argument essay about euthanasia

• Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments

Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?

• Legalization
• Legalization: Medical Perspectives
• Legalization: Lawmakers’ Views
• Vulnerable Groups
• Hippocratic Oath
• Legal Right
• Slippery Slope
• Palliative Care
• Physician Obligation
• Financial Motivations

People who view this page may also like:

• United States vs. International Health Care Spending
• States with Legal Physician-Assisted Suicide
• Should Marijuana Be a Medical Option?

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Euthanasia – Pros & Cons
• Top Pro & Con Quotes
• Historical Timeline
• Did You Know?
• States with Legal Medical Aid in Dying (MAID)
• Religious Perspectives on Euthanasia and Medical Aid in Dying (MAID)
• Euthanasia & Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) around the World
• Landmark Euthanasia and Medical Aid in Dying Court Cases

Cite This Page

• Additional Resources
• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Mankind has always struggled to deal with numerous illnesses that have been in existence at different periods of time. Different treatment alternatives have been employed ranging from those by traditional medicine men to the modern scientific methods.

All these efforts have been motivated by the desire to remain alive for as long as one can (Buse 7). However, there are situations when living is more problematic and either the victim or other stakeholders contemplate ending life. This is referred to as euthanasia.

It is the act of deliberately terminating life when it is deemed to be the only way that a person can get out of their suffering (Johnstone 247). Euthanasia is commonly performed on patients who are experiencing severe pain due to terminal illness.

For one suffering from terminal illness, assisted death seems to be the better way of ending their suffering. The issue of euthanasia has ignited heated debate among the professionals as well as the law makers and the general public (Otlowski 211).

The physicians should do everything humanly possible to save lives of their patients, however, euthanasia should be considered as the only alternative to save extreme cases like the terminally ill patients from their perpetual pain and suffering.

Euthanasia can either be active/voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. In voluntary euthanasia, the patient suffering from terminal illness may give consent to be assisted end his/her prolonged severe pain through death (Bowie and Bowie 215).

The patient may also decline to undergo burdensome treatment, willingly terminating treatment procedures like removal of life support machinery, and simply starving. Non-voluntary euthanasia, on the other hand, involves who cannot make sound decisions.

They may be too young, in a coma, senile, mentally challenged, or other severe brain damage (Gorsuch 86). Involuntary euthanasia involves ending the life of the patient without his/her consent. This usually happens when the patient is willing to live despite being in the most dangerous situations.

For instance, an infantry man has his stomach blown up by an explosive and experiences great pain. The army doctor, realizing that the soldier would not survive and has no pain relievers decide to spare the man further suffering and executes him instantly.

Also, a person could be seen on the 10 th floor of a building on fire, the person’s clothes are on fire and cries out for help. The person on ground has a rifle and decides to shoot him dead with a strong conviction that the individual would have experience a slow and painful death from the fierce fire.

Due to the sensitivity of the issue, laws that will protect the rights of both the patient and the physicians who practice euthanasia should be put in place.

A patient has the right to demand or refuse a given form of medication as long as it will alleviate their suffering (Bowie and Bowie 216). It amounts to violation of the patient’s rights if the physician does not respect the will of the patient.

Each one has a right to determine what direction their lives should take and is their own responsibility (Buse 7). A study conducted among adult Americans indicates that about 80% of them support the idea.

They argue that someone suffering from terminal illness, a condition which no medical intervention can reverse, should be allowed to undergo euthanasia. It is inappropriate to subject an individual into a slow but painful death. Such an individual ought to be assisted to end his/her life in order to avoid a prolonged painful death.

The laws guiding the practice of euthanasia in the state of Oregon are quite clear. Active euthanasia should only be performed on a patient who is 18 years and above, of sound mind and ascertained by at least three medical doctors that assisted death is the only alternative of helping the patient (Otlowski 212).

Under such a situation, the doctor prescribes the drugs but is not allowed to administer them. The patient in question takes the drug (s) voluntarily without any assistance from the doctor. The patient will then die in dignity, without any intense pain that living with the condition would bring.

It is evident that some terminal illness may not present unbearable pain to the patient. Instead, a chronically ill patient who is in a no-pain state will not be in a humanly dignified state. The patient of doctor may propose euthanasia as the better treatment alternative.

This has been occasioned by the advancement in the field of medicine where pain can be significantly control (Buse 8). All patients are entitled to pain relief. However, most physicians have not been trained on pain management and hence the patients are usually left in excruciating pain (Johnstone 249).

Under such a condition, the patient suffers physically and emotionally causing depression. Leaving the patient in this agonizing state is unacceptable and euthanasia may be recommended.

Moreover, the physician who practices euthanasia should be protected by the law. This can be achieved by giving him/her the ‘right’ to kill. A doctor handling a patient who is in excruciating pain should be in a position to recommend euthanasia so as to assist the patient have a dignified death.

It is not required by law or medical ethics that a patient should be kept alive by all means. Hence, the patient should be allowed to demand death if he/she considers it necessary (Gorsuch 88).

It would be inhumane and unacceptable to postpone death against the wish of the patient. It would also be unwise to insist on curing a condition which has been medically regarded as irreversible or incurable.

Most terminal illnesses are very expensive to cure although they are known to be incurable. The patient as well as family members ought to be relieved of the accompanying financial burden (Buse 8). The patient, considering the amount of money and other resources used in an attempt to keep him alive, may demand to be assisted to die.

This can only be possible through euthanasia (Johnstone 253). In fact, spending more on the patient would only serve to extend the individual’s suffering. Human beings are caring by nature and none would be willing to live their loved ones to suffer on their own.

They would therefore dedicate a lot of time providing the best care that they can afford. Some would even leave their day to day activities in order to attend to the terminally or chronically ill relative or friend.

Euthanasia, therefore, serves to spare the relatives the agony of constantly watching their family member undergo intense suffering and painful death. In most occasions, attempts to keep a patient alive would mean that he/she be hospitalized for a very long period of time (Bowie and Bowie 216).

Terminally ill patients in hospitals imply that facilities would be put under great pressure at the expense of other patients who would benefit from using the same services. These facilities include; bed space, medical machines, drugs, human resource, among others. Even if they were to be given homecare, a lot of time resource and facilities would be overstretched.

Other than the issue of homecare and the financial obligations that may arise, there is also the issue of personal liberty and individual rights. Those who front this argument explain that the patient has the right to determine when and how they die.

Since the life of a person belongs to that person only, then the person should have the right to decide if he or she wants to end it, if ending life would also mean ending irreversible suffering (CNBC News para 4).

This mean that individual undergoing great and irreversible suffering have the power to chose “a good death” and thus decide when they want to die (para 7).. Furthermore, these patients are dependent on life sustaining medication, which adds only adds the misery.

This brings forth the question about whether such patients can be forced to take life sustaining drugs if the said drugs only lead to extended life full of suffering.

The law should provide for such individuals to refuse to take such drugs and also to request drugs that will lead to end of their misery, even it if mean that these drugs will end their lives.

Therefore patients in this condition should be allowed the legal tight to end their miseries through assisted suicide.

Those who oppose any form of euthanasia argue that a terminally ill patient or a person suffering irreversible pain from an incurable disease should be assisted to live by all means including any medical procedure that guarantees that they live the longest possible period.

This argument is valid but has logical flows. The argument presupposes that such patients need to be prevented from dyeing through any possible means. In reality though, this efforts are futile as when a patient has determined that death is the easier way out of the misery they are suffering, the emotional distress will only pull them closer to death (Morgan 103).

Furthermore, such efforts to prolong the patients’ lives do not prevent death, as but just postpone it at the same time extending the patients suffering. This is because such patient’s life is hanging by the thread and they have been brought near to death by the virtue of their illness.

In severe cases such patient may result to suicide, as in the case of Sue Rodriguez, Canadian woman who suffered Lou Gehrig’s disease, and was refused the right for assisted death (CNBC News para 2). As such efforts to prolong their lives pushed them closer to death

While some countries such as The Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark have embraced the idea of euthanasia, others have move at a snails pace in this direction. Canada, one of the most developed countries is such countries.

