45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today
Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.
Verification Code
An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify
Thanks for your comment !
Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.
- School Education /
Essay on Euthanasia: 100, 200 and 300 Words Samples
- Updated on
- Feb 22, 2024
Essay on Euthanasia: Euthanasia refers to the act of killing a person without any emotions or mercy. Euthanasia is an ethnically complex and controversial topic, with different perspectives and legal regulations on different topics. School students and individuals preparing for competitive exams are given assigned topics like essays on euthanasia. The objective of such topics is to check the candidate’s perspectives and what punishment should be morally and legally right according to them.
If you are assigned an essay on euthanasia, it means your examiner or teacher wants to know your level of understanding of the topic. In this article, we will provide you with some samples of essays on euthanasia. Feel free to take ideas from the essays discussed below.
Master the art of essay writing with our blog on How to Write an Essay in English .
Table of Contents
- 1 Essay on Euthanasia in 150 Words
- 2.1 Euthanasia Vs Physician-Assisted Suicide
- 2.2 Euthanasia Classification
- 3 Is Euthanasia Bad?
Essay on Euthanasia in 150 Words
Euthanasia or mercy killing is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life. This term was coined by Sir Francis Bacon. Different countries have their perspectives and laws against such harmful acts. The Government of India, 2016, drafted a bill on passive euthanasia and called it ‘The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patient’s Bill (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners).
Euthanasia is divided into different classifications: Voluntary, Involuntary and Non-Voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, with the patient’s consent. On one side, some supporters argue for an individual’s right to autonomy and a dignified death. On the other hand, the opponents raise concerns about the sanctity of life, the potential for abuse, and the slippery slope towards devaluing human existence. The ethical debate extends to questions of consent, quality of life, and societal implications.
Also Read: Essay on National Science Day for Students in English
Essay on Euthanasia in 350 Words
The term ‘Euthanasia’ was first coined by Sir Francis Bacon, who referred to an easy and painless death, without necessarily implying intentional or assisted actions. In recent years, different countries have come up with different approaches, and legal regulations against euthanasia have been put forward.
In 2016, the government of India drafted a bill, where euthanasia was categorised as a punishable offence. According to Sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, any attempt to commit suicide and abetment of suicide is a punishable offence. However, if a person is brain dead, only then he or she can be taken off life support only with the help of family members.
Euthanasia Vs Physician-Assisted Suicide
Euthanasia is the act of intentionally causing the death of a person to relieve their suffering, typically due to a terminal illness or unbearable pain.
Physician-assisted suicide involves a medical professional providing the means or information necessary for a person to end their own life, typically by prescribing a lethal dose of medication.
In euthanasia, a third party, often a healthcare professional, administers a lethal substance or performs an action directly causing the person’s death.
It is the final decision of the patient that brings out the decision of their death.
Euthanasia Classification
Voluntary Euthanasia
It refers to the situation when the person who is suffering explicitly requests or consents to euthanasia. A patient with a terminal illness may express his or her clear and informed desire to end their life to a medical professional.
Involuntary
It refers to the situation when euthanasia is performed without the explicit consent of the person, often due to the individual being unable to communicate their wishes.
Non-Voluntary
In this situation, euthanasia is performed without the explicit consent of the person, and the person’s wishes are unknown.
Active euthanasia refers to the deliberate action of causing a person’s death, such as administering a lethal dose of medication.
It means allowing a person to die by withholding or withdrawing treatment or life-sustaining measures.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are a defeat for all. We are called never to abandon those who are suffering, never giving up but caring and loving to restore hope. — Pope Francis (@Pontifex) June 5, 2019
Also Read: Essay on Cleanliness
Is Euthanasia Bad?
Euthanasia is a subjective term and its perspectives vary from person to person. Different cultures, countries and religions have their own set of values and beliefs. Life is sacred and gifted to us by god or nature. Therefore, intentionally causing death goes against moral and religious beliefs.
However, some people have raised concerns about the potential for a slippery slope, where the acceptance of euthanasia could lead to the devaluation of human life, involuntary euthanasia, or abuse of the practice. Some even argue that euthanasia conflicts with their traditional medical ethics of preserving life and prioritizing the well-being of the patient.
Today, countries like the Netherlands and Belgium have legalised euthanasia. In India, the USA and the UK, it is a punishable offence with varying sentences and fines. Euthanasia is a complex and controversial topic and creating a law against or for it requires a comprehensive study by experts and the opinions of all sections of society.
Ans: Euthanasia refers to the act of killing a person without any emotions or mercy. Euthanasia is an ethnically complex and controversial topic, with different perspectives and legal regulations on different topics.
Ans: The term ‘Euthanasia’ was first coined by Sir Francis Bacon, who referred to an easy and painless death, without necessarily implying intentional or assisted actions. In recent years, different countries have come up with different approaches, and legal regulations against euthanasia have been put forward. In 2016, the government of India drafted a bill, where euthanasia was categorised as a punishable offence. According to Sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, any attempt to commit suicide and abetment of suicide is a punishable offence. However, if a person is brain dead, only then he or she can be taken off life support only with the help of family members.
Ans: Belgium and the Netherlands have legalised euthanasia. However, it is banned in India.
Related Articles
For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.
