ay Persuasive Essay

"\Y^" ? f("TU

The right to life is an innate universal right that every human in the world

possesses. Life is precious, and everything should be done to preserve it. It is a both a gift ^
and a right. Even in situations when a person is in pain or is physically unresponsive, no

one is entitled to decide to assist in their suicide. Euthanasia is neither logically, nor l
morally, nor legallv sanctioned.

c\jl\j^ UnW Kyi <

, [

+.

11 "

Euthanasia is logically incorrect from a philosophicaI<point of view. A person who is

in great pain or who is unresponsive still lives a life, albeit a harder one than that of a

healthy person. Taking away an ill person's life in no way helps them because, obviously,
death does not alleviate the pain - it is the end of a person. Consequently, wc cannot say
that they are "better off dead" because their life ends: "How can the beneficiary, the self,

be said to benefit if the self is rendered non-existent?" (Peterson 105). In this way, it is illogical to think that killing a person would be for "mercy." Committing murder is not
mercy. It is not rational to "intentionally choose the destruction of self over the continuation of self" (ibid). Evidently, euthanasia is illogical because we do not know if the

dead person benefits: "To assign a meaningful benefit or loss to a person requires the
continuing existence... of the person" (ibid). Therefore, if one states that euthanasia is of help to a person, one must mean that the human continues to exist after death. Since no

scientific proof of this is present, euthanasia is illogical. Notwithstanding patients' great

pain due to illness, the best thing to do is strive to reduce their suffering as best as we can;
we cannot approve of euthanasia "without treating life as if it were a mere instrumental
good" (Peterson 109).

Not only is euthanasia an illogical crime, but is also immoral. Assisted suicide is

condemned on an ethical level. Morally, killing any living thing is inhumane. If we

condemn execution, murder, and suicide, shouldn't we also condemn euthanasia?

Ethically, robbing another human of life is an unspeakably nefarious crime. Furthermore,

we can observe how many religions view euthanasia. Every religion is a set of moral rules

for its followers; these all serve to guide people in life and to teach them empathy and
proper behavior. Every popular religion disallows euthanasia; for instance, Christians
believe that "Being created by God, we are stewards of our lives rather than owners"

(Pankratz), and that one cannot treat life as a belonging.

Another important factor in this issue that is imperative to consider is the policy of
the law. Anv country's legislation and set of laws serve to keen the public safe and to

maintain a humane society. This is why it is important to look at the legal standing of
euthanasia. It is not incidentally that Canada's Criminal Code states that one cannot

consent to be killed and that one cannot advise or assist in another person's suicide

(Articles 14 and 241, respectively). The Code also states that it is the duty of health

practitioners and families to help the patient in question as much as possible if they are
incapable of supporting themselves:

"... every one is under a legal duty to provide necessaries of life to a person
under his charge if that person is unable, by reason of (...) illness, mental disorder or other cause, to withdraw himself from that charge and is unable
to provide himself with the necessaries of life" (Article 215).

The US law as well orders similar duties, as do other countries; only several allow
euthanasia, such as the Netherlands, where its legal allowance has led to physicians frequently falsifying death certificates and disregarding the requirements for consulting a

second physician (Pankratz). This proportion of countries that legally approve of

euthanasia goes to show that after many years of legislation, the better choice for the public
is not to allow assisted suicide. In Canada, every doctor takes the Hippocratic Oath, a part of which states: "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make
a suggestion to this effect." In this way, people's lives are legally protected and valued.
Indeed, proponents of euthanasia may argue that it is sometimes costly to maintain
a human life, especially one of an unresponsive person with a grave medical condition.

They may say that brain-dead individuals should not be kept on life support and should be
killed in order to avoid further expenses. However, life is priceless. Life is not an object:

"There are... two classes of entities in the world: things and persons. Things have a price, can be bought and sold, arc objects to be used. Persons, on the other hand, are not things; they cannot be merely used as

objects. They must be treated as ends-in-themselves" (Hinman). py *t

J^f
Y/^v*~*'

No matter how much money is spent on keeping a person alive, it is money well spent
because there is always hope that he will heal, and it is impossible to measure the cost of a
life in dollars. The moment that we start deciding to treat one's born right to life as

*-

<\f

something that can be valued monetarily is the moment where we begin seeing people as
mere items. Moreover, there are many insurance companies and government programs to
aid those with financial problems in medical situations.

'Even though virtually all relatives of patients in distress would say that "it is
difficult to see them suffer" (Peterson 37), surely it is much more difficult to assist in their
suicide. Though it can be done by a doctor via an injection or other means that are said to

they have committed murder, even which pales in comparison to the atrocity being done to
the person - the taking of their life. One is nevertheless committing murder whether it is

through voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. Euthanasia is wrong based on logical, moral,

and legal grounds.

Criminal

Code

of Canada,

Revised

Statutes

of Canada

1985.

Chapter

C-46.

<http://laws.justice.gc.ca/ >
Hinman, Lawrence. "Euthanasia and End-of-Life Decisoins: A Guide to the Ethical

Issues." Centre for Ethics in Science & Technology. Lectures on Contemporary

Moral Issues: Decisions at the End of Life. University of San Diego, San Diego. 9
June. 2009.

Pankratz, Robert, and Welsh, Richard. "A Christian Response to Euthanasia." U-Turn

Journal (2001): 2. 6 JVflarch 2010. <ljttp://www.tkc.com/ >

Peterson, Craig. Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Cornwall: Ashgate Publishing, 2008.