Euthanasia is still illegal in Canada and any person found trying it is subject to prosecution. Furthermore, any person found to have assisted another person commit suicide is also liable to prosecution for up to 14 years in prison.

Still in Canada, the law after many years of legal battle has differentiated euthanasia and assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is what is otherwise referred to as active euthanasia where a terminally ill patient asks for help to end life.

The law in Canada has also allowed for these patients to refuse life sustaining medication if such medication does not in any way improve the quality of their lives (CNBC para 17).

If the law acknowledges the power of a person to refuse such medication then it must also allow such a person the legal right to determine the condition and the manner in which they die. This means that there is light, though, at the end of the tunnel for Canadians patients who may wish to end their lives.

Such argument for any form of euthanasia tends to conglomerate around two valid arguments. First, if a terminally ill patient who is suffering extreme and irreversible pain is determined to be of sound mind and is adult then such patients should be allowed to make judgment about their lives.

If such a patient decides that ending their lives will be end their misery, then no doctor has the legal as well as moral obligation of coercing the patient to continue taking medication that only prolongs their suffering (Morgan 145).

If doctors manage to successfully administer the drugs against the wishes of such a patient, they will have committed an assault against the patient and this is a legal as well as a professional misconduct (Morgan 146). Secondly, the desires of such a patient are supreme.

This means that the patients’ right to self determination overrides the fundamental but not absolute belief that life is holy and should only be ended by the maker.

Therefore such patient’s should be treated as competent enough to make decisions about their lives and that no medical officer has the legal or moral right to determine that such a patient is wrong. Any medical help provide to such a patient thus be for the benefit of the patient.

From a religious point of view, it can be argued that God is love and people of God should demonstrate compassion. If someone is undergoing intense pain and a slow but sure death, it would be evil to allow such a person to experience the full extent (Gorsuch 89).

Euthanasia would therefore be the better option. Helping the patient have a dignified death can be the best show of agape love. There is also the issue of quality of life where if someone is leading low quality or worthless life, then one should opt for euthanasia.

The essay has discussed several points in favor of euthanasia as an alternative when it comes to treating people suffering from terminal illness or responding to perplexing situations where death is the ultimate end although one may go through severe pain and agonizing moments.

It has also highlighted three main forms of euthanasia; voluntary/active, non-voluntary, and involuntary. Anyone can argue against the points raised in this essay but it would be difficult to justify why an individual should be allowed to suffer for a long time either willingly or unwillingly.

The doctors should do everything humanly possible to save lives of their patients, however, euthanasia should be considered as the only alternative to save extreme cases like the terminally ill patients from their perpetual pain and suffering.

Works Cited

Bowie, Bob & Bowie, Robert A. Ethical Studies: Euthanasia (2 nd ed). Neslon Thornes, 2004, Pp. 215-216.

Buse, Anne-Kathrin. Euthanasia: Forms and their Differences . GRIN Verlag, 2008, Pp. 7-8.

CNBC news. “ The Fight for the Right to Die. ” CNBC Canada . 2011.

Gorsuch, Neil M. Euthanasia- The Future of Assisted Suicide . Princeton University Press, 2009, Pp. 86-93.

Johnstone, Megan-Jane. Euthanasia: Contradicting Perspectives (5 th ed). Elsevier Health Sciences, 2008, Pp. 247-262.

Morgan, John. An Easeful Death?: Perspectives On Death, Dying And Euthanasia. S ydney: Federation press Pty Ltd. 1996. Print.

Otlowski, Margaret. Euthanasia and the Common Law . Oxford University Press, 2000, Pp. 211-212.

• Abortion and Parental Consent
• Relationship Between Doctors and Pharmaceutical Industries
• Attitudes Related to Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Among Terminally Ill Patients
• Legalizing Euthanasia
• The Ethics of Euthanasia
• Analysis of Abortion as an Ethical Issue
• Advanced Diagnostic Procedures: The Individual Impact of Genetic Diagnosis
• Listening Skills and Healthcare: A Quantitative Survey Technique
• Teamwork and Communication Errors in Healthcare
• A New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 6). Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/

"Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia." IvyPanda , 6 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia'. 6 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia." May 6, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia." May 6, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia." May 6, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/.

Tips on How to Write a Euthanasia Argumentative Essay

Abortion, birth control, death sentencing, legalization of medical marijuana, and gender reassignment surgery remain the most controversial medical issues in contemporary society.  Euthanasia is also among the controversial topics in the medical field. It draws arguments from philosophy, ethics, and religious points of view.

By definition derives from a Greek term that means good death, and it is the practice where an experienced medical practitioner or a physician intentionally ends an individual's life to end pain and suffering. The names mercy killing or physician-assisted suicide also knows it.

Different countries have different laws as regards euthanasia. In the UK, physician-assisted suicide is illegal and can earn a medical practitioner 14 years imprisonment. All over the world, there is a fierce debate as regards mercy killing.

Like any other controversial topic, there are arguments for and against euthanasia. Thus, there are two sides to the debate. The proponents or those for euthanasia believe it is a personal choice issue, even when death is involved.

On the other hand, those against euthanasia or the opponents believe that physicians must only assist patients when the patients are sound to make such a decision. That is where the debate centers.

This article explores some of the important basics to follow when writing an exposition, argumentative, persuasive, or informative essay on euthanasia.

Steps in Writing a Paper on Euthanasia

When assigned homework on writing a research paper or essay on euthanasia, follow these steps to make it perfect.

1. Read the Prompt

The essay or research paper prompt always have instructions to follow when writing any academic work. Students, therefore, should read it to pick up the mind of the professor or teaching assistant on the assigned academic task. When reading the prompt, be keen to understand what approach the professor prefers. Besides, it should also tell you the type of essay you are required to write and the scope.

2. Choose a Captivating Topic

After reading the prompt, you are required to frame your euthanasia essay title. Make sure that the title you choose is captivating enough as it invites the audience to read your essay. The title of your essay must not divert from the topic, but make it catchy enough to lure and keep readers. An original and well-structured essay title on euthanasia should give an idea of what to expect in the body paragraphs. It simply gives them a reason to read your essay.

3. Decide on the Best Thesis Statement for your Euthanasia Essay

Creating a thesis statement for a euthanasia essay does not deviate from the conventions of essay writing. The same is consistent when writing a thesis statement for a euthanasia research paper. The thesis statement can be a sentence or two at the end of the introduction that sums up your stance on the topic of euthanasia. It should be brief, well crafted, straight to the point, and outstanding. Right from the start, it should flow with the rest of the essay and each preceding paragraph should support the thesis statement.

4. Write an Outline

An outline gives you a roadmap of what to write in each part of the essay, including the essay hook, introduction, thesis statement, body paragraphs, and the conclusion. We have provided a sample euthanasia essay outline in this article, be sure to look at it.

5. Write the First Draft

With all ingredients in place, it is now time to write your euthanasia essay by piecing up all the different parts. Begin with an essay hook, then the background information on the topic, then the thesis statement in the introduction. The body paragraphs should each contain an idea that is well supported with facts from books, journals, articles, and other scholarly sources. Be sure to follow the MLA, APA, Harvard, or Chicago formatting conventions when writing the paper as advised in the essay prompt.

6. Proofread and Edit the Essay

You have succeeded in skinning the elephant, and it is now time to cut the pieces and consume. Failure to proofread and edit an essay can be dangerous for your grade. There is always an illusion that you wrote it well after all. However, if you take some time off and come to it later, you will notice some mistakes. If you want somebody to proofread your euthanasia essay, you can use our essay editing service . All the same, proofreading an essay is necessary before turning the essay in.

Creating a Euthanasia Essay or Research Paper Outline

Like any other academic paper, having a blueprint of the entire essay on euthanasia makes it easy to write. Writing an outline is preceded by choosing a great topic. In your outline or structure of argumentative essay on euthanasia, you should highlight the main ideas such as the thesis statement, essay hook, introduction, topic sentences for the body paragraphs and supporting facts, and the concluding remarks. Here is a sample outline for a euthanasia argumentative essay.

