Opposing The Arguments Against Euthanasia In The United States

The purpose of this paper is to persuade the audience to allow euthanasia to be legal in more countries. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. It is also known as mercy killing. This process is done by an attending physician administering a fatal dose of a drug to the patient on his or her verbal request. Many people do not support this claim because most people believe that euthanasia is immoral. However, I disagree. I understand that life should be preserved and protected but, not to the extent of feeling nothing but pain. The importance of supporting euthanasia allow patients to their liberty and not depriving them of any of their rights. In addition, if

By this statement Benatar means that these two arguments are used as scare tactics. The first argument, slippery slope is meant to make the claim that if some specific action such as euthanasia is allowed, the society will be led down the slippery slope and allow actions that are morally wrong. On the contrary, euthanasia is not morally wrong because just as a man or woman have the right to live, they also have the right to die. The second argument, abuse supports this claim because withholding a person from the right to decide whether to live or die is abuse of authority (Benatar, 2011). The patient should be allowed their freedom of liberty to decide what is best for himself or

“Simply put, laws against assisted death cause suffering on an unprecedented scale, not just for the terminally ill but for their families as well.” (Morris, 2013). In 2002 in the United Kingdom, a woman by the name of Diane Pretty fought against the European Court of Human Rights and was rejected her right to die. She was suffering from motor neurone disease and the law took away her right to die (Laville, 2002). Mrs. Pretty was terrified to die from choking or suffocation and ended up slipping into a coma state that eventually resulted in her death (Laville, 2002). Her death was three days after her hearing in court. She simply could have been granted her right and end her suffering for herself and her husband, so that he too would not have to watch her suffer. My fourth argument is the hippocratic oath. “The famous maxim “do no harm” is a summation of the Hippocratic Oath—an ancient code designed to guide doctors in their actions.” (Morris, 2013). From this oath, people assume that doctors are not suppose to harm the patient's chances of survival. Although, this could also mean not to keep someone alive if death is preferable due to a valid justification such as extreme pain. It all comes down to how people perceive “harm”. By allowing patients to continue to suffer their pain could also be seen as harming the patient (Morris,