INCLUDE TURN IT INANSWER REFLECTION QUESTIONS BELOW ESSAY, B.ASSIGNMENT: Review the in-text comments and summary feedback you received on your draft to enhance your writing. You will then submit a rev

Euthanasia

Argumentative Research Essay

English Composition II

June 11, 2020

Euthanasia Should Not Be Legal in the United States

Euthanasia is defined as the act of intentionally killing someone while in a coma or suffering from a prolonged disease that does not have a cure (Vidanapathirana 2017). It also includes ending the lives of older adults to prevent them from suffering for long. Euthanasia is illegal in the United States of America, but assisted suicide is a legalized act in Colorado. Human life is priceless and should only be ended by the creator; thus, I do not support euthanasia. The issue of euthanasia is debatable, and a conclusion can be drawn depending on the supporting arguments of opposing or proposing sides. I believe it is illegal to enforce euthanasia in the United States since it is homicide, incompatible with palliative care, and encourages people to end their lives. This essay will, therefore, argue in support of making euthanasia illegal.

Bioethics researches have made the issue of euthanasia debatable depending on the several forms it is manifested. Euthanasia can either be voluntary where the person in question decides to let go of their lives and asks for assistance from external forces or be involuntary where decisions to end their lives are reached without prior consultations. Other forms of euthanasia include direct and indirect. Direct is where patients are given drugs directly to end their lives without any legal agreement. Meanwhile, indirect is where treatment is offered to deteriorate the health of the patient, making them die shortly. Active and passive euthanasia is where death comes automatically as per the will of the creator and allowing people to die as a result of drug withdrawal by choice or because of continued medical costs, respectively (Symons & Chua 2020).

Euthanasia is supported in countries like Belgium, Netherlands, and Switzerland, among others, but under various circumstances. The United States of America has allowed a few states to make rulings on matters concerning euthanasia. However, I feel that this should not be the case because human life is precious and should not be tampered with at all costs in whichever stage of human life. Passive euthanasia which means withdrawing medical services to let people's life go is allowed in all the parts of the United States, but I think this is debatable since I do not see any solid reason as to why we should compare human life with money or other resources since the leading cause of passive euthanasia is the increasing bills in medical facilities or defiance of the illnesses from leaving the human body even after a thorough treatment.

Allowing euthanasia by consideration of the passive form should only put much weight in the natural actions people are allo wed to since their situation is beyond human control. Such deaths are caused by God's acts, such as natural calamities, prolonged treatments without health improvements, old age, and other uncontrollable actions. In recent research carried out in the United States of America, 62% of the doctors admitted to being aware of the professional opinions of euthanasia. 7% said that they would prefer to offer lethal drugs to patients to help them die instead of watching them suffer in the hospital beds without hope of recovery ( Brouwer et al 2018).

Various researchers have never given a concrete conclusion concerning their views on euthanasia because they think that the action is partially right and partially wrong. It is only active and passive euthanasia that people should partially support since the two are, to some extent, beyond human control or have limited control. Countries that have supported all types of euthanasia demonstrate a lack of value for human life, and this could be punishable from the human maker who is the only one with the mandate to instill and take ways lives from human beings.

Assisted suicide should not be acceptable in whichever way, and those requesting for their lives to be ended should be presented before a court of law since they do not put the lives in their beings. It is against the rules of nature to demand lethal drugs or any other way of ending human life since it is superior and should not be compared against the human suffering or any other emotions that may lead to loss of life (Chan & Tse 2016). People should wait until their end time comes, and no one should opt for a shortcut to end life because of suffering, depression, and other problems that may bring the idea of committing suicide as a solution.

Countries like Belgium and Netherlands where euthanasia is legalized are initiated upon the request of the patient or life owner; hence, it can be termed as voluntary. Patients have the power to request or deny any attempted killing for their deteriorated health status regardless of their situations and circumstances. It should be the sole decision of a person to remove their lives to avoid suffering or after they feel that they are old enough to die . This is according to research carried out in the Netherlands , and I partially agree with the arguments. Sometimes someone may be old enough to the extent of being obsolete to the community with no tangible impact, and they decide to let their lives go by requesting lethal drugs to die. This is acceptable, but I am still not convinced if anyone can decide to end human life apart from God, the creator alone.

Countries with standardized medical facilities and personnel should never agree to euthanasia's ideas as it devalues human life . Human life may be ended by nature and natural calamities, which are acts of God and beyond human control. This is acceptable, but no one should develop an argument or mechanism that can end human life as it is precious and incomparable to anything else on earth. Written consents of people wishing to end their lives should be highly examined, and the persons examined to see whether other solutions rather than death could be applicable in the situation.

Euthanasia should only be allowed on a special occasion and only carried out by physicians who have taken oaths of office not to commit any suicide for malicious gains but the support of the sufferers. A case such as letting the life of unborn baby go if the life of the mother is in danger is acceptable and should be allowed but after some justifications from various professional psychiatrists. Such actions should be done upon the doctor's repeated examinations, after which a typical result is attained after several tests. The attempt to legalize euthanasia in the US is illegal and should not be accepted unless further explanations are made. The States should only accept natural deaths and leave the other work for the doctors, but no one should be allowed to decide whether to live or die (Al Hamarsheh & Mrayyan 2018).

