Robinson 1

Sarika Robinson

Connie Douglas

UWRT 1104-032

February 7th, 2016

Death or Dignity?

Euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient who is terminally ill and has no

chance of recovery. There has been a debate over the years on whether euthanasia should be a

federal mandate in the United States. The first article Euthanasia Should Be Legal was written by

Andrew Walter a licensed attorney who is working for the Connecticut Supreme Court. The

purpose of his article is to prove why euthanasia should be legal in every state so terminally ill

patients can voluntarily end their life. The second article Active Euthanasia Should Be Outlawed

was written by Peter Pawlick and Tracey M. DiLascio; Tracey M. DiLascio is a practicing

attorney in Massachusetts. The purpose of their article is to explain why euthanasia is a threat to

vulnerable groups of people and why euthanasia should be illegal. The controversy topic of the

federal mandate of Euthanasia is an ongoing discussion; one author made an outstanding

argument for why they are correct.

Euthanasia Should Be Legal is a more significant and reliable source for information.

This article was filled with fact-based arguments, insight of the euthanasia process, and excellent

use of writing structures. The article provided information to ensure the safety of the physician

and pharmacist involved; it also made sure to associate that the decisions of the patient must be
 Robinson 2

thought through and made of sound-mind. While individuals have the constitutional right to

prevent physicians from taking life-saving measures in the event of their incapacitation, they

must make clear their desires, usually through a living-will or a do not resuscitate order (Walter

2). Andrew Walter uses voter information and data to support his ideals; The Washington

Initiative 1000, passed by voters in 2008, was based on the Oregon Act and, consequently, was

substantially similar in its provisions and safeguards (Walter 2). Walter continues his article by

discussing the oppositions of euthanasia including religious and social organizations; he backs

the right for organizations to start petitions about euthanasia. These organizations are free to

petition their elected officials and to champion their causes that right is fundamental to a

democratic system. (Walter 3). He ends his argument by asking why some citizens support the

death penalty but not euthanasia; These same citizens, though, are not entrusted with the same

authority to make that decision when it comes to their own lives in the extreme case of an

incurable, terminal illness (Walter 4).

Peter Pawlick and Tracey M. DiLascio make atrocious arguments to back their idea that

euthanasia should be outlawed. In the article Active Euthanasia Should Be Outlawed their

logic is flawed and the article is opinion-based arguments; their strongest argument is that

euthanasia could affect adolescents younger than twelve. In this article, the writers go as far as to

say that legalizing euthanasia will lead to termination of certain types of people; If a doctor can

legally euthanize people with terminal illnesses, why not people with physical and psychological

disabilities? Why not a lonely widow or a broken-hearted teenager? Why not a child of below-

average intellect? Why not a Jew, a Tutsi, or a Kurd? (Pawlick 2). This statement is far-fetched

and reaching for a reason not to allow the legalization of euthanasia. The authors attempt to use
 Robinson 3

the emotions of the readers by giving examples of patients who experienced euthanasia and laws

that were passed with it; The Texas Futile Care Law, passed in 1999, allows doctors in Texas to

end life support against the wishes of the patient or guardian when life-sustaining measures are

deemed by a doctor to be inappropriate (Pawlick 2). They end their argument but saying active

euthanasia places too much power in the hands of healthcare providers. (Pawlick 3) This

statement is false because of the extensive process a patient must go through for euthanasia to

used; the permission of the healthcare provider is also needed. Overall, the views and points used

to prove that euthanasia should be outlawed was flawed and was all opinion. The article did not

have any real structure, it was all over the place, and the thoughts were disorganized.

Andrew Walters ideas and points were more reliable; even if one did not agree with the

use of euthanasia; Peter Pawlick and Tracey M. DiLascio reached for reasoning against the use

of euthanasia. The use of the Holocaust and Nazis in comparison with euthanasia was ridiculous;

they stated that Twenty years prior to the Holocaust, the expression lebensunwertes Leben

(life unworthy of life) was already being used by German eugenicists who favored euthanasia

as a logical extension of forced sterilization (Pawlick 3). Andrew Walter does not make

outrageous ideas to prove his point; his statements had the patients, their families and healthcare

providers in mind. He mentions the finances involved in continuing medical treatment Often, a

terminally ill person watches their savings account plummet while his or her medical costs and

insurance premiums, assuming they are fortunate to afford to have medical insurance, skyrocket

(Walter 3). The fight against whether euthanasia should be legal in all states is an ongoing battle;

Peter Pawlicks and Tracey M. DiLascios points were inferior and the information was dull.
 Robinson 4

Euthanasia Should Be Legal was a better source of information compared to Active Euthanasia

Should Be Outlawed.

Works Cited
 Robinson 5

Griswold, Ann. "Counterpoint: Euthanasia Should Be Banned." Point of View Reference Center.

N.p., 30 Sept. 2016. Web. 15 Feb. 2017.

Pawlick, Peter, and Tracey M. DiLascio. "Point: Active Euthanasia Should Be Outlawed."Points

of View Reference Center [EBSCO]. Points of View: Assisted Suicide, 30 Sept. 2016.

Web. 06 Feb. 2017.

Walter, Andrew. "Point: Euthanasia Should Be Legal." Points of View Reference Center

[EBSCO]. Points of View: Euthanasia, 30 Sept. 2016. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.