Shiva Tyagi
With an experience of over a year, I've developed a passion for writing blogs on wide range of topics. I am mostly inspired from topics related to social and environmental fields, where you come up with a positive outcome.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Contact no. *
Connect With Us
45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..
Resend OTP in
Need help with?
Study abroad.
UK, Canada, US & More
IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More
Scholarship, Loans & Forex
Country Preference
New Zealand
Which English test are you planning to take?
Which academic test are you planning to take.
Not Sure yet
When are you planning to take the exam?
Already booked my exam slot
Within 2 Months
Want to learn about the test
Which Degree do you wish to pursue?
When do you want to start studying abroad.
January 2024
September 2024
What is your budget to study abroad?
How would you describe this article ?
Please rate this article
We would like to hear more.
Have something on your mind?
Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with
India's Biggest Virtual University Fair
Essex Direct Admission Day
Why attend .
Don't Miss Out
- Skip to main content
- Skip to secondary menu
- Skip to primary sidebar
- Skip to footer
A Plus Topper
Improve your Grades
Euthanasia Essay | Essay on Euthanasia for Students and Children in English
February 12, 2024 by Prasanna
Euthanasia Essay: The word Euthanasia, originated from Greece means “good death”. Euthanasia also is known as “mercy killing”, in the modern sense of the word, is the practice of ending a life to relieve suffering.
Legally request to end a person’s life prematurely voluntarily has been under a lot of debate. This debate focuses across complex and dynamic aspects like legal, health, human rights, ethical, spiritual, religious, psychological social and cultural aspects of the society. When talking about Euthanasia, we will discuss it in a neutral aspect, covering both the supporters and opponents’ perspectives on this complex activity.
You can also find more Essay Writing articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.
Long and Short Essays on Euthanasian for Students and Kids in English
We provide children and students with essay samples on a long essay of 500 words and a short essay of 150 words on the topic “Euthanasia” for reference.
Long Essay on Euthanasia 500 Words in English
Long Essay on Euthanasia is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.
Unfortunately, there are people out there who are suffering from a long term illness or injury and find death to be their ultimate solution. They are in so much pain and suffering that they no longer find their quality of life to be at an acceptable level.
There are many forms of Euthanasia which include, people suffering from incurable disorders, newborns with severe congenital disabilities, and adults in their final stage of a terminal illness under medical life support.
Euthanasia is classified into passive and active Euthanasia; passive Euthanasia is when a patient stops taking essential medications which would eventually cause them to die. Active Euthanasia is when you are terminating a person’s life.
When it comes to passive Euthanasia the acceptance level among the masses is way more than active Euthanasia as it directly withholds the physician with the responsibility to insert a lethal substance into the patient’s body to help them die.
A strong ethical argument against the use of Euthanasia is that it could soon become a slippery slope, with the legalization of involuntary Euthanasia following it.
You can now access Essay Writing on Euthanasia and many more topics.
In the perspective of a person in support of mercy killing — one should have the right to self-determination, and thus be allowed to choose their fate. Pro-euthanasia activists often point at countries who have legalized Euthanasia like Belgium and Netherlands to argue that it’s mostly unproblematic.
But under the Indian constitution ‘Right to life’ is embodied in Article 21 euthanasia/suicide is an abnormal termination of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’. Supreme Court in Gian Kaur Case in 1996 has held that the ‘Right to life’ under Article 21 does not include the ‘Right to die’.
The right to refuse medical help is approved by law, including medical treatment that sustains or prolongs life. India legalized passive Euthanasia in 2011. Recognition of the ‘Right to refuse treatment’ gives way for passive Euthanasia.
Euthanasia in terminally ill patients provides scope for organ donation. This, in turn, helps many in need of an organ transplant. Thereby giving someone the ‘Right to die’ in return helps another with their ‘Right to live’.
However, several criticisms can be seen going against Euthanasia. For example, in some cases of Euthanasia, when the patient is verbally incapable, their guardian is responsible for making the decision, and that might not be in a person’s best interests—for example, getting old aged parents killed for property will.
The strongest argument against Euthanasia is that there is no way to regulate mercy killing properly. Allowing this undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives. Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill, and this will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for them.
We now know that there are strong arguments from both sides. There does not seem to be any cut and dry reasoning behind whether the practice of Euthanasia is good or bad. In one end, it can be used to release someone from suffering, but on the other end, it can be used to hide punishable criminal acts. This topic stands at a moral and ethical shaky ground, thus making it harder to be accepted and legalized.
Short Essay on Euthanasia 150 Words in English
Short Essay on Euthanasia is usually given to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Euthanasia or mercy killing is terminating a patient’s life who was previously suffering from a terminal illness. In recent years, there have been debates around the globe over the issue, whether Euthanasia should be legalized. Mercy killing can be active or passive.
Active Euthanasia includes doctors to administer lethal doses to their patients who voluntarily as for Euthanasia. This factor is a major cause of debate in most countries, including India, where this act is illegal. However, passive Euthanasia, under some circumstances, is acceptable where a terminally ill patient refuses life-sustaining medical treatment.
It is not out of context to mention here that one should not be confused Euthanasia with assisted suicide. Euthanasia comes with a lot of factors to follow through as this is an ethically and morally a complex issue.
Even though it can relieve someone’s suffering, but legalizing it can also lead to some serious crimes like murder and places too much power in the doctor’s hands. Thus, Euthanasia is a matter that requires a high moral compass and needs thorough analysis in each case under specific circumstances if legalized.