Even in the countries where euthanasia is legal, there are some factors they consider, such as having a second opinion and consultation, not from the initial physician, and the most convincing examination carries the day. Besides the countries being loose and not giving human life the value it deserves, some of their mechanisms portray some sanity, and I believe they can be advised to illegalize euthanasia with immediate effects.

Legalizing euthanasia would bring a "slippery argument ", which from a philosophical view, means that once one rule is passed, it attracts others of the same nature to be legalized, too. This would be harmful to the citizens. Assuming euthanasia is legalized, suggestions to allow people to kill themselves would rise hence diminishing the value of life. I would not suggest any form of euthanasia at whichever circumstances since it would be a gateway to more murder cases, suicides, among other immoral behaviors unacceptable in the communities. Less sensible forms would be allowed to grant people freedom and the rule of their lives.

Different religious groups customarily come up with different ideas, but in the case of euthanasia, all the religious groups across the United States stood with one voice to condemn the issue of euthanasia since it involves the denial of the right to live, which is God-given (Masdeu et al 2019). The State should also come up with rules and regulations to govern acts of euthanasia to ensure that life is protected for its sovereignty and whoever tempers it faces severe consequences. According to particular research in America, all opinions by religious affiliations highly condemned all the forms of euthanasia with denominations such as Southern Baptist, Catholics, and Pentecostals being the frontrunners of not supporting the whole initiative.

Racism and gender inequality are demonstrated in support of euthanasia, with white Americans supporting the idea in large numbers as compared to the black Americans (Kalal 2018). Value for life is incomparable and should not be taken for granted. Doctors should develop pain management mechanisms whenever administering medication to patients since research show that most of the patients who decide to die in hospitals are because of the pains instilled in them while in hospitals during medication. Education and public awareness programs should be contacted to ensure that everyone is conversant with euthanasia and the possible consequences for euthanasia decisions.

Euthanasia is a bit different from assisted suicide since, in the case of assisted suicide, individuals get assistance during medication and may decide behind the backs of the technicians to let their lives go while euthanasia cases occur when the physicians grant a request to die . Rules and regulations should be set to stop any form of euthanasia and severely punish the lawbreakers. No physician should be allowed to end an individual's life unless under understandably exceptional circumstances. Euthanasia debates are drawn from the ancient time of Greece and Rome, and I believe discussions shall continue until an appropriate solution is achieved. I strongly disagree with euthanasia as it diminishes the value of human life, which is God-given. Scriptures teach us to promote brotherhood by sharing what we have and taking care of others, which is a demonstration of the love of God to humankind. Anyone who promotes euthanasia is against the will of God.

Reflection

I have used rhetorical appeals in class while discussing euthanasia matters with my classmates. We were discussing more the legalization of euthanasia but no one supported the idea because it diminishes human life and doesn’t respect it the value it deserves. I referred to an article of Symons & Chua which defines various forms of euthanasia which include direct, indirect, active, and passive euthanasia. In all the forms, it is only active euthanasia that seems understandable since death occurs naturally and no one can control the action. This enhances my essay by analyzing the topic of euthanasia from a practical point of view with facts and genuine ideas from the public.

I would require feedback that provides more details of euthanasia to help me understand much about the topic, and develop solutions for the problem. I believe that no one should support euthanasia since it is essentially murdering until under special circumstances. I am uncertain about the parts of my essay that support euthanasia.

References

Al Hamarsheh, M. K., & Mrayyan, M. (2018). Cancer Patients Who Elect Euthanasia as an Option: An Argumentative Essay. Middle East Journal of Cancer, 9(3), 253-258.

Brouwer, M., Kaczor, C., Battin, M. P., Maeckelberghe, E., Lantos, J. D., & Verhagen, E. (2018). Should pediatric euthanasia be legalized?. Pediatrics, 141(2), e20171343. Retrieved from https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/141/2/e20171343

Chan, H. M., & Tse, C. Y. (2016). The case of Ah Bun: Euthanasia and other alternatives. In Ethical Dilemmas in Public Policy (pp. 23-38). Springer, Singapore.

Kalal, N. (2018). Euthanasia: Right to live & right to Key Words: Euthanasia, Legitimate medical Euthanasia, Pros, and Cons of Euthanasia. 

Masdeu, J. C., Aksamit, A. J., Carver, A. C., Foley, K. M., Kass, J. S., Martin, R. A., ... & Victor, S. J. (2019). End of life: Expert care and support, not physician‐hastened death. Neurology, 93(17), 729-734.

Symons, X., & Chua, R. (2020). ‘Alive by default’: An exploration of Velleman’s unfair burdens argument against state-sanctioned Euthanasia. Bioethics, 34(3), 288-29

Vidanapathirana, M. (2017). Non-voluntary passive euthanasia should be legalized in Sri Lanka. Retrieved from http://dr.lib.sjp.ac.lk/handle/123456789/7558