This is a skeleton for your euthanasia essay:

Introduction

• Hook sentence/ attention grabber
• Thesis statement
• Background statement (history of euthanasia and definition)
• Transition to Main Body
• The legal landscape of euthanasia globally
• How euthanasia affects physician-patient relationships
• Biblical stance on euthanasia
• Consequences of illegal euthanasia
• Ethical and moral issues of euthanasia
• Philosophical stance on euthanasia
• Transition to Conclusion
• Restated thesis statement
• Unexpected twist or a final argument
• Food for thought

Sample Euthanasia Essay Outline

Title: Euthanasia is not justified

Essay hook - It is there on TV, but did you know that a situation could prompt a doctor to bring to an end suffering and pain to a terminally ill patient? There is more than meets the eye on euthanasia.

Thesis statement : despite the arguments for and against euthanasia, it is legally and morally wrong to kill any person, as it is disregard of the right to life of an individual and the value of human life.

Paragraph 1: Euthanasia should be condemned as it ends the sacred lives of human beings.

• Only God gives life and has the authority to take it and not humans.
• The bible says, Thou shalt not kill.
• The Quran states, "Whoever killed a Mujahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).

Paragraph 2: Euthanasia gives physicians the power to determine who lives and who dies.

• Doctors end up playing the role of God.
• It could be worse when doctors make mistakes or advance their self-interests to make money. They can liaise with family members to kill for the execution of a will.

Paragraph 3: it destroys the patient-physician relationship

• Patients trust the doctors for healing
• When performed on other patients, the remaining patients lose trust in the same doctor of the facility.
• Under the Hippocratic Oath, doctors are supposed to alleviate pain, end suffering, and protect life, not eliminate it.

Paragraph 4: euthanasia is a form of murder

• Life is lost in the end.
• There are chances that when tried with other therapeutic and non-therapeutic approaches, terminally ill patients can always get better.
• It is selfish to kill a patient based on a medical report, which in itself could be erratic.
• Patients respond well to advanced care approaches.

Paragraph 5: ( Counterargument) euthanasia proponents argue based on relieving suffering and pain as well as reducing the escalating cost of healthcare.

• Euthanasia helps families avoid spending much on treating a patient who might not get well.
• It is the wish of the patients who have made peace with the fact that they might not recover.

  Conclusion

In sum, advancement in technology in the medical field and the existence of palliative care are evidence enough that there is no need for mercy killing. Even though there are claims that it ends pain and suffering, it involves killing a patient who maybe could respond to novel approaches to treatment.

Abohaimed, S., Matar, B., Al-Shimali, H., Al-Thalji, K., Al-Othman, O., Zurba, Y., & Shah, N. (2019). Attitudes of Physicians towards Different Types of Euthanasia in Kuwait.  Medical Principles and Practice ,  28 (3), 199-207.

Attell, B. K. (2017). Changing attitudes toward euthanasia and suicide for terminally ill persons, 1977 to 2016: an age-period-cohort analysis.  OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying , 0030222817729612.

Barone, S., & Unguru, Y. (2017). Should Euthanasia Be Considered Iatrogenic? AMA journal of ethics, 19(8), 802-814.

Emanuel, E. (2017). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: focus on the data.  The Medical Journal of Australia ,  206 (8), 1-2e1.

Inbadas, H., Zaman, S., Whitelaw, S., & Clark, D. (2017). Declarations on euthanasia and assisted dying.  Death Studies, 41 (9), 574-584.

Jacobs, R. K., & Hendricks, M. (2018). Medical students' perspectives on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and their views on legalising these practices in South Africa.  South African Medical Journal ,  108 (6), 484-489.

Math, S. B., & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2012). Euthanasia: the right to life vs right to die.  The Indian journal of medical research, 136 (6), 899.

Reichlin, M. (2001). Euthanasia in the Netherlands.  KOS , (193), 22-29.

Saul, H. (2014, November 5). The Vatican Condemns Brittany Maynard's Decision to end her Life as �Absurd'.

Sulmasy, D. P., Travaline, J. M., & Louise, M. A. (2016). Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.  The Linacre Quarterly, 83 (3), 246-257.

Euthanasia Essay Introduction Ideas

An introduction is a gate into the compound of your well-reasoned thoughts, ideas, and opinions in an essay. As such, the introduction should be well structured in a manner that catches the attention of the readers from the onset.

While it seems the hardest thing to do, writing an introduction should never give you the fear of stress, blank page, or induce a writer's block. Instead, it should flow right from the essay hook to the thesis statement.

Given that you can access statistics, legal variations, and individual stories based on personal experiences with euthanasia online, writing a euthanasia essay introduction should be a walk in the park.

Ensure that the introduction to the essay is catchy, appealing, and informative. Here are some ideas to use:

• Rights of humans to life
• How euthanasia is carried out
• When euthanasia is legally allowed
• Stories from those with experience in euthanasia
• The stance of doctors on euthanasia
• Definition of euthanasia
• Countries that allow euthanasia
• Statistics of physicians assisted suicide in a given state, locality, or continent.
• Perception of the public given the diversity of culture

There are tons of ideas on how to start an essay on euthanasia.  You need to research, immerse yourself in the topic, and scoop the best evidence. Presenting facts in an argumentative essay on euthanasia will help convince the readers to argue for or against euthanasia. Based on your stance, make statements in favor of euthanasia or statements against euthanasia known from the onset through the strong thesis statement.

Essay Topics and Ideas on Euthanasia

• Should Euthanasia be legal?
• What are the different types of euthanasia?
• Is euthanasia morally justified?
• Cross-cultural comparison of attitudes and beliefs on euthanasia
• The history of euthanasia
• Euthanasia from a Patient's Point of View
• Should euthanasia be considered Iatrogenic?
• Does euthanasia epitomize failed medical approaches?
• How does euthanasia work?
• Should Physician-Assisted Suicide be legal?
• Sociology of Death and Dying
• Arguments for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide
• Euthanasia is a moral dilemma
• The euthanasia debate
• It Is Much Better to Die with Dignity Than to Live with Pain Essay
• Euthanasia Is a Moral, Ethical, and Proper
• Euthanasia Law of Euthanasia in California and New York
• Effect of Euthanasia on Special Population
• Euthanasia is inhuman
• Role of nurses in Euthanasia
• Are family and relative decisions considered during the euthanasia
• The biblical stance on euthanasia

Related Articles:

• Argumentative essay topics and Ideas
• Topics and ideas for informative essays

Get Help with Writing Euthanasia Argumentative Essay for School

We have covered the tips of writing an argumentative essay on euthanasia. Besides, we have also presented a sample euthanasia essay outline, which can help you write your essay. However, sometimes you might lack the motivation to write an essay on euthanasia, even when you have access to argumentative essay examples on euthanasia. 

It is the right time to pay someone to write your argumentative essay . We have the best essay writers who have expertise in creating the best argumentative essays on any topic.  They understand the entire process of argumentative writing and can create a top-grade euthanasia essay within the shortest turnaround time.

Do not wait until it is too late; let our nerds help you ace your homework. Order an essay today and forget your academic writing woes.

Order Essay on Euthanasia!

Gradecrest is a professional writing service that provides original model papers. We offer personalized services along with research materials for assistance purposes only. All the materials from our website should be used with proper references. See our Terms of Use Page for proper details.

• Meeting report
• Open access
• Published: 15 January 2014

Should assisted dying be legalised?

• Thomas D G Frost 1 ,
• Devan Sinha 2 &
• Barnabas J Gilbert 3  

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine volume  9 , Article number:  3 ( 2014 ) Cite this article

70k Accesses

8 Citations

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

When an individual facing intractable pain is given an estimate of a few months to live, does hastening death become a viable and legitimate alternative for willing patients? Has the time come for physicians to do away with the traditional notion of healthcare as maintaining or improving physical and mental health, and instead accept their own limitations by facilitating death when requested? The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge held the 2013 Varsity Medical Debate on the motion “This House Would Legalise Assisted Dying”. This article summarises the key arguments developed over the course of the debate. We will explore how assisted dying can affect both the patient and doctor; the nature of consent and limits of autonomy; the effects on society; the viability of a proposed model; and, perhaps most importantly, the potential need for the practice within our current medico-legal framework.