10 Lines on Euthanasia Essay in English
1. Euthanasia is the voluntary act of a patient suffering a terminal disease, of terminating their life. 2. Euthanasia is essentially divided into two types — Active and Passive Euthanasia. 3. In active Euthanasia, a person directly and deliberately causes the patient’s death with lethal drug dosage. 4. In passive Euthanasia, the patient refuses life-saving medical help. 5. Euthanasia is illegal in most countries except few countries such as Netherlands, Belgium etc. 6. Active Euthanasia is illegal in India as it goes against article 21, which advocates for “Right to live'”. 7. Many patients opting Euthanasia have been involved in organ donation. 8. Unfortunately, Euthanasia has also been misused to lead some serious organized crimes. 9. Euthanasia is an activity which involves several ethical, human rights, social, economic, moral, religious, spiritual and legal factors. 10. Euthanasia has been a topic of intense debate globally as it includes a fair share of both pros and cons.
FAQ’s on Euthanasia Essay
Question 1. Where is Euthanasia permitted?
Answer: In 1995, Australia’s Northern Territory was the first jurisdiction to pass a euthanasia bill. As of early 2015, Euthanasia was permitted in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Colombia.
Question 2. Is there an ethical difference between switching off life support, withdrawing treatment and voluntary Euthanasia?
Answer: Yes. When life support is switched off, the person dies from their illness naturally. When Euthanasia is performed, a person dies from a lethal drug, deliberately given to cause death.
Question 3. What is the difference between ‘mercy killing’ and Euthanasia?
Answer: ‘Mercy killing’ is a euphemism for Euthanasia.
Question 4. Are doctors obliged to comply with requests for Euthanasia?
Answer: No. Doctors are not obliged to comply with requests for Euthanasia as it’s not a routine medical procedure. The option of refusing a request for Euthanasia guarantees doctors’ freedom of conscience.
- Picture Dictionary
- English Speech
- English Slogans
- English Letter Writing
- English Essay Writing
- English Textbook Answers
- Types of Certificates
- ICSE Solutions
- Selina ICSE Solutions
- ML Aggarwal Solutions
- HSSLive Plus One
- HSSLive Plus Two
- Kerala SSLC
- Distance Education
1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time
Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing
Author: Nathan Nobis Category: Ethics Word count: 1000
Listen here
Sadly, there are people in very bad medical conditions who want to die. They are in pain, they are suffering, and they no longer find their quality of life to be at an acceptable level anymore.
When people like this are kept alive by machines or other medical treatments, can it be morally permissible to let them die ?
Advocates of “passive euthanasia” argue that it can be. Their reasons, however, suggest that it can sometimes be not wrong to actively kill some patients, i.e., that “active euthanasia” can be permissible also. [1] This essay reviews these arguments.
1. Passive Euthanasia
Denying that passive euthanasia is ever morally permissible suggests that we must always do everything we can to try to keep someone alive, even if they are miserable, want to die, and say so. To many, that’s just cruel. [2]
Passive euthanasia can be directly supported by both consequentialist (or utilitarian) and Kantian ethics. [3]
For the consequentialist, the patient being out of their misery is a better consequence for them , and overall, than their staying alive: this decreases the total amount of pain and unhappiness in the world, and no other choice would produce more good, for them or overall.
For a Kantian, letting them die respects their autonomy or decisions about matters that profoundly affect their own lives: this respects them as “ends in themselves,” whereas forcing them to live treats them as a “mere means” toward our ends, not their own.
Passive euthanasia can also be supported by stating conditions when it can be OK to let someone die. We begin with an ‘if’ and develop a principle:
(a) someone is dying, and (b) is in horrible pain and suffering, and (c) that pain and suffering cannot be relieved, and (d) that person wants to die and says so, and (e) informed, thoughtful and caring people agree that the person would be better off no longer living . . ,
then it can be permissible to let that person die. [4]
Passive euthanasia, then, can be justified in a variety of ways.
2. Active Euthanasia
To see why active euthanasia might be permissible, we begin by reflecting on why passive euthanasia might be OK: it gets people out of their misery and respects what they want for their own lives.
We then observe that these goals can often be pursued more directly and immediately by, say, giving them an overdose of pain-killing medications. Letting people die can take a long time, and that time might be full of unwanted suffering. Killing people, when they want to be killed, achieves their goals, more quickly.
So, it seems that if passive euthanasia can be permissible, so can active.
3. Objections
There are many objections to this reasoning. Some concern euthanasia in general.
3.1. Some claim that pain can always be controlled and so there is never a need to euthanize anyone. However, this insistence that pain can always be made bearable is, sadly, not true.
3.2. Some argue that “miracles” are possible – there’s always a chance that someone recovers – and so euthanasia is wrong. But making important decisions on very unlikely chances is often unwise. Most interestingly though, euthanasia would never prevent a miracle, especially one of divine origins.
Further objections claim there are important differences between active and passive euthanasia, making passive permissible but active wrong.
3.3. Some argue that it’s always wrong to intentionally kill someone, so active euthanasia is wrong. In reply, while it’s, at least, nearly always wrong to kill people, this is arguably because people usually want to live and do not have lives full of pain. Perhaps killing can be justified when this is not the case. [5]
3.4. Some argue that allowing active euthanasia might put us on a “slippery slope” to murdering people who want to live. But this hasn’t happened where active euthanasia is allowed, since we do and would have safeguards to lessen this possibility, as we do with other things that might lead to bad results if misused.
