po po
EUTHANASIA IS IRREVERSIBLE: The writer starts by clearly defining the differences between direct and passive euthanasia and natural death, terminology that is essential to understanding the issue at hand. However, once established by the writer, these concepts seem to have little relevance to the rest of the argument. He then continues his debate by clearly establishing that euthanasia is permanent and irreversible, a point that is difficult to dispute and does emphasize the importance of the issue to the reader. Yet, his persistent use of medical cases where patients were classified as irreversibly comatose and where all decisions regarding their continual treatment were made by others, neglects to recognize the numerous cases of terminally ill patients, who simply ask for the right to control their own destiny and to die with dignity. His use of extreme cases, all of which were found in 'National Right to Life News', gives the reader a distorted picture and neglects the many types of cases where the prolonging of life would be cruel, inhumane and immoral. (Johnstone, 1994:353) EUTHANASIA SETS A BAD EXAMPLE? I would ask what kind of example are we giving our young by prolonging life at whatever cost to the person? I
Those who dared to question existing standards bought about social change, both good and bad. Johnstone (1994:355) argues "the question society needs to answer is not: is euthanasia morally permissible (it has tacitly conceded that it is), but which type of euthanasia is permissible, and under what conditions?" The power to terminate life, at present, solely rests in the hands of the medical profession and is not exempt from misuse or abuse. CONCLUSION: The topic of euthanasia is complex; a Pandora's box of doubts and unanswered questions. To the terminally ill, death is the last hope of maintaining any remnants of dignity left to them in a life where there is no longer any control and is the only escape from a life where pain rules their existence. In my opinion, to choose to stop treatment, to withdraw lifesaving measures is a far more difficult decision than to continue treatment. He attempts to make a moral association between a physical and social phenomenon through the use of a physical law to back up his belief that "what ever is man influenced and grows by itself is 'bad'"(Clowes: p7). Whether the whole is greater than its parts or the parts greater than the whole has been a long-standing debate. The writer argues that by condoning euthanasia, we condone acts of suicide as a means to cope with life. EUTHANASIA IS MYOPIC AND LAZY? Here the author accuses pro-euthanasia lobbyists of being both shortsighted and lazy, lacking imagination to see beyond to the long term consequences of euthanasia that will plunge society into an inevitable downward spiral or slippery slope. EUTHANASIA IS ENTROPIC? It is difficult to refute an argument that is based on a complex theory where the average person, outside of those who study the physical sciences, would have little understanding. However, I believe it is an issue that society needs to address and confront. When there is no longer any quality of life, I am forced to wonder if death is so bad an option and whether prolonging life is the best care we can give. Let the author look these patients in the eye and tell them their suffering will somehow benefit society. In my understanding, both acts are seeking an end to suffering however in most cases of euthanasia, one only wants to end the physical pain for which there is no other treatment. However, I fail to see the benefit to society, of prolonging the lives of individuals at whatever cost to the person.
Common topics in this essay:
EUTHANASIA GOD,
EUTHANASIA ENTROPIC,
MYOPIC LAZY,
Daniels Jones,
EUTHANASIA IRREVERSIBLE,
BAD EXAMPLE,
Life News',
Mitford English,
prolonging life,
terminally ill,
whatever cost person,
believe issue,
life death,
profession johnstone,
benefit society,
health professionals,
physical law,
laws physics,
act euthanasia,
|
Acceptance Essays
