Euthanasia Dilemma - Thesis Proposal Example

Outline Thesis ment: No form of euthanasia whatsoever should be allowed unless it comes as an attempt to kill the deserving people Euthanasia should also be considered as murder unless, A. The victim has been legally sentenced to death. B. The victim is suffering from an incurable painful disease. [Student’s name] [Instructor’s name] [Course name and code] 29th August, 2010. I. Euthanasia: A Introduction: In the modern world, there is a variety of controversial topics and euthanasia happens to be one of the most criticized and debatable issues among the list of these topics. Euthanasia is an act of painlessly bringing an individual’s life to an end, with or without the individual’s will. (Cavan and Dolan, p. 12) state the definition of euthanasia as per the dictionary as, “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” The act is usually carried out with the help of another person. It is indeed, one of the most sensitive issues since it is all about finishing the life of an individual which is one’s most fundamental and valuable possession. Such issues need to be dealt with extreme care specially in the modern age when life is valued the most. Before getting into an in-depth argument about certain aspects of euthanasia, it is customary to briefly explain the basic types of euthanasia, because a lot of people argue about the justification of the legitimacy of euthanasia without even having a preliminary knowledge about the basic types of euthanasia. Euthanasia can fundamentally be classified into two types depending upon the existence or non-existence of the will of the individual being killed, namely the voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. The former type of euthanasia is also called as assisted suicide because it necessarily involves the deceased personal will to die while the latter is often referred to as murder given the fact that it is not supported by the deceased individual’s personal will, and can be forceful or purposeful. There has been a lot of debate on whether or not the voluntary euthanasia should be legalized. There is no point considering non-voluntary euthanasia as ethical unless it is beneficial to kill the victim for the victim’s family and the society. This can be possible if the victim is a criminal or a murderer or dangerous for the society in any potential way. However, in various states, voluntary euthanasia is legalized. This is wrong. This paper aims at laying certain limits up to which the practice of giving euthanasia to an individual may be justified in an attempt to develop a mutual consensus among the people in visualizing euthanasia as an unethical practice unless used as a potential means of sentencing the criminals to death. B Argument: “No form of euthanasia whatsoever should be allowed unless it comes as an attempt to kill the deserving people”. There are a lot of people who favor voluntary euthanasia arguing that it is an individual’s personal choice whether he/she wants to live or die at a particular time. In the modern world where several unusual and awkward practices are considered as legitimate, the concept of choosing the time of getting oneself a painless death is considered as “cool”. It is indeed, thought of as a smart approach of getting rid of the miseries of life. And this is the notion that makes it quite easy for the physicians to help their willful patients to death. In a study conducted by (Manning, 1998, p. 8), it was discovered that what made it relatively easier and usual for a physician to kill a patient was actually none other than the universally acknowledged notion of considering euthanasia as a “good death” where the patient had expressed his/her consent and willingness to die. But this is not right. “The life-cycle of a given individual passes through a number of stages of different moral significance.” (Keown, 1995, p. 9). Everybody in this world happens to go through certain extremely tough situations in life which may cause him/her to want to die but this is only a matter of moments. Once one comes back in one’s senses, one realizes that one had been extremely unfaithful towards one’s own self by the mere thought of committing suicide. Man has been created by God and how long should one live has to be God’s decision. Life is too sacred a possession to spare unless required as will be explained shortly. Physicians should not contribute in fulfilling the foolish desire of the frustrated people to die. Instead, such people should be counseled to come back to life. Euthanasia is fundamentally against the law of nature and an unnatural way of terminating the journey of life. Therefore, euthanasia totally violates the law of nature and not only the victim but also the assistant will be held accountable for this unethical act in the court of nature. However, euthanasia, occasionally, happens to be the best way out when it comes to killing a criminal as per the instructions of the law or a patient who’s life is worse than death because of the continuous unbearable pain specially when the doctors can not see any hope for the patient in pain at all. However, it is imperative that the doctors do not proceed with the act unless the person in pain himself/herself shows interest in death as a means to get rid of the unbearable pain. Criminals are wrong and must be held accountable for their unethical deeds but this fact should be respected that they are also humans. Euthanasia is indeed, the best way to get rid of the criminals without having to cause them much pain before death given the fact that euthanasia is essentially painless. Through euthanasia, the victim is killed in a way that would cause him/her least pain and an easy relief from the punishment or disease. Such painless ways of killing the victims include but are not limited to overdose of drugs, or locking the victim in a closed room with the valve of gas on to let the gas fill the room and escort the victim gradually and painlessly to the death. C Conclusion: Euthanasia, voluntary or non-voluntary is extremely unethical unless practiced in certain critical circumstances as discussed above. Voluntary euthanasia should be considered as equivalent to killing or murdering a person irrespective of the fact that the deceased expressed his/her interest in death. Deciding the time for death should solely be considered the right of God who made it in the first place. However, it would be good if euthanasia could be considered as a potential means of killing the criminals instead of hanging them to death just in an attempt to respect humanity. In fact, euthanasia given to the criminals as a punishment should be appreciated and be considered as an expression of care for the humanity. Also, euthanasia is a very adequate means of relieving the patient suffering from the continuous severe pains and miseries of the incurable disease as a last resort only if the sufferer expresses his/her concern towards the artificial death. If a patient is killed to serve the purpose mentioned without getting the patient’s formal permission for the act, it should also be considered as murder and the murderer should be held accountable for the unethical act accordingly. Put it another way, all forms of non-voluntary euthanasia should be illegalized except for when it is adopted to kill the criminals for whom death has been declared as the ultimate punishment by the law prevalent in the specific region. Besides, all usual reasons put forward to justify the act of euthanasia should be condemned and the act should be referred to as murder and laws should exercise the necessary course of action to be adopted for the ignorant. Works cited: Cavan, Seamus and Dolan, Shean. Euthanasia: the debate over the right to die. USA: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc. 2000. Print. Keown, John. Euthanasia examined: ethical, clinical and legal perspectives. UK: Cambridge University Press. 1995. Print. Manning, Michael. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: killing or caring? USA: Paulist Press. 1998. Print. Read More