You may have heard of the stories of a doctor or nurse deliberately helping their incurable patient pass on to the other side. They are usually promptly arrested, and the mass media enjoys giving these persons names like “Angels of Death” or “Suicide Helpers.” Some people might think such doctors’ actions are merciful and graceful, since many patients who are terminally ill are waiting to die, sometimes being in severe pain. Yet, there are also opponents to this rationale who claim that killing is still killing, no matter what motives the murderer had, or how difficult the patient’s suffering was. One of the main questions in treating patients who cannot be cured is whether mercy killings are to be allowed legally to help end someone’s suffering—the answer should be, “No.”
Euthanasia—the proper term for mercy killing—is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. This assumes a patient is aware they are going to die, and in some cases, they must administer the poison themselves. This is also called assisted suicide.
Arguments supporting euthanasia usually present the fact that the patient would have no cure, and no way of contributing to society in the state they are in. They claim humanity cannot help such individuals either: all that can be done is prolonging their agony when suffering from terminal diseases, or letting them live with a defective life in the case of suffering from serious mental deviations. However, the very thought of killing people due to their disabilities seems unnatural; besides, who is competent and authorized enough to decide whom to kill and whom to let live?
The German child Gerhard Kretschmar, whose case is one of the most well-known examples of euthanasia, was born blind, missing limbs, and prone to convulsions. Adolf Hitler gave Kretschmar’s doctor permission to commit a child murder, since medicine could not help him. This incident started the Nazis’ T4 Program (that implied killing incurably ill people, as well as physically and mentally-disabled individuals), and led to the killings of almost 300,000 mentally and physically handicapped people who otherwise would have no other way of being cured (BBC). The problem is that while Kretchmar’s killing was done by parental consent, 5,000 to 8,000 children were forcibly taken from their parents because the state decided to do so. These children were either starved to death or killed by lethal injection.
As the T4 Program continued, handicapped people were killed with gas vans and killing centers, eventually leading to the death of 70,000 German adults. Since this campaign was clearly being used as a murderous machine to take out the unwanted, the definition of euthanasia was stretched to fit the government’s viewpoint. The main danger here is that in the scenario of modern society weakening its control over the issue of euthanasia, history can repeat itself and soon it will be up to the government whether or not you are able to contribute to society.
People who want to commit suicide—due to despair, disappointment, or for any other reason—seem to be unwilling to make this fearsome step on their own. Thus, they strive to share the responsibility of cutting their lives short in the presence of others, basically with doctors. But if a person feels they want to die, they should not bring in someone to do it. If suicide is illegal, then why are we helping people commit suicide? The very fact that people call it mercy killing does not mean that it stops to be a murder, since you still take their lives away.
Euthanasia is an act of seeming mercy, and should not be allowed legally. While being justified as humane towards people who suffer and cannot live a full life, it is a murder no better than many others and different only in motives. No person is authorized to decide whether another person should live or die except that person. In the case of an individual deciding to pass away beforehand, no one should help him or her in this deed. Besides, there exists the danger that governments may take the role of a judge deciding whom to kill, as it has happened in Nazi Germany. The consequences of this could be truly dreadful.
BBC-Genocide Under the Nazis Timeline: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/timelines/nazi_genocide_timeline/index_embed.shtml.
Sign up and we’ll send you ebook of 1254 samples like this for free!
- 80+ essay types
- 1000+ essay samples
- Pro writing tips
Related Writing Guides
Writing a Persuasive Essay
So, your number one goal for now is to generate the best quality euthanasia argumentative essay and get an A for your paper? Well, we’re here to tell you that you have two wonderful options – your motivation and desire to get the highest grade and our simple “how to” tips.
First step you need to take on your long way to professionally written assignment is getting familiar with simple success formula. Without a doubt, you’ve heard it many times. So, keep your eyes wide open when you read the following“recipe”: a catching intro + solid arguments + well-grounded conclusion = 100% academic triumph! Now let’s dwell on every “ingredient”.
Catch your reader’s attention
Your task would be way easier if you worked on an entertaining essay, but unfortunately, you are a college (university) student and you have no right to choose what to write about. Yet, it is still highly important to build up a catching introduction if you really need your essay on euthanasia to be winning. Make sure to start your conversation with the audience with a real-life moving example that proves that euthanasia is a bad (or good) phenomenon. You are to take a particular viewpoint on the issue.
Produce solid arguments
Yes, it is a hard topic to consider, but nevertheless, you MUST have your own clear viewpoint on euthanasia. Make up your mind whether you support or oppose euthanasia. You can create a list of all the pros and cons of “good death”. No need to be in a hurry when picking your side; you have to properly consider the matter from various angles and perspectives. Try to conduct a thorough research in order to find out what the doctors, physicians and The Holy Bible have to say about it. Or make use of the following arguments for and against intentional ending of life – these points can be included into your own euthanasia argumentative essay:
- Euthanasia provides an opportunity to leave this world with dignity.
- Euthanasia saves people from pain and suffering while dying.
- An individual is provided with an opportunity to make a decision when the time to end his life comes.
- “To err is human…” The tricky part is, doctors are also human beings which means they can make a wrong diagnosis and ill people are deprived of any further chance to get the right treatment and achieve possible recovery.
- Euthanasia is a crime in accordance with the biblical Commandments.
- In some religions pain and suffering are considered an integral part of spiritual life.
The final section of an argumentative essay on euthanasia should be used as one more opportunity to demonstrate that your viewpoint has merit. Emotions should be professionally hidden when working on the project, for excessive expression of personal feelings may not be favourable at all.
About Steven Arndt
Steven Arndt is a passionate writer, educator and a former History teacher. He tends to reconsider the role of modern education in our society and watches with awe the freedom the youth now has.