Introduction

Over the past two centuries, the United Kingdom has experienced rapid population growth associated with a substantial decline in mortality from acute infectious diseases and poor nutrition [ 1 ]. As the average life expectancy has increased, so too have the rates of debilitating chronic illness – particularly coronary artery disease and cancers [ 2 ]. These diseases require years of treatment instead of the mere days to weeks that medicine once operated within [ 2 ]. Although healthcare systems have sought to adapt to such changes, aiming to prevent and treat such disease wherever possible, debate has arisen regarding those patients in the latter stages of chronic, incurable, terminal conditions [ 3 , 4 ]. Moreover, there is increasing recognition that the patient must be at the centre of health care decision-making, such that outcomes must be tailored to their individual needs and views. By extension, assisted dying might seem a logical step to help achieve these goals within the realm of end-of-life decision making [ 5 ]. Several jurisdictions, notably Oregon (1997) and the Netherlands (2001) have already legalised assisted dying in some form. These factors have contributed to ongoing legislative discussions within Parliaments for almost a decade, with current opinion polling suggesting a majority of medical practitioners and the public in favour of physician-assisted suicide [ 6 ].

Viability of assisted dying in practice

In the UK, a model for assisted dying has been developed from the legal structure found within the Assisted Dying Bill introduced by Lord Falconer in the House of Lords in 2013 [ 7 ]. Assisted dying could only be considered under circumstances in which a patient of legal age is diagnosed with a progressive disease that is irreversible by treatment and is “reasonably expected to die within six months” [ 7 ]. Registered medical practitioners would make such decisions for patients with terminal illnesses. Addressing the technicalities of ‘assisted dying’ requires distinction between ‘physician-assisted suicide’ (offering patients medical actions or cessation of actions by which they can end their own life) and ‘euthanasia’ (whereby the medical practitioner actively induces death). In light of the strong hostility of the medical profession towards active euthanasia, this proposed model, as with previous attempts to legalise assisted dying, permitted only the former [ 8 – 10 ].

However, there is concern that such distinction may be unrealistic in practice because medical practitioners could find themselves with a patient who had failed to successfully end their own life and was subsequently left in a state of greater suffering. Were such a patient no longer able to give consent, a heavy burden would then be placed on the physician regarding how to proceed. Moreover, the practice of physician-assisted suicide might be deemed discriminatory, for example by giving only patients with good mobility control over their own method of death.

The Assisted Dying Bill 2013 included the provision that any terminal prognosis must be confirmed and attested by a second registered practitioner. The strictness of such criteria has parallels to a similar double-physician requirement when procuring a legal abortion under the 1967 Abortion Act. The stated aims of the provision in both cases are as follows: first, to check the accuracy of the prognosis upon which the decision was being made; second, to ensure that the situation meets the required criteria; and third, to check that such a decision was taken by the patient after full consideration of all available options [ 11 , 12 ]. By having a second independent doctor, the legislation ensures that all three checks are met without prejudice or mistake.

Problematic for any protocol for assisted dying is the fact that estimates of life expectancy in terminal prognoses are erroneous in 80.3% of cases [ 13 ]. Furthermore, the accuracy of such prognoses deteriorates with increased length of clinical predicted survival. Forecasts of survival times are based largely on past clinical experience, and the inherent variability between patients makes this more of an art than a science. This brings to concern both the accuracy of any prognosis meeting the six-month threshold and the validity of requests for assisted dying based partly or wholly on predicted survival times. Whilst the majority of errors in life expectancy forecasts are a matter of over-optimism and hence would not affect either of those two concerns, many cases remain unaccounted for. Overly pessimistic forecasts occur in 17.3% of prognoses; hence we must decide whether the one in six patients making a decision based on an inaccurate prognosis is too high a cost to justify the use of this system. Patients requesting an assisted death often cite future expectations of dependency, loss of dignity, or pain [ 14 ]. If the hypothetical point at which the progression of their illness means they would consider life to be not worth living is not, as informed, mere weeks away but in fact many more months, then this information would have resulted in a different decision outcome and potentiated unnecessary loss of life.

Whilst the presence of a second doctor would be expected to mitigate such forecasting errors, the anchoring bias of the initial prediction may be enough to similarly reduce the accuracy of the second estimate. It is prudent to question the true independence of a second medical practitioner, and whether this second consultation could become more of a formality, as has now become the case with abortion [ 15 ].

Another challenge for an assisted dying system would be to recognise whether patients requesting death were legally competent to make that decision. Consider that any request for suicide from a patient with clinical depression is generally categorised as a manifestation of that mental disorder, thereby lacking capacity. It is arguably impossible to separate out the natural reactions to terminal illness and clinical depression. Indeed, there is evidence that major depressive disorders afflict between 25% and 77% of patients with terminal illness [ 16 , 17 ]. Any protocol for assisted dying must first determine what qualifies as a ‘fit mental state’ for a terminal patient.

The need for assisted dying

It could be argued that a doctor’s fundamental duty is to alleviate forms of suffering in the best interests of the patient. The avoidance of physical pain, as an obvious manifestation of suffering, might explain why assisted dying would be both necessary and within the duties of a doctor to provide. The evolving principle in common law known as the ‘Doctrine of Double Effect’ offers a solution to this problem [ 18 ]. This legal judgement stated that “[a doctor] is entitled to do all that is proper and necessary to relieve pain even if the measures he takes may incidentally shorten life”. This entails that a protocol already exists for patients searching for an escape from chronic pain. Furthermore, numerous retrospective studies have revealed very little correlation between opioid dose and mean survival times: one study of over 700 opioid-treated patients found that the variation in survival time from high-dose opioid treatment is less than 10% [ 19 – 21 ]. It can therefore be said that pain alone, if appropriately managed, should never be cause for considering assisted dying as an alternative.

By contrast, the ‘Doctrine of Double Effect’ might be seen as a subjective interpretation that has been applied unequally due to a lack of specialist training or knowledge [ 22 ]. Despite this, the principle can be easily understood and poor awareness can be remedied by improvements in medical education and standardisation of protocols. Moreover, should we choose to accept arguments for assisted dying that are based upon inadequate administration of pain medication, we set a precedent for conceding shortcomings in palliative care and other end-of-life treatments. Offering hastened death could become an alternative to actively seeking to improve such failings.

Whilst much has been made of the ‘pain argument’ here, the call for assisted dying is rarely this simple. Many patients also suffer a loss of dignity, often due to their lack of mobility – the inability to relieve oneself without help is a potent example. Beyond this are additional fears of further debilitation and the emotional costs of dealing with chronic illness, both for the patient and for their relatives and friends. A study of terminal patients in Oregon showed that these were the most significant reasons behind requests for assisted suicide, the next commonest reason being the perception of themselves as a ‘burden’ [ 14 ]. Clearly, we could seek to provide balanced, compassionate medical care for these patients, and still fail to address these points.

Developments in healthcare and technology may reduce this emotional burden, but remain an imperfect solution.

Rights of patients and limitations of their autonomy

J.S. Mill’s pithy dictum describes autonomy as follows: “over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” [ 23 ]. Not only has the sanctity of bodily autonomy profoundly influenced the development of liberal democracies, it has also provoked a holistic shift in making our healthcare systems more patient-centred – “care that meets and responds to patients’ wants, needs and preferences and where patients are autonomous and able to decide for themselves” [ 5 ]. The ethical principle of controlling the fate of one’s own body is inherently relevant to the debate on assisted dying. It is difficult to reconcile that citizens may have the right to do almost anything to and with their own bodies– from participating in extreme sports to having elective plastic surgery – yet a terminal patient cannot choose to avoid experiencing additional months of discomfort or loss of dignity in their final months of life.

Expectation of individual liberty has been codified in law. The right to bodily autonomy has been interpreted to be included under Article 8 - the right to privacy - of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and subsequently the Human Rights Act (HRA) [ 24 , 25 ]. Moreover, the ECHR underpins the right of individuals to ‘inherent dignity’ [ 26 ]. Hence, if an individual feels that dignity is unattainable due to the progression of a terminal illness, then taking recourse though assisted dying ought to be a legitimate option.

