Define Euthanasia

Friday July 22, 2022

Euthanasia is one of the most highly discussed topic in society today. It is not morally correct it has to do with killing someone and ruins the intrinsic value of a human being. That is my argument towards euthanasia. Euthanasia goes against nature. Those that oppose say that it is mercy killing, but it is still killing. I am with the majority who are against this so-called mercy killing. Before presenting my arguments, it would be best to define the term “euthanasia”. Euthanasia can be defined in many ways. Here are categories that fall in with the term euthanasia. “The term involuntary euthanasia is where the decision is not made by the person who is to die; the patient’s life is ended without the knowledge and consent. It is basically a form of murder. Passive euthanasia is to speed up the process of death to a person and stopping some type of support to let that take its course.’ (academic, coup) Like: stopping a form of medical procedure, stopping nutrients of food and water and allowing the person to dehydrate or starve to death, with that not delivering CPR. “The term active euthanasia involves causing the death of a person through a direct action, in response from that person.” (ACADEMIC.COUP) A well-known example of that is the case of Dr. Kevorkian. He gave a lethal dose of medicine to kill a terminally ill patient. Dr. Jack Kevorkian was a retired pathologist who assisted in the deaths of over 130 people. The famous court case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian brought awareness to the controversial issue of euthanasia to the public. “In Michigan, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was convicted of the second-degree murder because he administered a controlled substance to end the life of Thomas Youk and had prepared a video showing his action and let the video be broadcast on national television (NY Times). A different yet similar situation and legal case would come about Saskatchewan, Canada when a wheat farmer named Robert Latimer would take the question of euthanasia into his own hands. “Robert Latimer murdered his young daughter, Tracy, on October 24th, 2008. Behind the reasoning of Latimer’s act which was immoral is that he couldn’t help to see his daughter suffering from a severe form of cerebral palsy and her disability. He killed her by placing Tracy in the back of his car and ran a hose from the exhaust to the cab, while he watched her die. Latimer was then convicted on November 4,1993 of first-degree murder. The year after he was convicted of second-degree murder.” (Inclusion Daily). So the question is: what’s the difference between his actions of killing his Tracy who suffers from serious pain, and a doctor who received given permission to kill an individual who is also suffering from pain? Eventually Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and Robert Latimer, were both charged with murder because they chose to practice euthanasia. If murder is prohibited by law because people take murder into their own hands to kill others, then why shouldn’t euthanasia be too since doctors kill their patients even if there is consent. A doctor must receive authorization to assist in the death of a patient who is overly sick. Because of this many have questioned why doesn’t Robert Latimer have the right to take his own daughters life, since a doctor would have had to ask him anyways to have the right to kill Tracy? Latimer apparently saved his daughter from suffering, which is the same reason many people.

Get a custom answer for this and any question related to academic

Order Now
Order a Custom Paper
By placing an order, you agree to our terms & conditions