3.5. Some argue that there are important moral differences between allowing something to happen and doing something or because killing someone and letting them die are profoundly different, and so passive and active euthanasia should be judged differently. But consider this case:
An aunt will inherit lots of money if her five-year-old nephew dies. She plans to drown him in the bathtub and make it look like an accident. He just started his bath; she’s on her way to the bathroom to drown him. She opens the bathroom door and is delighted to see that he has slipped in the bathtub and is drowning. She watches, ready to push him under if he steadies himself and saves his own life. But, as her luck would have it, he drowns; she never touches him throughout the ordeal. She inherits the money. [6]
If she claimed that she didn’t “do anything,” she did : she stood there, and doing nothing is doing something . And letting someone die can be as bad , or nearly as bad , and perhaps sometimes even worse than killing someone [7] : indeed, a way to kill someone is to let them die. So these distinctions are, at least, not clear.
3.6. A final concern is that especially if active euthanasia were allowed, some people could be wrongfully killed. This is possible: some people might wrongfully break (potentially good) rules. But we cannot ignore that if euthanasia is not allowed, it might be that some people could be wrongly kept alive. Which wrong is more likely? Which wrong is worse?
4. Conclusion
While death is, arguably, usually bad for the person who dies, the goal of euthanasia is to make this less bad: the word euthanasia means a “good death.” These issues are important, and not just for people currently facing hard choices about death. None of us knows what will happen to us: at any time, an accident or illness might force these issues upon us, and so we should engage them more deeply, now. [8]
[1] The discussion and arguments here are largely based on James Rachels ’ (1941-2003) famous and widely-reprinted article “ Active and Passive Euthanasia,” New England Journal of Medicine 1975; 292: 78-80 .
[2] The discussion here concerns what’s called voluntary euthanasia, where a person wants to die and says so. There are other types of euthanasia though. Non-voluntary euthanasia involves an individual who neither wants to die nor wants to live, e.g., someone who has been unconscious for a long time, say in a coma, and we have good reason to believe that consciousness will never return: they currently don’t literally want anything and we usually don’t know what they would have wanted , since people usually don’t discuss this. What is sometimes called involuntary “euthanasia” involves someone who wants to live and says so . If such a person is let die or killed, this is not euthanasia: in all or nearly all cases, this is murder or wrongful killing , and so won’t be discussed further here.
These definitions cover most actual cases of euthanasia, but they aren’t perfect. First, it could happen that someone said that, if they were to fall into a permanent coma, they would very much want their body to be kept alive for as long as possible, but nobody knows this is what they wanted: if they are euthanized, is that in voluntary or non -voluntary? It could also happen that someone wants to die, but has no way of communicating that (suppose they have an extreme form of “ locked-in syndrome ,” with eye paralysis too, so they cannot even blink out messages): if they are euthanized, is that voluntary or non-voluntary? These cases are unclear, given the characterizations above, as are further possibilities of someone who wants to die but nobody knows that and someone who wants to live but nobody can tell .
Non-human animals who are judged to have a poor quality of life due to serious health problems are often (actively) euthanized: is this best considered a form of non-voluntary euthanasia, or potentially a different type of voluntary euthanasia? These animals have some current wants or desires, unlike a coma patient, but probably don’t have a specific want or desire to die, unlike in typical voluntary euthanasia cases.
[3] Consequentialism and Kantianism can be used to support euthanasia (although Kant himself might have opposed it: Kant’s own judgments on many moral issues and the positions on moral issues that his theories arguably support sometimes diverge). But these theories do urge us to be very cautious about bringing about someone’s death, including our own.
Consequentialists would, and should, urge especially anyone who doesn’t have a challenging medical condition but wishes to die to seek counseling and assistance to help find happiness and fulfillment: in most cases, this would be better than death for that person and for promoting overall happiness. “ It gets better ,” the saying goes: it’s possible for someone to be euthanized (passively or actively), or commit suicide (if someone euthanizes themselves, this is a type of suicide; if they need assistance to do this, this is assisted suicide ), whose death is not in their own best interest or contributes to the greatest overall good. Indeed, some people have wished to die, have been prevented from ending their own life, come to appreciate their own life later, and then have been glad that they had not ended their life when they wanted to do so earlier. (However, it’s also sometimes true that people want to die, they live, and are eventually able to live what they report to be fulfilling lives, yet they still they wish they had died: Dax Cowart is a well-known case perhaps like this).
And Kantians don’t think that autonomy is unrestricted or limitless: just because we want something for ourselves doesn’t mean we should get it. Kantians firmly reject an attitude of “It’s your life, so do whatever you want with it,” since we have obligations to respect ourselves (and our future selves), given our value as persons, and this respect for ourselves could rule out some cases of euthanasia and suicide.
[4] The details of a principle like this, however, take us to harder questions about euthanasia, harder than those that arise in most circumstances: for examples, what if someone wants to die now but isn’t currently in horrible pain and suffering, or is expecting to die, but many years later after a very slow decline? Should anyone else have “say” over your own life or judge whether some pain and suffering is “horrible enough” for you to reasonably wish to die? If so, who? What if someone isn’t dying and doesn’t even have a bad medical condition but just finds their life not worth living and so wants to die (and so, say, plans to starve themselves to death or do other things that will result in their death)? These harder questions, and others, would need to be addressed for a complete defense of this or similar principles and any arguments based on them.
