long time (whatever their closest loved one decides), or they have been convicted and tried for a crime that requires the death sentence as a punishment, there should be no cause for legal action.
The ethics of the subject are another huge argument currently being debated. There are many doctors that are against euthanasia because it violates their definition as preservers of life. Among other reasons doctors have many moral counter-arguments regarding euthanasia. “Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill” (BBC, P.1). From the patient’s side there are also ethical arguments, what about people who suffer from depression or experience thought of suicide? To help regulate this there needs to be a list of diseases that are considered terminal and limit the emotional side by being a strictly physical condition. By this I mean there is no cure for the disease you have and it is not a mental disorder, such as depression.
The definition of euthanasia is a debate that will be fought for years to come but these reasons should clear up some of the blurred guidelines. People need a way to stop suffering when it comes to their own lives because they are in control of their choices, and when they are unable to make the choice for themselves they should at least have peace of mind that their loved one will make the right choice. We need to create much more concise and less ambiguous laws surrounding what is defined as euthanasia. The doctors are also allowed to have their opinions because they are the ones that are going to be affected the most in the long term. Euthanasia now has a definition that is concise easy to understand and who it impacts.
of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” (Webster). There need to be some changes made to incorporate more than just the sick. Euthanasia is the taking of life of a being with a terminal non-mental disease or convict through a painless process.Probably the most understood aspect of Euthanasia is for when there are terminally ill people or animals. Helping something suffer no longer is a generous action when they cannot help themselves evade that misery. There was an article in a Belgium newspaper that showed a study where those who had to be euthanized asked for donor requests “The report notes, All donors expressed their wish for organ donation once their request for euthanasia was granted according to Belgian legislation. All donors suffered from an unbearable non-malignant disorder” (Baklinski, P.1). This is a good process because we can help two people, by helping someone die in a peaceful way that does not harm the organ that the other person can use.
The case of Terri Schiavo was in the media for the majority of 2004. This excerpt from the NNDB website gives some insight on the case. “As the insanity moved to the federal level, Schiavo's feeding tube was finally removed on March 18, 2005, and her heart stopped beating 13 days later. In a final postscript to Schiavo's short life, the autopsy conducted after her death established that her brain damage was even worse than experts had said while she was alive, and that virtually everything the "save Terri" activists had said was incorrect. Schiavo's brain weighed about half what a healthy human brain weighs, damage that left her unable to think, feel, see, or interact in any way with her environment. There was no chance she could have recovered, and no evidence she had ever been abused” (Soylent, P.1). This particular case could have been carried out a little more humanely. Rather than stop feeding her they could have given her an injection to help her body shut down, rather than dragging it out for 13 days. Circumstances like these are not uncommon in today’s world and we need to find out who has the authority to make these tough decisions.
The legality behind every euthanasia case is different and they need to be looked at individually. There are countless families fighting for the right to make the decision on keeping a loved one alive and in a vegetative state or letting their loved ones pass on. Doctors are having a hard time making the choices themselves, they know that the patient may be asking for help in ending the suffering but the doctor would still have to be the bearer of bad news to the family of the deceased. Some doctors say “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” ( BBC, P.1)
Some may be asking how does taking the life of a known killer or someone else on death row fit in to euthanasia. The answer is this: when a dog bites a child and the parents think that it is the best option to put that dog down, and society agrees with that choice it is called Euthanasia. It is the same thing with criminals because once you are found guilty of a crime it is up to the state and in most cases the federal justice department to figure out what to do with them. In the constitution there is nothing in it that says we (as a people) have a right to life. Meaning that the government is not responsible for providing us with the necessities of life, I understand that this does not mean they are allowed to kill anyone they want but we have a justice system that we elected into power and are now abiding by. The death sentence follows this definition because it follows the painless part. It doesn’t matter what the crime or how horrid the murder all death row inmates have the lethal injection, which just puts them to sleep and stops their heart. However back when the electric chair was being used as the death sentence it would not qualify as euthanasia because that was not painless actually it was used because it caused pain and we wanted to have the criminal suffer the way their victims did. The legality of the situation is that if it is a terminally ill person and they say that it is their time, a person who is unable to make the choice but has been unresponsive for a long time (whatever their closest loved one decides), or they have been convicted and tried for a crime that requires the death sentence as a punishment, there should be no cause for legal action.
The ethics of the subject are another huge argument currently being debated. There are many doctors that are against euthanasia because it violates their definition as preservers of life. Among other reasons doctors have many moral counter-arguments regarding euthanasia. “Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill” (BBC, P.1). From the patient’s side there are also ethical arguments, what about people who suffer from depression or experience thought of suicide? To help regulate this there needs to be a list of diseases that are considered terminal and limit the emotional side by being a strictly physical condition. By this I mean there is no cure for the disease you have and it is not a mental disorder, such as depression.
The definition of euthanasia is a debate that will be fought for years to come but these reasons should clear up some of the blurred guidelines. People need a way to stop suffering when it comes to their own lives because they are in control of their choices, and when they are unable to make the choice for themselves they should at least have peace of mind that their loved one will make the right choice. We need to create much more concise and less ambiguous laws surrounding what is defined as euthanasia. The doctors are also allowed to have their opinions because they are the ones that are going to be affected the most in the long term. Euthanasia now has a definition that is concise easy to understand and who it impacts.
Bibliography
You had good examples to back up with what you were saying like how if a dog bite a child it would get put down because it committed a crime just like for criminals too because they commit crimes, so they get put down as well. This is also a good definition because it is definitely arguable. Also, what made your paper effective was how you also included the opposing side towards the end.
ReplyDeleteYour papers introduction started off awkwardly in kind of making me question what your overall objective was going to be about the paper, but it gradually got better as the paper continued and became stronger. You used great examples, especially the Terry Schiavo case and your paper not only supported your definition, but made the reader question what they would do in this situation and helped them explore.
ReplyDeleteYou effectively addressed your opposition, and did a great job of giving examples that everyone could relate to. I liked how you introduced topics that made the readers put themselves in that position. This strengthened your argument, and made your definition seem like the only definition. You supported each of your points well. Good job!
ReplyDeleteThis paper was very informative. Your examples and photos to go along were very strong and rhetorically effective. You definitely did a large amount of research on this topic. This is one of more interesting papers I have read on the blog. Awesome job!
ReplyDelete