Against Euthanasiaintroduction Persuasive Essay Example

to avoid artificially prolonging life. Consequently, under specific conditions, passive voluntary euthanasia may be permitted.

While some medical doctors support the right of terminally ill patients to request aid-in-dying and are willing to comply, others oppose active voluntary euthanasia and have legal backing for their stance. Physicians who respect the autonomy of terminally ill patients in choosing the timing and method of their death may secretly assist in fulfilling these requests.

The medical approach to fulfilling a patient's desire to end their life is to increase the dosage of morphine, while pretending to aim for pain control. Although the physician is aware that this higher amount of morphine will have a dual effect of causing the patient's death, it is believed that their intention was to alleviate suffering rather than to kill. Consequently, in situations where elderly, terminally ill individuals with frail health request euthanasia, certain medical staff may collaborate by raising the morphine dosage, relying on the "double effect" argument as a legal safeguard against prosecution.

Doctors who object to using medication, blood transfusions, or surgery to prolong the lives of terminally ill individuals oppose such practices on ethical grounds. In response to global demands for euthanasia from those suffering from incurable pain and seeking relief, countries have formed "right-to-die" organizations. Conversations involving healthcare professionals, philosophers, ethicists, psychologists, and representatives of different religious groups are held worldwide to discuss and debate this topic.

Supporters of the right to die believe that there are certain instances in which active euthanasia is warranted for individuals with terminal illnesses. They contend that voluntary euthanasia, stemming from empathy and a commitment to human rights, can be justified both

morally and legally. These situations encompass scenarios where patients have incurable diseases, endure unbearable pain, have exhausted all other forms of relief, and seek to end their lives out of compassion. However, the inherent morality or immorality of euthanasia continues to be uncertain.

Euthanasia perspectives vary based on factors such as religion and cultural beliefs. In countries with Christian affiliations, euthanasia is generally forbidden because of the belief that life is sacred and should not be prematurely ended. This viewpoint finds support in the biblical commandment "thou shall not kill," which encourages individuals to persevere until their natural end rather than opting for euthanasia. However, other nations permit euthanasia due to the diversity of faiths and the emotional struggle experienced by individuals witnessing their loved ones endure incurable illnesses.

Euthanasia provides a peaceful option for those with incurable illnesses, sparing them from unnecessary suffering. Numerous individuals face terminal diseases that render them unable to communicate or function, essentially resembling vegetables. These individuals endure each day confined to their beds, anticipating the deterioration of their conditions. As a Catholic, I personally support euthanasia while also advocating for the implementation of clear guidelines and criteria to ensure ethicality and public acceptance.