[5] Some might claim that their intention in any euthanasia is not to kill anyone: killing is an unintended consequence of their real intention, which might be to make the patient comfortable. If this makes sense, they might claim that they are not engaged in any intentional killing, so they aren’t violating any moral principle against intentional killing. This type of reasoning is related to what’s called the “Doctrine of Double Effect.”
[6] This case is from James Rachels. Here is another example that addresses the distinction between doing something versus allowing something to happen :
In a deep forest, hiking alone, Adam finds someone who has fallen into a deep pit. They ask him to throw them a rope so they can climb out. Adam doesn’t and they eventually starve to death. Adam learns of this on the news but feels fine since, he tells himself, “I didn’t do anything there. I did nothing wrong.”
To most, Adam clearly did something – he didn’t just allow something to happen – and he did something wrong: what he did , standing there not throwing the rope, was wrong.
[7] For tragic reflections that letting someone die can be worse than killing them, see Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die,” The New York Times , July 12, 2017 .
[8] Thanks to Zach Blaesi, Taylor Cyr, Chelsea Haramia, Dan Lowe, Travis Rodgers and Dan Peterson for comments on and discussion of this essay.
Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die,” The New York Times , July 12, 2017 .
James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” New England Journal of Medicine 1975; 292: 78-80.
For Further Reading
Young, Robert, “Voluntary Euthanasia”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta .
Cholbi, Michael, “Suicide”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .
Woollard, Fiona and Howard-Snyder, Frances, “Doing vs. Allowing Harm”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .
McIntyre, Alison, “Doctrine of Double Effect”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .
Related Essays
Applied Ethics by Chelsea Haramia
The Badness of Death by Duncan Purves
Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death by Frederik Kaufman
The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? by Gabriel Andrade
Deontology: Kantian Ethics by Andrew Chapman
Consequentialism by Shane Gronholz
Principlism in Biomedical Ethics: Respect for Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice by G. M. Trujillo, Jr.
Can We Believe in Miracles? by Tomas Bogardus
Possibility and Necessity: An Introduction to Modality by Andre Leo Rusavuk
Are We Animals? Animalism and Personal Identity by Kristin Seemuth Whaley
PDF Download
Download this essay in PDF .
Acknowledgments
This essay is an abbreviated version of a longer chapter of the same title published in Noah Levin, ed., Introduction to Ethics: An Open Educational Resource (NGE Press, 2019) . Nathan is grateful to Noah Levin for the occasion and inspiration to write these essays.
About the Author
Nathan Nobis is a Professor of Philosophy at Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA. He is the author of Animals & Ethics 101 , co-author of Thinking Critically About Abortion , a co-author of Chimpanzee Rights , and author or co-author of many other articles, chapters, and reviews in philosophy and ethics. www.NathanNobis.com
Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on Facebook and Twitter and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at 1000WordPhilosophy.com .
Share this:, 11 thoughts on “ euthanasia, or mercy killing ”.
- Pingback: The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
- Pingback: Psychological Approaches to Personal Identity: Do Memories and Consciousness Make Us Who We Are? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
- Pingback: Are We Animals? Animalism and Personal Identity – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
- Pingback: Principlism in Biomedical Ethics: Respect for Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
- Pingback: Personal Identity – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
- Pingback: Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
- Pingback: Ethics: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes - The Daily Idea
- Pingback: Ethics: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes – The Daily Idea
- Pingback: Speciesism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
- Pingback: Applied Ethics – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
- Pingback: Online Philosophy Resources Weekly Update - Daily Nous
Comments are closed.
Mercy Killing: An Ethical Argument with Regards to the Future Term Paper
- To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
- As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
- As a template for you assignment
Mercy killing has been defined as the act of terminating life in a way that alleviates pain and suffering (Brill, 166). Over the years, the ethical nature of mercy killing has been largely debated.
Currently, only a few countries have legalized voluntary euthanasia. Although some people argue that mercy killing alleviates pain and is mainly a matter of choice for those requesting it, the act should be done away with since it demeans life. The future is built upon hope for better thing and mercy killing is in a form, the abandonment of hope. Mercy killing goes against all the principles of sustainability and as such should be done away with.
In order to form a valid argument it is important to understand the types of mercy killing. There are two types of mercy killing (euthanasia): Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is referred to as mercy killing by consent while involuntary occurs without the consent of the patient (Griffith and Tengnah. 356).
Under law, voluntary euthanasia is usually acceptable under certain conditions however this does not speak to the ethical nature of the act. Under close investigation, it can be proven that the act is highly unethical regardless of the type.
First, mercy killing highly depends on the mental competency of the patient. The mental competency of patients who have undergone years of pain and suffering is usually under question (Lesser, 331). Some of these patients may be under pressure from their caretakers to end their lives.
The pressure may be in the form of guilt whereby the patient feels that by committing suicide he or she may alleviate the suffering they are imposing on their love ones (Gill and Voss, 8). The act therefore may be not exclusively the wishes of the patient. Mercy killing opens pathways with which unscrupulous relatives and caregivers may put undue pressure on the patient to engage in the act.