Conversely, there are two notable oversights in this interpretation of a right to assisted dying as an extension of the principles of bodily autonomy:

First, it would be wrong to view individual liberty as absolute. The HRA allows for exceptions to Article 8 on grounds of ‘health or morals’ [ 25 ]. The principle of autonomy is not inviolable. Governments have limited such privileges for the protection of individuals and society, for example by criminalizing the use of recreational drugs or the selling of one’s own organs. The preservation of life by denying assisted dying could fall within this category.

Second, the right of autonomy is not necessarily intrinsic to human beings but, as Kant argued, is dependent on our ‘rational nature’ [ 27 ]. This concept sees autonomy as an exercise of ‘evaluative choice’ [ 27 ], requiring rationality on the part of individuals to appreciate the nature of options and their consequences. To achieve true autonomy, there must be sufficient information to make those rational decisions; this is the basis of informed consent and why it is a fundamental duty of a doctor to offer a patient an informed series of treatment options [ 28 ]. The logistical issue is that doctors are unable to advise patients regarding the point at which their situation becomes less preferable to being dead. No doctor (or individual) has any knowledge or experience of what ‘death’ may be like. Hence, in this case, the idea of exercising true autonomy through informed consent might be considered meaningless.

Legalising assisted dying by attempting to establish an absolute right to bodily autonomy may undermine other individual and group rights. Vulnerable patients may feel pressured into assisted dying because of social, emotional, or financial strains placed on family and/or friends. This is exemplified by the trend showing that the proportion of patients stating ‘relief of burden’ on others as the reason for requesting assisted dying has risen from 17% to 25% in Oregon since legalisation [ 29 ]. One could even consider the risk of assisted dying becoming an expected choice rather than a free one. Thus, assisted dying may erode the elemental right to life of terminal patients as the value of their life becomes tied to relative costs to society and to those around them.

Moreover, by creating one class of individuals for whom life is expendable, that particular view may be extended by society to all groups possessing such attributes (e.g. the permanently disabled). There would be a definite risk to the rights of these vulnerable groups in the form of society being less willing to provide for their health and social care.

It is often raised that the limited legalisation of assisted dying would inevitably become extended in scope, but this is not necessarily a flaw. Even if the right to determine the manner of death were later extended to a wider group of people, posterity may reflect positively on such a change, just as extending the franchise to women ultimately led to legislation demanding equal pay.

Effect on health professionals and their role

‘To act in the best interest of the patient’ is often cited as a central duty of the doctor [ 28 ]. This concept of ‘best interest’ guiding the doctor’s action has seen the development of two important ethical principles: beneficence and non-maleficence. Beneficence mandates that the actions of the doctor must be aimed to bring about benefit (clinical improvement) for the patient, usually measured in terms of reduced morbidity or mortality; non-maleficence requires that the doctor not carry out treatment that is likely to cause overall harm the patient [ 30 ]. These traditional ethical imperatives on a doctor both conflict with intentionally hastening the death of a patient, and a resolution of this tension would require redefining what constitutes ‘acting in the best interest’.

A further dimension is the potential reluctance of health professionals to engage in a practice that contravenes their own ethical beliefs, particularly as this would affect doctors who never entered training in the knowledge that assisting patients to die would be an expected duty. This is certainly no argument against the introduction of assisted dying; indeed, a recent survey of a cohort of NHS doctors found that 46% would seriously consider requests from patients to undertake steps to hasten death [ 31 ]. It merely expresses the point that any early model would have to account for the fact that an initial 54% of the doctors in the NHS would be required to advise qualifying patients of assisted dying as a legitimate option, despite disagreeing with it in principle.

Furthermore, doctors who agree ethically with this practice may find themselves facing conflicts of interest. It is expensive to treat chronically ill patients, particularly in the final months of life [ 32 ]. Moreover, it would be difficult for commissioners to ignore the fact that the sustained treatment of one individual could deprive many others from access to surgery or access to novel drugs. Such an argument does not suggest that doctors or any other hospital staff would treat this practice without appropriate respect or care; rather it acknowledges the need for appropriate rationing of care and questions the intentions of service providers. The perception of an ulterior motive could negatively impact patient trust. One survey showed that a reasonable minority of patients (27%) – and particularly particularly the elderly – believe that legalising assisted dying would lessen their trust in their personal physician [ 33 ]. The costs of weakened trust in the doctor-patient relationship could far outweigh the benefits of assisted dying, particularly given the importance of trust when treating a chronic patient for an extended period of time.

There is no doubt that assisted dying would empower some patients to maximise control over the timing and manner of their own death. Such expression of autonomy would surely solidify moves towards a patient-centred approach to healthcare. However, the capacity for such consensual requests remains in doubt. Clinically, the patient’s state of mind and the reliability of diagnostic predictions are of issue; philosophically, the idea of informed consent for death is contradictory. The implications for patients, physicians and society have been weighed extensively within this article. The central tenet throughout has been the balancing of an individual’s right to escape a circumstance that they find intolerable, alongside the consequential changes to their other rights, and the rights and responsibilities of third parties. Ultimately, the challenge is for us as a society to decide where this balance lies.

About the debate

The Varsity Medical Debate was started in 2008 with the aim of allowing students, professors and members of the polis, to engage in discussion about ethics and policy within healthcare. Utilising the age-old rivalry between the two Universities, the debate encourages medical students from both Oxford and Cambridge to consider and articulate the arguments behind topics that will feature heavily in their future careers.

The debate was judged on the logic, coherence, and evidence in arguments, as well as flair in presentation. Although the debaters may not have necessarily agreed with their allocated side, the debate format required them to acknowledge a particular school of thought and present the key arguments behind it. Oxford, who opposed the motion, was awarded the victory in the debate; however, this does not mean that the judges believe that position ought to become public policy.

Colgrove J: The McKeown thesis: a historical controversy and its enduring influence. Am J Public Health. 2002, 92: 725-729. 10.2105/AJPH.92.5.725

Article   Google Scholar  

Yach D, Hawkes C, Linn Gould C, Hofman K: The global burden of chronic diseases: overcoming impediments to prevention and control. J Am Med Assoc. 2004, 291 (21): 2616-2622. 10.1001/jama.291.21.2616. doi:10.1001/jama.291.21.2616

Lankhorst EK, Spreeuwenberg C: Managing Chronic Conditions. Experience in Eight Countries. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. Edited by: Nolte E, Cécile K, Martin MK. 2008, The Netherlands: WHO Regional Office Europe

Google Scholar  

Hudson PL, Kristjanson LJ, Ashby M: Desire for hastened death in patients with advanced disease and the evidence base of clinical guidelines: a systematic review. Palliat Med. 2006, 20: 693-701. 10.1177/0269216306071799

Hogg C: Patient-Centred Care - Tomorrow’s Doctors. 2004, GMC

Harris D, Richard B, Khanna P: Assisted dying: the ongoing debate. Postgrad Med J. 2006, 82 (970): 479-482. doi:10.1136/pgmj.2006.047530

House of Lords assisted Dying Bill: House of Lords. 2013, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2013-2014/0024/2014024.pdf (accessed 23 October 2013)

House of Lords Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill: House of Lords. 2005, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/036/2006036.pdf (accessed 15 Feb 2006)

Sanders K, Chaloner C: Voluntary euthanasia: ethical concepts and definitions. Nurs Stand. 2007, 21 (35): 41-44. 10.7748/ns2007.05.21.35.41.c4554. 10.7748/ns2007.05.21.35.41.c4554

Lee W, Price A, Rayner L, Hotopf M: Survey of doctors’ opinions of the legalisation of physician assisted suicide. BMC Med Ethics. 2009, 10: 2- 10.1186/1472-6939-10-2

House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee, Scientific Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967. 2007, London: tso, Volume 1

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Campaigns and Opinions. http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/briefings-and-qas-/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill/brie-1

Christakis NA, Lamont EB: Extent and determinants of error in physicians’ prognoses in terminally ill patients. BMJ. 2000, 320: 469-473. 10.1136/bmj.320.7233.469

Ganzini L, Goy E, Dobscha S: Oregonians’ reasons for requesting physician aid in dying. J Am Med Assoc Int Med. 2009, 169 (5): 489-492. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2008.579

Care Quality Commision. Findings of Termination of Pregnancy Inspections Published. 2012, http://www.cqc.org.uk/media/findings-termination-pregnancy-inspections-published , July

Watson M, Lucas C, Hoy A: Oxford Handbook of Palliative Care. 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Medical Press

Fine R: Depression, anxiety, and delirium in the terminally ill patient. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2001, 14 (2): 130-133.

