Debate on euthanasia
Today we will discuss the dilemma of euthanasia. Euthanasia also known as mercy killing is a way of painlessly terminating one’s life with the "humane" motive of ending his suffering. There are different types of euthanasia: voluntary, non-voluntary, active or passive. * Euthanasia is passive when it merely allows the death of the individual. * Euthanasia is active when it brings about the death of the individual. * Voluntary euthanasia (euthanasia upon request) is performed with the consent of the individual. * Non-voluntary euthanasia is performed without the consent of the individual (“Without consent” does not imply “contrary to the wishes”). * Involuntary euthanasia is performed against the wishes of the individual.
The subject is controversial and we will confront the two points of view on the issue through this debate.
* The right to die as solution of suffering (the right to die VS the slippery slope argument)
Pro: Euthanasia can be described as the right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death. It is a case of freedom of choice. Individuals have a right to die when life becomes excruciating or undignified. Euthanasia provides a way to relieve extreme pain. Moreover, the etymology of the word euthanasia comes from the Greek meaning “good death”. It is an adjective used to describe a successful death. I believe that allowing people to ‘die with dignity’ is kinder than forcing them to continue their lives with suffering. Con: Yes, but legalizing any form of the practice is not the solution. First of all, it will lead to a slippery slope effect. Indeed, the acceptance of certain practices, such as physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, will invariably lead to the acceptance or practice of concepts which are currently deemed unacceptable, such as non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. Besides, it is not the solution because alternative treatments are available, such as palliative care and hospices. We do not have to kill the patient to kill the symptoms. Nearly all pain can be relieved. What’s more, even doctors cannot predict firmly about period of death and whether there is a possibility of remission or recovery with other advanced treatments. So, implementing euthanasia would mean many unlawful deaths that could have well survived later. * Dignity or devaluation of human life
Pro: Well, I’m not sure. Illness can take away autonomy, and particularly your ability to make choices. In fact, illness can take away your dignity, leaving you with no quality of life. Euthanasia allows you to take back control in deciding to die. Euthanasia can quickly and humanely end a patient’s suffering, allowing him to die with dignity, and I really want to insist on this point. The disease may lose its autonomy to the patient, making him dependent on others so humiliating and making him lose his self-esteem. If the patient feels that he cannot preserve what remains of his dignity only by choosing death it must be allowed that choice. Con: I don’t think so. Euthanasia doesn’t allow to protect a life with dignity. On the contrary, it devalues human life. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end. He gives you a life and Euthanasia destroys his gift. Euthanasia is a murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded. It is morally unacceptable.
* Personal choice
Pro: Yes, God gives us the life, but then you can make your own choices in your own life. By forbidding euthanasia, we prevent the right to liberty of decision. In the name of human dignity and the right of everyone to have its own existence, it is important to respect the wishes of people die at the end of life. Man is the only master of his body and his destiny, he is the sole...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document