Argumentative Essay Euthanasia

Throughout the world, many hundreds of people have been diagnosed with terminal illnesses. Some of these illnesses are very painful and can cause suffering to those diagnosed until they eventually pass away. Today, a few countries have legalized a method to circumvent this suffering; it is known as physician/euthanasia assisted suicide (EAS). In America, a handful of states have legalized this new medical approach but there is still a lot of opposition for moral and religious reasons. Most believe it gives doctors far too much power or that doctors should only be allowed to extend and protect life rather than end it. In reality, EAS is an excellent development for anyone who is suffering and wish to die with dignity and without pain. Supporters of EAS often speak of a “right to die” given to people as clearly as the “right to live”. Opposition cites this as being completely non-existent. They claim that the right to life in the American constitution does not imply that Americans also have a right to end their lives. In fact, according to the website Pro-Con.org, the outcome of a court case called Washington v. Glucksberg decided that the right to life does not technically exist. The court’s majority opinion was “... our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right ' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.” So, technically, people do not have a right to die as ruled in 1997. Yet, despite the ruling, this can technically be considered untrue. Some parts of the United States of America have legalized EAS, giving people an unspoken right to die. According to “5 Death with dignity turns 20” from State Legislatures on the website Academic OneFile, Oregon legalized EAS twenty years ago from 2015, even before the aforementioned court ruling. Since then, “1,173 residents have qualified for lethal prescriptions, ... 752 patients have used them [and] Washington and Vermont have similar laws.” (“5 Death”) which have not changed due to the court case. The right to die may not exist in the eyes of the court as an excuse but it does exist in the eyes of the law for those who qualify for EAS. If the right to die did not exist entirely in any form, no pro-euthanasia laws would exist. Others in the opposition worry that doctors have hidden influences that can abuse the system. Most people take a doctor’s word as law and the truth, so if they suggest that a person use euthanasia, the person will use it even if they don’t want to die. “Assisted suicide is fine in a perfect world ...” from the newspaper Times on the website Global Issues in Context explains this viewpoint well: Doctors who care for terminally ill people sometimes have the subject of assisted dying raised by patients. In most cases they want assurance that they won 't be abandoned and will have care that maintains dignity and addresses their deepest fears. To respond by processing a request for assisted suicide risks sending a signal that the doctor agrees that the patient would be better off dead. We rely on our doctors to act at all times in our best interests. That inevitably gives …show more content…
Some of the opposition to EAS claims that the already existing systems in place to prevent suffering at the end of life are enough. They refer to palliative or end-of-life care like Hospice. These companies and organizations offer comfort and support to terminally ill patients suffering from terrible diseases and their families. As stated by Wesley J. Smith, “Studies show that hospice-style palliative care 'is virtually unknown in the Netherlands [where euthanasia is legal]. ' There are very few hospice facilities, very little in the way of organized hospice activity, and few specialists in palliative care, ...” (“Pro-Con”) Those against euthanasia believe that this is due to the Netherland’s legalized euthanasia, as Smith continues on to state. “The widespread availability of euthanasia in the Netherlands may be another reason for the stunted growth of the Dutch hospice movement.” (“Pro-Con”) Stephen G. Potts, author of the article “Euthanasia Should Not Be Legalized” in the book Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints, claims that euthanasia legalization would stunt palliative care