R v Adams [1957] Crim LR 773.

Morita T, Tsunoda J, Inoue S, Chihara S: Effects of high dose opioids and sedatives on survival in terminally ill cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001, 21 (4): 282-289. doi:10.1016/S0885-3924(01)00258-5

Bengoechea I, Gutiérrez S, Vrotsou K, Onaindia M, Lopez J: Opioid use at the end of life and survival in a hospital at home unit. J Palliat Med. 2010, 100828074323069: doi:10.1089/jpm.2010.0031

Thorns A, Sykes N: Opioid use in last week of life and implications for end-of-life decision-making. Lancet. 2000, 356 (9227): 398-399. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02534-4

Preston T, Patterson J: The rule of double effect. N Engl J Med. 1998, 338: 1389-1391.

Mill JS: “On Liberty” in On Liberty and Other Essays. 14-15.

Human Rights Act. 1998, HMSO

Judgment on the Merits Delivered by a Chamber. Y.F. v. TURKEY, no. 24209, /94, ECHR 2003-IV

McCrudden C: Human dignity and judicial interpretation of human rights. Eur J Int Law. 2008, 19 (4): 655-724. 10.1093/ejil/chn043. doi:10.1093/ejil/chn043

Savulescu J: Autonomy, the Good Life and Controversial Choices. 2006

General Medical Council: Good Medical Practice. 2013, GMC

Oregon Department of Human Services. Fifth Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity act. http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year5.pdf

Campbell : Medical Ethics. 1997, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Ward B, Tate P: Attitudes among NHS doctors to requests for euthanasia. BMJ. 1994, 308: 1332- 10.1136/bmj.308.6940.1332

National Audit Office. End of Life Care : Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. HC 1043 Session 2007-2008. 2008, NAO

Hall M, Trachtenberg M, Duggan E: The impact on patient trust of legalising physician aid in dying. J Med Ethics. 2005, 31 (12): 693-697. doi:10.1136/jme.2004.011452

Download references

Acknowledgements

For Cambridge University: Hilmi Bayri (Trinity), Alistair Bolger (Jesus), Casey Swerner (St Johns).

For Oxford University: Devan Sinha (Brasenose), Thomas Frost (Lincoln), Collis Tahzib (Lincoln).

Martin Farrell (Cambridge).

Baroness Finlay: Professor of Palliative Care Medicine and former President of the Royal Society of Medicine.

Dr. Roger Armour: Vascular Surgeon and Inventor of the Lens Free Ophthalmoscope.

Mr. Robert Preston: Director of Living and Dying Well.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Lincoln College, Turl Street, Oxford, OX1 3DR, UK

Thomas D G Frost

Brasenose College, Oxford, OX1 4AJ, UK

Devan Sinha

Green Templeton College, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6HG, UK

Barnabas J Gilbert

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barnabas J Gilbert .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors planned and elucidated the layout. TDGF and DS drafted the manuscript which was critically edited and added to by BJG. All authors have read and approved the final draft.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Frost, T.D.G., Sinha, D. & Gilbert, B.J. Should assisted dying be legalised?. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 9 , 3 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-9-3

Download citation

Received : 12 November 2013

Accepted : 11 January 2014

Published : 15 January 2014

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-9-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Assisted dying
• Legalisation
• Physician-assisted suicide

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

ISSN: 1747-5341

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Human Rights — Euthanasia

Essays About Euthanasia

Euthanasia essay: examples, types of euthanasia essays:.

• Euthanasia Argumentative Essay: This type of essay presents arguments for and against euthanasia and requires the writer to take a position on the issue.
• Euthanasia Persuasive Essay: The purpose of this essay is to persuade the reader to support or reject the idea of euthanasia. The writer needs to use convincing arguments and evidence to support their position.
• Euthanasia Controversy Essay: This type of essay explores the controversies surrounding euthanasia, including ethical, moral, legal, and religious issues. The writer needs to analyze and present different perspectives on the issue.

Euthanasia: Argumentative Essay

• Choose a clear position: Before you start writing, it's important to decide where you stand on the issue of euthanasia. Do you believe that euthanasia should be legalized, or do you think it should remain illegal? Your position will guide your research and the evidence you present.
• Conduct thorough research: Euthanasia is a complex and controversial issue, so it's essential to do your research before starting to write. Look for reliable sources of information, such as academic articles, government reports, and medical journals.
• Develop a strong thesis statement: Your thesis statement should clearly state your position on euthanasia and provide a roadmap for the rest of your essay. It should be clear, concise, and easy to understand.
• Provide evidence to support your arguments: Use evidence to support your arguments, such as statistics, expert opinions, and case studies. Make sure that your evidence is credible and comes from reputable sources.
• Address counterarguments: It's important to address counterarguments to your position to demonstrate that you have considered all perspectives on the issue. Addressing counterarguments will also make your essay more persuasive.
• Use persuasive language: Use persuasive language to make your argument more convincing. Use strong, clear language that emphasizes your point of view.

Euthanasia: Persuasive Essay

• Conduct research: The writer should conduct thorough research on the topic to gather as much information as possible to support their argument.
• Develop a clear thesis statement: The writer should clearly state their position on euthanasia in the thesis statement.
• Present convincing evidence: The writer should use credible and convincing evidence to support their argument, such as statistics, case studies, and expert opinions.
• Address counterarguments: The writer should acknowledge and address counterarguments to their position, and provide strong rebuttals.
• Use persuasive language: The writer should use persuasive language and techniques, such as emotional appeals and rhetorical questions, to convince the reader of their position.

Euthanasia Controversy Essay

• Start with a clear and concise introduction that presents the topic and the main arguments.
• Conduct thorough research on the topic, using credible sources, such as academic journals, government reports, and expert opinions.
• Present a balanced view of the issue by providing arguments for and against euthanasia.
• Use clear and concise language, avoiding emotional language that may detract from the argument.
• Consider the ethical and moral implications of euthanasia, and the different perspectives of stakeholders involved.
• Conclude the essay with a summary of the main arguments and a final thought on the topic.

Tips for Choosing a Topic for Euthanasia Essays:

• Identify your stance: Before choosing a topic, decide on your position on euthanasia. This will help you select a suitable topic for your essay.
• Conduct research: Thoroughly research the topic of euthanasia to gain a better understanding of the subject matter. Use reliable sources such as books, journals, and academic articles.
• Brainstorm: Create a list of potential topics related to euthanasia and narrow down your choices based on your research and personal interest.
• Focus on a specific aspect: Instead of trying to cover the entire topic of euthanasia in your essay, focus on a specific aspect such as the ethical or legal implications.

Hook Examples for Euthanasia Essays

Anecdotal hook.

Meet John, a terminally ill patient who faces excruciating pain every day. His decision to seek euthanasia sparks a controversial debate over the right to die with dignity.

Question Hook

Is it ethical for physicians to assist patients in ending their lives to relieve unbearable suffering? Explore the moral dilemmas surrounding the topic of euthanasia.

Quotation Hook

"Dying is not a crime." — Jack Kevorkian. Investigate the legacy of Dr. Kevorkian, who championed the cause of physician-assisted suicide, and its impact on the euthanasia debate.

Statistical or Factual Hook

Did you know that euthanasia is legal in several countries, while it remains illegal in others? Examine the global landscape of euthanasia laws and the factors that influence these decisions.