While the patient may be able to provide the consent, the reasons behind it are questionable as they not only relate on their level of suffering or pain. Patients who are in comas may also be subject to mercy killing with the validation that they are in pain. However, it is impossible to say for certain that these patients actually feel pain and the degree of pain these patients feel. Mercy killing under this situation cannot be justified in any way.
Secondly, mercy killing might act as an obstacle to medical development due to reduced motivation. When the AIDS virus first appeared, many people thought that it was incurable. Those suffering from the virus were so scared of their impending doom that they opted for suicide. However, over the years, many medications have been developed that have made the disease manageable with patients living meaningful, long lives.
According to Brill (166), many physicians do agree that it is impossible to point out which diseases are incurable. By allowing mercy killing, people not only act impatiently but also impede the motivation behind the development of new cures and developments that may prolong life (Savage, 330). Technological development in the modern world takes place in a very fast pace.
It is impossible to say what will be developed tomorrow or the day after that may serve as a reprieve for patients from pain and suffering. Mercy killing does not focus on the future but rather on the present and mainly the past. How can something be termed as right if it negates the possibility for others to receive better treatment in the future? Regardless of personal feelings, society has a responsibility of preserving and maintaining life for as long as possible.
The invention of life support machines seeks to prolong life as long as possible while alternate cures or medical procedures are being investigated. By randomly killing those deem incurable or terminally ill, we also kill the motivation for the development of better medicines or procedures that may save people in the future or eliminate the sickness completely.
Mercy killing also promotes discrimination against those who are terminally ill and those with incurable illnesses. The government usually spends a lot of money caring for the terminally ill and those with incurable diseases. It is therefore advantageous for those who have been declared physically and mentally incurable to be allowed to die.
According to Savage (330), Mike Ervin a journalist with muscle dystrophy argued that although he requires 24 hour care every day, he is still a functioning member of society. He adds that mercy killing is demoralizing as it acts as a reminder of how the sick and those with disabilities are unwelcomed by the society.
Lesser points out that mercy killing may lead humanity to situation he terms as “the slippery slope” (332). He argues that mercy killing may be used as it was used in Nazi Germany to purify the race. If mercy killings for those who are terminally ill or with incurable diseases are allowed, who will stop the elimination of the old, mentally ill or criminally insane? Society has a lot of individuals who can be termed as socially unfit hence a liability to the society.
When mercy killing is accepted by the society, it is a matter of time before these social misfits are subjected to death under the guise of mercy killing. Those suffering from hunger and famine, unable to support themselves might soon find themselves being “put down” for their own good. The search for a pure race has always existed amongst society with people seeking for a disease free, intelligent and superior race (Lesser, 332). Mercy killing can thus serve as a starting point for the achievement of this dream in the future.
Finally, mercy killing also destroys the fabric of human civilization: the rule of law. Civilization was built upon sympathy and the respect of life. In the past, the sick and those afflicted with incurable diseases were left out to die. The rule of law was founded upon moral and ethical principles. By allowing mercy killing, however justified, the line between plain murder and “assisted” suicide can become blurred (Griffith and Tengnah, 356).
Many cases have been witnessed whereby the care takers take upon their own hands to terminate the lives of their patients. Savage (330) highlights a case where a mother shot her sons in the head as she believed that they were in too much suffering. By allowing mercy killings, cases like this can become very common. It is important to note that prolonged sickness makes it hard to distinguish who is suffering more, the caretakers or the patients themselves.
Under too much stress, the caregivers might misinterpret their own pain with that of their patients. Human beings are just evolved animals with the same urges of killing. Mercy killing may thus become a common defense against murder (Savage, 329). If voluntary mercy killing is allowed or justified by society, it can be used to take the lives of those who did not request it. Finally, people claim that everyone has a right to choose whether to live or die.
However, when the rights of one person infringe upon the rights of many, that right is negated under law. When mercy killing is allowed for one person, it may act as a precedence whereby others suffering from the same condition are persuaded to follow the same action (Brill, 166).
This is the same situation that takes place in mass suicide where people follow the teachings of one person believing it to be true and the only way. Society cannot take chance with mercy killing as the future of others depends on what is carried out by a few individuals.
Mercy killing has elicited a lot of debate on its ethical nature and legality. Some governments have allowed mercy killing on the condition that is voluntary.
However, it can be seen that mercy killing has to be stamped out completely in the world. If mercy killings are not eradicated, we might soon be living in a world whereby discrimination of the terminally ill or the disabled is rampart and the rule of law is twisted with murders being committed under the guise of mercy killings.
Developments in medicine can also be hampered living countless people suffering from conditions that could have been cured given more patience and dedication.
The main benefit of abolishing mercy killings is that life will always be valued by society. Nothing important happens when people are dead and it is only by preserving life that humanity develops and prospers. Pain and suffering is part of life, and while it is unfair for some to undergo extreme amount of these two, death can never be justified not when there are chances for a better tomorrow.
