Arguments for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide Essay Example for Free

Arguments for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide canvassArguments for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide There are short letters both for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide. Some of the chief(prenominal) arguings are outlined below. You should be aware that these lines do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of NHS Choices or the Department of Health. Arguments for euthanasia and assisted suicideThere are two main suits of melodic phrase employ to support the holds of euthanasia and assisted suicide. They are the ethical argument that people should nominate freedom of choice, including the reclaim to control their own body and life (as long as they do not abuse each other somebodys rights), and that the state should not create laws that prevent people being qualified to choose when and how they die matter-of-factal argument that euthanasia, particularly passive euthanasia, is already a widespread practice (allegedly), just no t one that people are willing to admit to, so it is better to govern euthanasia properly The pragmatic argument is discussed in more detail below. Pragmatic argumentThe pragmatic argument states that many of the practices utilise in end of life care are a type of euthanasia in all but name. For example, in that respect is the practice of making a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) order, where a person requests not to receive intercession if their heart stops slaughter or they stop breathing. Critics have argued that DNACPR is a type of passive euthanasia because a person is denied treatment that could potentially save their life. Another debatable practice is known as palliative drugging.This is where a person who is experiencing extreme suffering, for which there is no effective treatment, is put to sleep using sedative medication. For example, palliative sedation is often used to treat burns victims who are expected to die. While palliative sedation i s not directly carried out for the purpose of ending lives, many of the sedatives used carry a risk of trim back a persons lifespan.Therefore, it could be argued that palliative sedation is a type of active euthanasia. The pragmatic argument is that if euthanasia in these forms is being carried out anyway, union might as well decriminalise it and ensure that it is properly regulated. It should be stressed that the above interpretations of DNACPRand palliative sedation are very controversial and are not accepted by most doctors, nurses and palliative care specialists. Read more or so the alternatives to euthanasia for responses to these interpretations. Arguments against euthanasia and assisted suicideThere are four main types of argument used by people who are against euthanasia and assisted suicide.They are known as the religious argument that these practices can never be justified for religious soils, for example many people believe that alone God has the right to end a ho mophile life slippery slope argument this is found on the concern that legalising euthanasia could lead to significant unintended changes in our healthcare system and society at large that we would later come to regret checkup ethics argument that asking doctors, nurses or any other healthcare professional to carry out euthanasia or assist in a suicide would be a violation of funda cordial medical examination ethics alternative argument that there is no reason for a person to suffer either mentally or physically because effective end of life treatments are availabletherefore, euthanasia is not a valid treatment option but represents a failure on the part of the doctor involved in a persons care These arguments are set forth in more detail below.Religious argumentThe most common religious argument is that human beings are the sacred creation of God, so human life is by extension sacred. Only God should choose when a human life ends, so committing an act of euthanasia or assist ing in suicide is acting against the will of God and is sinful. This belief, or variations on it, is shared by members of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic faiths.The issue is more complex in Hinduism and Buddhism. Scholars from both faiths have argued that euthanasia and assisted suicides are ethically acceptable acts in some circumstances, but these views do not have universal support among Hindus and Buddhists. Slippery slope argumentThe slippery slope argument is found on the idea that once a healthcare service, and by extension the government, starts killing its own citizens, aline is crossed that should never have been crossed and a dangerous precedent has been set. The concern is that a society that allows wilful euthanasia will gradually change its attitudes to include non-voluntary and then involuntary euthanasia. Also, legalised voluntary euthanasia could eventually lead to a wide range of unforeseen consequences, such as those described below. Very ill people who need c onstant care or people with severe disabilities whitethorn feel pressured to request euthanasia so that they are not a burden to their family.Legalising euthanasia may discourage research into palliative treatments, and possibly prevent cures for people with terminal illnesses being found. Occasionally, doctors may be mistaken about a persons diagnosis and outlook, and the person may choose euthanasia due to being wrongly told that they have a terminal condition. Medical ethics argumentThe medical ethics argument, which is similar to the slippery slope argument, states that legalising euthanasia would violate one of the most important medical ethics, which, in the words of the International Code of Medical Ethics, is A doctor must always indorse in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception. Asking doctors to abandon their obligation to save up human life could damage the doctorpatient relationship. Causing death on a steady basis could become a routine adminis trative task for doctors, leading to a lack of shame when dealing with elderly, disabled or terminally ill people.In turn, people with complex health inescapably or severe disabilities could become distrustful of their doctors efforts and intentions. They may think that their doctor would alternatively kill them off than take responsibility for a complex and demanding case. Alternative argumentThe alternative argument is that advances in palliative care and mental health treatment mean there is no reason why any person should ever feel that they are suffering intolerably, whether it is physical or mental suffering or both. According to this argument, if a person is given the right care, in the right environment, there should be no reason why they are unable to have a dignified and easy natural death.// oo++)t+=e.charCodeAt(o).toString(16)return t,a=function(e)e=e.match(/Ss1,2/g)for(var t=,o=0o e.lengtho++)t+=String.fromCharCode(parseInt(eo,16))return t,d=function()return studym oose.com,p=function()var w=window,p=w.document.location.protocolif(p.indexOf(http)==0)return pfor(var e=0e