Definition Hook

What exactly is euthanasia, and how does it differ from other end-of-life choices? Delve into the definitions, types, and terminology associated with this complex issue.

Rhetorical Question Hook

Should individuals have the autonomy to decide when and how they will end their lives, especially in cases of terminal illness? Analyze the arguments for and against euthanasia's role in preserving personal freedom.

Historical Hook

Travel through history to explore the evolution of euthanasia practices and laws. Discover how societies have grappled with the idea of mercy killing across centuries.

Contrast Hook

Contrast the perspectives of medical professionals who advocate for euthanasia as a compassionate choice with those who argue for preserving the sanctity of life at all costs. Explore the ethical dilemmas inherent in these differing viewpoints.

Narrative Hook

Step into the shoes of a family member faced with the agonizing decision of whether to support a loved one's request for euthanasia. Their personal story sheds light on the emotional complexities involved.

Shocking Statement Hook

Prepare to be shocked by the cases of covert euthanasia that occur outside the boundaries of the law. These stories expose the gray areas and ethical challenges surrounding end-of-life decisions.

Euthanasia, Assisted Dying and The Right to Die

Human euthanasia as an assisted suicide, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Issues Why Physician-assisted Suicide Should not Be Legalized

Physician-assisted suicide (pas), a controversy over the issue of physician assisted suicide, right to die: euthanasia issues, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

My Views on The Issue of Assisted Suicide

Physician-assisted death: advantages and moral matters of right to die, medical and ethical dilemma: euthanasia or right to die, range of moral, ethical and legal perspectives of right to die or euthanasia, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Discussion on Whether Human Euthanasia Should Be Made Illegal

Natural death and euthanasia: the catholic church’s historical response, the popularity of euthanasia among the american population, a moral interpretation of euthanasia and murder, analysis of physician-assisted suicide (pas) in terms of bioethics, a debate over allowing physician assisted suicide, arguments expressed by proponents of the legalization of physician-assisted suicide (pas), persuasive essay pro euthanasia, why physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients should be legalized, the arguments for euthanasia: a critical analysis, advantages and disadvantages of euthanasia, death with dignity act: ethical dilemma regarding euthanasia, the right to die: debating euthanasia in modern society, advocating for legalizing euthanasia, an assisted suicide: roller coasters as tools for euthanasia, euthanasia: examining arguments, ethics, and legalities, voluntary euthanasia persuasive speech, the struggle with physician assisted suicide in the united states, why euthanasia should not be allowed, physician aid in dying: a controversial ethical issue.

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending life to relieve pain and suffering.

Euthanasia is categorized in different ways, which include voluntary (when a person wills to have their life ended), non-voluntary (when a patient's consent is unavailable), or involuntary (.done without asking for consent or against the patient's will)

Jack Kevorkian, Philip Nitschke, Barbara Coombs Lee.

The United States (Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Montana, Vermont, Hawaii), Switzerland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia, Canada.

Though euthanasia is still illegal in England, King George V was euthanized. Euthanasia is mostly administered by giving lethal doses of painkiller or other drugs. Despite Euthanasia being generally illegal in India, there is a tradition of forced euthanasia in South India.

Relevant topics

• Death Penalty
• Human Trafficking
• Gun Control
• Police Brutality
• Freedom of Speech
• Gay Marriage
• Same Sex Marriage
• Child Labour
• Pro Life (Abortion)

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Bibliography

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Accessibility links

• Skip to content
• Skip to local navigation
• Skip to bbc.co.uk navigation
• Skip to bbc.co.uk search
• Accessibility Help

Ethics guide

Pro-euthanasia arguments

This page sets out the arguments in favour of allowing euthanasia in certain cases. Should we accept that euthanasia happens and try to regulate it safely? Do people have the right to arrange their own deaths?

On this page

• Overview of arguments in favour of euthanasia

Regulating euthanasia

People have the right to die, other human rights imply a right to die, libertarian argument, medical resources, moral rules must be universalisable, euthanasia happens anyway, is death a bad thing, page options.

• Print this page

Overview of pro-euthanasia arguments

Arguments in favour of euthanasia can be broken down into a few main categories:

Arguments based on rights

• People have an explicit right to die
• A separate right to die is not necessary, because our other human rights imply the right to die
• Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people have no right to interfere (a libertarian argument)

Practical arguments

• It is possible to regulate euthanasia
• Allowing people to die may free up scarce health resources (this is a possible argument, but no authority has seriously proposed it)
• Euthanasia happens anyway (a utilitarian or consequentialist argument)

Philosophical arguments

• Euthanasia satisfies the criterion that moral rules must be universalisable

Arguments about death itself

Those in favour of euthanasia think that there is no reason why euthanasia can't be controlled by proper regulation , but they acknowledge that some problems will remain.

For example, it will be difficult to deal with people who want to implement euthanasia for selfish reasons or pressurise vulnerable patients into dying.

This is little different from the position with any crime. The law prohibits theft, but that doesn't stop bad people stealing things.

Human beings have the right to die when and how they want to

In...cases where there are no dependants who might exert pressure one way or the other, the right of the individual to choose should be paramount. So long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions. The Independent, March 2002

Many people think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die.

Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing.

And behind that lies the idea that human beings are independent biological entities, with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves, providing the greater good of society doesn't prohibit this. Allied to this is a firm belief that death is the end.

Religious objections

Religious opponents disagree because they believe that the right to decide when a person dies belongs to God.

Secular objections

Secular opponents argue that whatever rights we have are limited by our obligations. The decision to die by euthanasia will affect other people - our family and friends, and healthcare professionals - and we must balance the consequences for them (guilt, grief, anger) against our rights.

We should also take account of our obligations to society, and balance our individual right to die against any bad consequences that it might have for the community in general.

These bad consequences might be practical - such as making involuntary euthanasia easier and so putting vulnerable people at risk.

There is also a political and philosophical objection that says that our individual right to autonomy against the state must be balanced against the need to make the sanctity of life an important, intrinsic, abstract value of the state.

Secular philosophers put forward a number of technical arguments, mostly based on the duty to preserve life because it has value in itself, or the importance of regarding all human beings as ends rather than means.

Without creating (or acknowledging) a specific right to die, it is possible to argue that other human rights ought to be taken to include this right.

The right to life includes the right to die

• The right to life is not a right simply to exist
• The right to life is a right to life with a minimum quality and value
• Death is the opposite of life, but the process of dying is part of life
• Dying is one of the most important events in human life
• Dying can be good or bad
• People have the right to try and make the events in their lives as good as possible
• So they have the right to try to make their dying as good as possible
• People also have obligations - to their friends and family, to their doctors and nurses, to society in general
• These obligations limit their rights
• These obligations do not outweigh a person's right to refuse medical treatment that they do not want
• But they do prevent a patient having any right to be killed
• But even if there is a right to die , that doesn't mean that doctors have a duty to kill , so no doctor can be forced to help the patient who wants euthanasia.

The right not to be killed

The right to life gives a person the right not to be killed if they don't want to be.

Those in favour of euthanasia will argue that respect for this right not to be killed is sufficient to protect against misuse of euthanasia, as any doctor who kills a patient who doesn't want to die has violated that person's rights.

Opponents of euthanasia may disagree, and argue that allowing euthanasia will greatly increase the risk of people who want to live being killed. The danger of violating the right to life is so great that we should ban euthanasia even if it means violating the right to die.

The rights to privacy and freedom of belief include a right to die

This is the idea that the rights to privacy and freedom of belief give a person the right to decide how and when to die.

The European Convention on Human Rights gives a person the right to die

• Not according to Britain's highest court.
• It concluded that the right to life did not give any right to self-determination over life and death, since the provisions of the convention were aimed at protecting and preserving life.

English law already acknowledges that people have the right to die

This argument is based on the fact that the Suicide Act (1961) made it legal for people to take their own lives.

Opponents of euthanasia may disagree:

• The Suicide Act doesn't necessarily acknowledge a right to die;
• it could simply acknowledge that you can't punish someone for succeeding at suicide
• and that it's inappropriate to punish someone so distressed that they want to take their own life.

