Hlub Her Period 09 Writers Workshop Persuasive Essay Finding a Way Dr. Kevorkianalso known as Dr.

Death due to his interest in deathwas known for assisting patients towards death via euthanasia and was once convicted with seconddegree murder in 1999 along with other advances he achieved throughout his life. Many, if not all, of his assistance were considered unethical for it violated the state law proclaiming euthanasia--the act of a physician assisting a patient into death in order to relieve the patients pain--is not legal. On a national level, majority of the world population does not favor euthanasia. Moreover, there are only three states where physician-assisted suicide has been legalized: Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Countries outside of the U.S. like Switzerland also legalized euthanasia but each law for each place abides by different standards and requirements. As well, because there are two types of euthanasia: (1) active euthanasia occurring when an individual is deliberately killed and (2) passive euthanasia when the treatment has been halted, there are exceptions regarding when euthanasia is acceptable, what is considered acceptable, and the charge if euthanasia is conducted. Then there are three categories it is classified into. There is voluntary euthanasia taking place when a patient has made a conscious decision to die, non-voluntary euthanasia when an individual is unable to make a conscious decision for him or herself and involuntary euthanasia when an individual had not given consent. Overall, euthanasia is only legal under certain circumstances. Hence, there is a downside. Individuals who do want euthanasia to be conducted on him or her do not have a choice on their end-of-death decision if it is not legal in the state the individual resides in. That affects the terminally ill with incurable

Hlub Her Period 09 Writers Workshop Persuasive Essay diseases. Thus euthanasia should be acceptable for the terminally ill and or a valid reason. Patients with incurable illnesses should have their human rights; they should not have to suffer. As stated on the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights book of Article 3, Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person (UN Publications). The meaning confirms that an individual is able to live their life with a sense of independence and assurance but it may seem quite ironic when The Universal Declaration of Human Rights then states in Article 5, No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (UN Publications). Therefore, one would think that by not legalizing euthanasia patients would be safe because their right to life is protected, considering that legalizing euthanasia is torture...[and a]...degrading treatment or punishment done to another individual but perhaps it is just the opposite. By opposing to assist the terminally ill, individuals may be suffering more than what they would be if they were dead. In the article How Shall We Die, At the Hemlock Society we get calls from desperate people who are looking for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their lives which have lost all quality... Americans should enjoy a right guaranteed...the right to not be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent (Girsh). Girsh is saying that patients do suffer more by continuing to live if it is against their will, for terminally ill patients do have to take medication, use feeding tubes, and or other methods to sustain their life and an ill patient may view those options as useless since there is no cure for their illness. Plus, people should have the option to choose what they think is
2

Hlub Her Period 09 Writers Workshop Persuasive Essay best-fit for themselves because it is their life. Thus, individuals have the right to feel secured. If feelings secured and content means conducting euthanasia then so let it be so long as it does no harm. Not only should the terminally ill patients have their human rights fulfilled but the fact that killing without consent is as bad as sustaining life of the terminally ill. As stated earlier, ill patients will continue to be hooked up to machines and or medicated. It is like they are in a vegetative state where mobility and the nearing end of their life will appear to be a drag that continues forever without end because doctors and physicians are to do no harm to their patients. The no-harm-to-patients concept emerged from the Hippocratic Oath derived from the Greek medical text, which now has a classical and modern version, listing principles which must be obeyed by doctors and physicians who swear under oath. An article titled The Hippocratic Oath Today reviewed the Hippocratic Oath and received a comment from a doctor Steven R. Kanner who worked at the Massachusetts General Hospital Weston in Weston, MA who responded, Keeping patients from harm, by contrast, is a critical concept to any relevant medical oath...However, many physicians are fully supportive of abortions, and some physicians are sympathetic to aiding in euthanasia for terminally ill patients precisely to keep them from harm (Tyson). Kanner is agreeing that it is a possibility for euthanasia to be legalized throughout states and outside too for the terminally ill because not aiding a suffering patient is doing harm to them. However, there is a contributing reason beyond laws and ethics. Government involvement has been considered an issue. Many times people debate over how much a government should engage in making choices for the general public. Some are for.
3

Hlub Her Period 09 Writers Workshop Persuasive Essay Others are against more involvement. With the case of legalizing euthanasia, too much government involvement may make people feel restricted from making their own decisions. For instance, euthanasia being illegal is another creative way that can bluntly be said that there is only one solution which everyone must follow. How the opposing an opinion of an individual does not matter because euthanasia is considered unethical for majority of the population. Of course everyone has a different perspective so it may be often times asked why individuals should be swayed of their opinions because it is opposed by others. Trying to change someones decision and violating that individuals right just so society would flow better altogether but it never will happen. There will always be opposing sides. In addition, government involvement affects families. For instance, the amount of expense it costs to continue care. A terminally ill patient may have viewed continued care as a waste because of the cost it takes to care for someone who has an incurable disease. Regardless, the individual will die eventually. There is no benefit to the patient. As said in Planning for Worse than Taxes, These intensely personal and socially expensive decisions should not be left to governments, judges or legislators... (Los Angeles Times Newspaper). In brief, the terminally ill should have the option to consider euthanasia if they are terminally ill. Although it is understood that legalizing voluntary euthanasia will lead to abuse of non-voluntary euthanasia, people could take precaution. For instance, there the forms that are filed for requirement of conducting euthanasia where the physician and the patient signs a form of approval. Otherwise, the patient can also use a living will like what a Bucks County man did in Pennsylvania. In the journal Why Living Wills/Advances Are an Essential Part of Estate Planning, the man was not given a
4

Hlub Her Period 09 Writers Workshop Persuasive Essay feeding tube, even though his wife requested he receive one, because his living will executed seven years prior, clearly stating he did not want a tube feeding or any other artificial invasive form of nutrition (Pozzuolo). Thus it was legal for the man to conduct euthanasia because his living will was created beforehand. Therefore, if consent is given then patients should have the option to choose euthanasia.

Hlub Her Period 09 Writers Workshop Persuasive Essay Works Cited Primary Sources Girsh, Faye. "How Shall We Die." Free Inquiry 22 Dec. 2001: n. pag. Print. Los Angeles Times. "Planning for Worse than Taxes." Los Angeles Times 2 Mar. 2005: n. pag. Print. Pozzuolo, Joseph, Lisa Lassoff, and Jamie Valentine. "Why Living Wills/Advance Directives Are an Essential Part of Estate Planning." Journal of Financial Service Professionals (2005): n. pag. Print. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 3. 10 Dec. 1948. Web. 1 May 2013. Secondary Sources Tyson, Peter, ed. "The Hippocratic Oath Today." PBS. WGBH, 27 Mar. 2001. Web. 1 May 2013. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oathtoday.html>.