Works Cited
Brill, A. A. “Is ‘Mercy Killing’ Justified? With a Reply to Dr. Alexis Carrel,” Vital Speeches of the Day . Ed. Orgel, Samuel. New York: EBSCO publishing, 2003: 165-167
Gill, Carol and Larry Voss. “Views of Disabled People Regarding Legalized Assisted Suicide Before and After a Balanced Informational Presentation”. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 16.1 (2005): 6-15
Griffith, Richard and Cassam Tengnah. “Assisted Suicide: Increased Support for a Change in the Law.” British Journal of Community Nursing 14.8 (2010): 356-362
Lesser, Harry. “Should it be Legal to Assist Suicide?” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (2010): 330-334
Savage, Teresa. “An Argument Against Mercy Killing: A response to Caitlin’s ‘Normalization, Chronic Sorrow and Murder’.” Pediatric Ethics, Issues, and Commentary 29.4 (2003): 329-330
- Euthanasia: Every For and Against
- Euthanasia: Moral Rationalist View
- A New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia
- Ethics in the Healthcare Delivery
- Medical Ethics: Arguments for Medical Dishonesty
- The Major Components of Bioethics in Healthcare
- Ethical and Legal Issues in Nursing Setting
- No More Abortion: Anti-Abortion Debate
- Chicago (A-D)
- Chicago (N-B)
IvyPanda. (2018, September 13). Mercy Killing: An Ethical Argument with Regards to the Future. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-an-ethical-argument-with-regards-to-the-future/
"Mercy Killing: An Ethical Argument with Regards to the Future." IvyPanda , 13 Sept. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-an-ethical-argument-with-regards-to-the-future/.
IvyPanda . (2018) 'Mercy Killing: An Ethical Argument with Regards to the Future'. 13 September.
IvyPanda . 2018. "Mercy Killing: An Ethical Argument with Regards to the Future." September 13, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-an-ethical-argument-with-regards-to-the-future/.
1. IvyPanda . "Mercy Killing: An Ethical Argument with Regards to the Future." September 13, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-an-ethical-argument-with-regards-to-the-future/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "Mercy Killing: An Ethical Argument with Regards to the Future." September 13, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-an-ethical-argument-with-regards-to-the-future/.
Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Assisted Suicide — Euthanasia and Mercy Killing
Euthanasia and Mercy Killing
- Categories: Assisted Suicide
About this sample
Words: 411 |
Published: Dec 12, 2018
Words: 411 | Page: 1 | 3 min read
Cite this Essay
Let us write you an essay from scratch
- 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
- Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours
Get high-quality help
Prof. Kifaru
Verified writer
- Expert in: Social Issues
+ 120 experts online
By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email
No need to pay just yet!
Related Essays
1 pages / 670 words
5 pages / 2356 words
1 pages / 642 words
3 pages / 1531 words
Remember! This is just a sample.
You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.
121 writers online
Still can’t find what you need?
Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled
Related Essays on Assisted Suicide
Euthanasia, a topic fraught with moral and ethical complexity, stands at the intersection of personal autonomy, suffering, compassion, and empathy. In this in-depth exploration, we will delve into the profound moral and ethical [...]
Death with Dignity National Center. (2019). 2019 Death with Dignity Act report. Death with Dignity National Center.
Assisted suicide, also known as physician-assisted death, is a controversial and sensitive topic that has sparked heated debates in the medical, ethical, and legal realms. The practice involves a physician providing a terminally [...]
Euthanasia, the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve suffering, has been a topic of intense ethical and practical debate. While proponents argue for its legalization as a compassionate end-of-life option, this [...]
Relief from pain, and preservation of health and or life is the basic role of medicine and all the technologies associated with it. However, in some instances where the disease is a terminal one with no known cure, pain is the [...]
The bodies of two elderly siblings has been uncovered in the area of Gowinna, Bulathsinhala, where the youngest of the two (aged 75) had supposedly ended the life of his bed ridden sister (aged 80) prior to ending his own. The [...]
Related Topics
By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.
Where do you want us to send this sample?
By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.
Be careful. This essay is not unique
This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before
Download this Sample
Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts
Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.
Please check your inbox.
We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!
Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!
We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .
- Instructions Followed To The Letter
- Deadlines Met At Every Stage
- Unique And Plagiarism Free
Essay: The Quality of Mercy Killing
I f it were only a matter of law, the public would not feel stranded. He killed her, after all. Roswell Gilbert, a 76-year-old retired electronics engineer living in a seaside condominium in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., considered murdering his wife Emily for at least a month before shooting her through the head with Luger as she sat on their couch. The Gilberts had been husband and wife for 51 years. They were married in 1934, the year after Calvin Coolidge died, the year after Prohibition was lifted, the year that Hank Aaron was born. At 73, Emily had Alzheimer’s disease and osteoporosis; her spinal column was gradually collapsing. Roswell would not allow her to continue life as “a suffering animal,” so he committed what is called a mercy killing The jury saw only the killing; they felt Gilbert had mercy on himself. He was sentenced to 25 years with no chance of parole, which would make him 101 by the time he got out. The Governor has been asked to grant clemency. Most Floridians polled hope that Gilbert will go free.
Not that there ever was much of a legal or practical question involved. Imagine the precedent set by freeing a killer simply because he killed for love. Othello killed for love, though his passion was loaded with a different motive. Does any feeling count, or is kindness alone an excuse for murder? Or age: maybe someone has to be 76 and married 51 years to establish his sincerity. There are an awful lot of old people and long marriages in Florida. A lot of Alzheimer’s disease and osteoporosis as well. Let Gilbert loose, the fear is, and watch the run on Lugers.
Besides, the matter of mercy killing is getting rough and out of hand. Nobody seems to use poison anymore. In Fort Lauderdale two years ago, a 79-year-old man shot his 62-year-old wife in the stairwell of a hospital; like Emily Gilbert, she was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. In San Antonio four years ago, a 69-year-old man shot his 72-year-old brother to death in a nursing home. Last June a man in Miami put two bullets in the heart of his three-year-old daughter who lay comatose after a freak accident. An organization that studies mercy killings says that nine have occurred this year alone. You cannot have a murder every time someone feels sorry for a loved one in pain. Any fool knows that.
Yet you also feel foolish watching a case like Gilbert’s (if any case can be said to be like another) because, while both feet are planted firmly on the side of law and common sense, both are firmly planted on Gilbert’s side as well. The place the public really stands is nowhere: How can an act be equally destructive of society and wholly human? The reason anyone would consider going easy on Gilbert is that we can put ourselves in his shoes, can sit at his wife’s bedside day after day, watching the Florida sun gild the furniture and listening to the Atlantic lick the beach like a cat. Emily dozes. He looks at her in a rare peaceful pose and is grateful for the quiet.
Or he dreams back to when such a scene would have been unimaginable: she, sharp as a tack, getting the better of him in an argument; he, strong as a bull, showing off by swinging her into the air–on a beach, perhaps, like the one in front of the condominium where old couples like themselves walk in careful slow motion at the water’s edge. Since the case became a cause, photographs of the Gilberts have appeared on television, she in formal gown, he in tails; they, older, in a restaurant posing deadpan for a picture for no reason, the way people do in restaurants. In a way the issue here is age: mind and body falling away like slabs of sand off a beach cliff. If biology declares war, have people no right to a pre-emptive strike? In the apartment he continues to stare at her who, from time to time, still believes they are traveling together in Spain.
Now he wonders about love. He loves his wife; he tells her so; he has told her so for 51 years. And he thinks of what he meant by that: her understanding of him, her understanding of others, her sense of fun. Illness has replaced those qualities in her with screams and a face of panic. Does he love her still? Of course, he says; he hates the disease, but he loves his wife. Or–and this seems hard–does he only love what he remembers of Emily? Is the frail doll in the bed an impostor? But no; this is Emily too, the same old Emily hidden somewhere under the decaying cells and in the folds of the painkillers. It is Emily and she is suffering and he swore he would always look after her.
He considers an irony: you always hurt the one you love. By what act or nonact would he be hurting his wife more? He remembers news stories he has read of distraught people in similar positions, pulling the plugs on sons and husbands or assisting in the suicides of desperate friends. He sympathizes, but with a purpose; he too is interested in precedents. Surely, he concludes, morality swings both ways here. What is moral for the group cannot always be moral for the individual, or there would be no individuality, no exceptions, even if the exceptions only prove the rule. Let the people have their rules. What harm would it do history to relieve Emily’s pain? A little harm, perhaps, no more than that.
This is what we see in the Gilbert case, the fusion of our lives with theirs in one grand and pathetic cliché in which all lives look pretty much alike. We go round and round with Gilbert: Gilbert suddenly wondering if Emily might get better, if one of those white-coated geniuses will come up with a cure. Gilbert realizing that once Emily is gone, he will go too, since her way of life, however wretched, was their way of life. He is afraid for them both. In The Merchant of Venice Portia says that mercy is “twice blessed;/ It blesses him that gives and him that takes.” The murder committed, Gilbert does not feel blessed. At best, he feels he did right, which the outer world agrees with and denies.
Laws are unlikely to be changed by such cases: for every modification one can think of, there are too many loopholes and snares. What Gilbert did in fact erodes the whole basis of law, which is to keep people humane and civilized. Yet Gilbert was humane, civilized and wrong: a riddle. In the end we want the law intact and Gilbert free, so that society wins on both counts. What the case proves, however, is that society is helpless to do anything for Gilbert, for Emily or for itself. All we can do is recognize a real tragedy when we see one, and wonder, perhaps, if one bright morning 1934 Gilbert read of a mercy killing in the papers, leaned earnestly across the breakfast table and told his new bride: “I couldn’t do that. I could never do that.” –By Roger Rosenblatt
More Must-Reads from TIME
- Welcome to the Noah Lyles Olympics
- Melinda French Gates Is Going It Alone
- What to Do if You Can’t Afford Your Medications
- How to Buy Groceries Without Breaking the Bank
- Sienna Miller Is the Reason to Watch Horizon
- Why So Many Bitcoin Mining Companies Are Pivoting to AI
- The 15 Best Movies to Watch on a Plane
- Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time
Contact us at [email protected]
Home / Essay Samples / Health / Euthanasia / The Ethics of Mercy Killing: A Complex Dilemma
The Ethics of Mercy Killing: A Complex Dilemma
- Category: Health , Life
- Topic: Death , Ethical Dilemma , Euthanasia
Pages: 3 (1495 words)
- Downloads: -->
--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.
Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?
are ready to help you with your essay
You won’t be charged yet!
Sleep Essays
Underage Drinking Essays
Universal Health Care Essays
Assisted Suicide Essays
Digestive System Essays
Related Essays
We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.
By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.
Your essay sample has been sent.
In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.
samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->