Euthanasia opponents further point out that there is a moral difference between decriminalising something, often for practical reasons like those mentioned above, and encouraging it.

They can quite reasonably argue that the purpose of the Suicide Act is not to allow euthanasia, and support this argument by pointing out that the Act makes it a crime to help someone commit suicide. This is true, but that provision is really there to make it impossible to escape a murder charge by dressing the crime up as an assisted suicide.

This is a variation of the individual rights argument.

• If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights then that action is morally acceptable
• In some cases, euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone involved and violates no one's rights
• It is therefore morally acceptable

Objections to this argument

Opponents attack the libertarian argument specifically by claiming that there are no cases that fit the conditions above:

• The arguments that euthanasia is intrinsically wrong fit in here
• people are sometimes wrong about what's in their best interests
• people may not realise that committing euthanasia may harm other people
• euthanasia may deprive both the person who dies and others of benefits
• euthanasia is not a private act - we cannot ignore any bad effects it may have on society in general

Euthanasia may be necessary for the fair distribution of health resources

This argument has not been put forward publicly or seriously by any government or health authority. It is included here for completeness.

In most countries there is a shortage of health resources.

As a result, some people who are ill and could be cured are not able to get speedy access to the facilities they need for treatment.

At the same time health resources are being used on people who cannot be cured, and who, for their own reasons, would prefer not to continue living.

Allowing such people to commit euthanasia would not only let them have what they want, it would free valuable resources to treat people who want to live.

Abuse of this would be prevented by only allowing the person who wanted to die to intitiate the process, and by regulations that rigorously prevented abuse.

This proposal is an entirely pragmatic one; it says that we should allow euthanasia because it will allow more people to be happy. Such arguments will not convince anyone who believes that euthanasia is wrong in principle.

Others will object because they believe that such a proposal is wide-open to abuse, and would ultimately lead to involuntary euthanasia because of shortage of health resources.

In the end, they fear, people will be expected to commit euthanasia as soon as they become an unreasonable burden on society.

One of the commonly accepted principles in ethics, put forward by Immanuel Kant, is that only those ethical principles that could be accepted as a universal rule (i.e. one that applied to everybody) should be accepted.

So you should only do something if you're willing for anybody to do exactly the same thing in exactly similar circumstances, regardless of who they are.

The justification for this rule is hard to find - many people think it's just an obvious truth (philosophers call such truths self-evident). You find variations of this idea in many faiths; for example "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

To put it more formally:

A rule is universalisable if it can consistently be willed as a law that everyone ought to obey. The only rules which are morally good are those which can be universalised.

The person in favour of euthanasia argues that giving everybody the right to have a good death through euthanasia is acceptable as a universal principle, and that euthanasia is therefore morally acceptable.

This alone does not justify euthanasia

This is sound, but is not a full justification.

If a person wants to be allowed to commit euthanasia, it would clearly be inconsistent for them to say that they didn't think it should be allowed for other people.

But the principle of universalisability doesn't actually provide any positive justification for anything - genuine moral rules must be universalisable, but universalisability is not enough to say that a rule is a satisfactory moral rule.

Universalisability is therefore only a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition for a rule to be a morally good rule.

So, other than showing that one pre-condition is met, universalisibility doesn't advance the case for euthanasia at all.

How similar can situations be?

Every case is different in some respect, so anyone who is inclined to argue about it can argue about whether the particular differences are sufficent to make this case an exception to the rule.

Universal exceptions to universal rules

Oddly enough, the law of universalisability allows for there to be exceptions - as long as the exceptions are themselves universalisable. So you could have a universal rule allowing voluntary euthanasia and universalise an exception for people who were less than 18 years old.

Euthanasia happens - better to make it legal and regulate it properly

Sounds a bit like "murder happens - better to make it legal and regulate it properly".

When you put it like that, the argument sounds very feeble indeed.

But it is one that is used a lot in discussion, and particularly in politics or round the table in the pub or the canteen.

People say things like "we can't control drugs so we'd better legalise them", or "if we don't make abortion legal so that people can have it done in hospital, people will die from backstreet abortions".

What lies behind it is Utilitarianism : the belief that moral rules should be designed to produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.

If you accept this as the basis for your ethical code (and it's the basis of many people's ethics), then the arguments above are perfectly sensible.

If you don't accept this principle, but believe that certain things are wrong regardless of what effect they have on total human happiness, then you will probably regard this argument as cynical and wrong.

A utilitarian argument for euthanasia

From a utilitarian viewpoint, justifying euthanasia is a question of showing that allowing people to have a good death, at a time of their own choosing, will make them happier than the pain from their illness, the loss of dignity and the distress of anticipating a slow, painful death. Someone who wants euthanasia will have already made this comparison for themselves.

But utilitarianism deals with the total human happiness, not just that of the patient, so that even euthanasia opponents who agree with utilitarianism in principle can claim that the negative effects on those around the patient - family, friends and medical staff - would outweigh the benefit to the patient.

It is hard to measure happiness objectively, but one way to test this argument would be to speak to the families and carers of people who had committed assisted suicide.

Opponents can also argue that the net effect on the whole of society will be a decrease in happiness. The only way to approach this would be to look at countries where euthanasia is legal. However, as no two countries are alike, it seems impossible to extricate the happiness or unhappiness resulting from legal assisted suicide, from any happiness or unhappiness from other sources.

Even if you agree with the utilitarian argument, you then have to deal with the arguments that suggest that euthanasia can't be properly regulated .

Why ask this question?

If death is not a bad thing then many of the objections to euthanasia vanish.

If we put aside the idea that death is always a bad thing, we are able to consider whether death may actually sometimes be a good thing.

This makes it much easier to consider the issue of euthanasia from the viewpoint of someone who wants euthanasia.

Why is death a bad thing?

We tend to regard death as a bad thing for one or more of these reasons:

• because human life is intrinsically valuable
• because life and death are God's business with which we shouldn't interfere
• because most people don't want to die
• because it violates our autonomy in a drastic way

The first two reasons form key points in the arguments against euthanasia , but only if you accept that they are true.

The last two reasons why death is a bad thing are not absolute; if a person wants to die, then neither of those reasons can be used to say that they would be wrong to undergo euthanasia.

People don't usually want to die

People are usually eager to avoid death because they value being alive, because they have many things they wish to do, and experiences they wish to have.

Obviously, this is not the case with a patient who wishes to die - and proper regulation will weed out people who do not really want to die , but are asking for other reasons.

Violation of autonomy

Another reason why death is seen as a bad thing is that it's the worst possible violation of the the wishes of the person who does not want to die (or, to use philosophical language, a violation of their autonomy).

In the case of someone who does want to die, this objection disappears.

Being dead, versus not having been born

Some people say that being dead is no different from not having been born yet, and nobody makes a fuss about the bad time they had before they were born.

There is a big difference - even though being dead will be no different as an experience from the experience of not having yet been born.

The idea is that death hurts people because it stops them having more of the things that they want, and could have if they continued to live.

Someone who makes a request for euthanasia is likely to have a bad quality of life (or a bad prognosis, even if they are not yet suffering much) and the knowledge that this will only get worse. If that is the case, death will not deprive them of an otherwise pleasant existence.

Of course, most patients will still be leaving behind some things that are good: for example, loved ones and things they enjoy. Asking for death does not necessarily mean that they have nothing to live for: only that the patient has decided that after a certain point, the pain outweighs the good things.

« More on Euthanasia

• Religion and Ethics home

Around the BBC

• News - Q&A - Assisted suicide
• Health - Terminal illness
• Health - Palliative care in hospices
• Health - How to Have a Good Death
• Relationships - Coping with grief

Elsewhere on the web

• Care Not Killing
• Compassion in Dying
• Dignity in Dying
• National Council for Palliative Care

Search term:

BBC navigation

• Northern Ireland
• Full A-Z of BBC sites

You're using the Internet Explorer 6 browser to view the BBC website. Our site will work much better if you change to a more modern browser. It's free, quick and easy. Find out more about upgrading your browser here…

• Mobile site
• Terms of Use
• About the BBC
• Contact the BBC
• Parental Guidance

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.