Euthanasia is clearly against the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors have to fulfil. This oath basically states that doctors must never be involved in the killing of people because after all, they have been trained to ensure that people are able to recover from their diseases and injuries.
Doctors are the ones whom people entrust their lives whenever there is something wrong with their health. Thus, it is the responsibility of the doctors to always do the best they can to help people live and enjoy their lives Cavan If their patients die under their supervision, the doctors can accept this for as long as they know and can prove that they really did their best and exhausted all possibilities to ensure the survival of the patients.
There are just certain instances where the disease or the injury of the patients has become so serious that it is already difficult to treat and make the patients recover. In these cases, it is unfair to blame the doctors for the death of the patients. The Hippocratic Oath helps the doctors to realize how important their responsibilities are to the people in terms of their health.
This oath also provides an assurance to the people that they can trust their doctors and be assured that they will do whatever is necessary to help them deal with their health problems. If euthanasia becomes legalized, then the effectiveness of the Hippocratic Oath will be negated and the doctors can have the option of immediately resorting to euthanasia especially in difficult cases instead of trying their best until the very end.
Another argument against euthanasia is that it is essentially homicide because the doctors will kill the patient even if it has been approved by the patient himself or the family of the patient. He valued her rights as his daughter, unfortunately he did not value her rights as a human being.
Thus, it would seem either extremely difficult for a jury to make a reasonable call on whether or not Latimer should have been guilty. This raises an interesting point: A killer with a good defense would attempt to prove that they killed a disabled person to put them out of their misery, when indeed they may have had completely different, perhaps personal reasons to murder the individual.
Our system of laws is right in finding that to legalize euthanasia would far a massive risk upon the elderly, sick, and disabled of our society. This is a risk for which a law should not have to take blame for, and changing this law would only encourage that.
Will ten years in prison change the way Latimer feels about his actions? So what good is there in putting Latimer away for ten years? Should the sentence be a harsher one? If a terminally ill person wants to avoid excruciating pain and wants to end their life in a dignified manner, it is implied in the concept of ordered liberty. The right to exercise euthanasia is something one can choose for themselves and the courts should have as much a say in this matter as they do in matters such as marriage, family relationships, procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment.
We are said to live in a free country where we can make our own decisions, but are we really free if we cannot even make the choice to live or not live our own lives. The ideas against Euthanasia or assisted suicide are flawed in several different ways. First of all, the Hippocratic Oath very clearly states: Also, the Oath has been changed many times throughout history so what is different now. Before, the oath prohibited the cutting open of a patient, but now surgery is used worldwide.
The oath can be altered to fit the reality of the time. Second of all, in a society of people obsessed with the cost of health care, Euthanasia is regarded with the dangers of a slippery slope. The idea of slippery slope does not stand strong with facts because there is nothing that corroborates the idea that legalizing one type of Euthanasia will lead to the legalization of all types of Euthanasia.
All of the disadvantages against this practice are controversial and can be rebutted. In the end, death is a tangible option for those who are suffering and do not see life as an option any longer. Many see it as inhumane and religiously wrong, but we must see it from the eyes of the patient.
We are promised rights in this country, and the right to die should be right up there with the right to live. Which of your works would you like to tell your friends about?
These links will automatically appear in your email. If you have a suggestion about this website or are experiencing a problem with it, or if you need to report abuse on the site, please let us know. We try to make TeenInk.
Arguments Against Euthanasia Analysis Philosophy Essay. Print Reference this. Published: 23rd March, senile people who are difficult to be taken care off will be put for euthanasia to help their families save money from paying their hospital bills. So Kant is against Euthanasia as he is a deontological thinker and takes actions as.
The American Medical Association opposes euthanasia. Help is an essay against service that essay make your student life against, hassle-free and euthanasia. Buchanan Bibliography Friedman, Emily. The writer will format the paper according to your selected help e. Subscribe to this RSS feed.
The Case for Euthanasia - In order to provide a framework for my thesis statement on the morality of euthanasia, it is first necessary to define what euthanasia is and the different types of euthanasia. Against Euthanasia essaysLiterally, euthanasia means "good death" but the controversy surrounding it is just the opposite. In active euthanasia the immediate cause of death is not the patients disease but something that is done to the patient to cause his or her death. Because, active eu.
Argumentative Essay Against Euthanasia Introduction Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately killing a person to spare him or her from . Arguments For And Against Euthanasia Essay Words 8 Pages Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering.