Counter Argument (It can be placed here or before the

conclusion.)

A. Summarizing the counterclaims

People refers to deliberately ending someone’s life, as a rule to diminish enduring

-Most people who undergoes euthanasia usually does not want it, but rather, need it. People
suffers with different excruciating pain and suffering, and to end their suffering, they choose to
end their life. They refer to it as a rule to diminish enduring.

People have an explicit right to die

-As some has a right to live, people also have a right to die. It is not a crime to end your life. You
will not be imprisoned for it. People have no right to judge you with your decision.

Death is a private matter and if there are no harm to others, the state and other people have no
right to interfere

- Death is a personal matter and it need no opinions from others. Euthanasia brings no harm to
others and even to thyself, and with this, others don't have the right to interfere with this
decision. The state also can not interfere with this as it does not bring any economical loses
within it.

Allowing people to die may free up scarce health resources.

-Most people who undergoes Euthanasia are lying in hospital beds, with its family members
bombarded with hospital bills and loans. With Euthanasia, this will resolve the problem, not only
the freeing up an individual's resources, but the state's health resources.

It is morally acceptable because it promotes the best interests of everyone involved and
violating no one's right.

- As long as the individual is whole heartedly willing to undergo Euthanasia, as it is the best
choice left to the individual, then it is morally acceptable. Not only this will promote the best
interest for the individual, but also promoting the best interest for everyone involved and,
violating no one's right, then it is morally acceptable.

B. Providing supporting information for counterclaims

Assisted suicide is sometimes called physician-assisted suicide (PAS). With euthanasia, a

doctor is allowed to end the person’s life by painless means. In countries where it’s legal, a
2016 review trusted Source found euthanasia accounts for 0.3 to 4.6 percent of deaths.

-Assisted suicide is sometime called physician-assisted suicide (PAS), or what is commonly

known as Euthanasia. With Euthanasia, a doctor is allowed to end the person's life by painless
means. In countries and other states where Euthanasia is legal, a 2016 review source found out
that Euthanasia accounts for 0.3 to 4.6 percent of deaths.

In cases where there are no dependents who might exert pressure one way or the other, the
right of the individual to choose should be paramount. So long as the patient is lucid, and his or
her intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further questions. - The Independent, March
2002

- According to the Independent from March 2002, it stared that in cases where there are no
dependents who might exert pressure one way or the other, the right of the individual to choose
should be paramount. So as long as the patient is lucid, and his or her intent is clear and
beyond doubt, there need be no further questions.

In some cases, euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone involved and violates no
one's rights. It is therefore morally acceptable

- It is morally permissible as long as the client is prepared to undergo Euthanasia

wholeheartedly because it is the only option available to them. Not only will this encourage the
best interests of the individual, but it will also promote the best interests of all concerned,
because it will be morally appropriate so no one's right will be violated.

Allowing such people to commit euthanasia would not only let them have what they want, it
would free valuable resources to treat people who want to live.

- A state or a country has limited health resources. By undergoing euthanasia, this will free up
scarce health resources. The supposed cost for living, and health resources of a person with
disease, can be allotted to support a new life for others. This is a selfless act of ending one’s life
by allotting health resources to others.

 If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one’s rights,
then that action is morally acceptable. In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the
best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one’s rights. Therefore, in at least some
cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable.

- If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one’s rights,
then that action is morally acceptable. In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the
best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one’s rights. Therefore, in at least some
cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable.

C. Refuting the counterclaims

In some debate, euthanasia results in harm to the person and their loved ones, who must watch
their loved one suffer.
- In some debate, euthanasia results in harm to the person and their loved ones. The act of
Euthanasia involves the pain of mourning felt by its loved ones. This harm oneself and others,
and thus refuting the claim that Euthanasia does not harm anyone.

The ability to decide your own death weakens the sanctity of life.
- Deciding your death does not show that you are weak. Deciding to end one’s life is more than
that, it weakens the sanctity of life. We should respect life, and live to its fullest.

Euthanasia is not a private act - we cannot ignore any bad effects it may have on society in
general. It needs interference from the moral standards.

- Euthanasia have never been a private act. We cannot ignore that it has many negative effects
on society and the community in general. It needs interference from the moral standards.

There are many other ways to free up scarce health resources, in fact, Euthanasia is said to be
the “high cost of dying”.
- There are many other ways to free up scarce health resources. Aside from that, undergoing
Euthanasia only solves a decimal of this problem. In fact, Euthanasia is said to be the “high cost
of living”.

 If euthanasia was made legal, the laws regulating it would be abused, and people would be
killed who didn't really want to die, therefore, it is not morally right especially the snowball effect
of euthanasia.

-  If euthanasia was made legal, the laws regulating it would be abused, and people would be
killed who didn't really want to die, therefore, it is not morally right especially the snowball effect
of euthanasia.

D. Giving evidence for argument

For more than 2,500 years, doctors have taken the Hippocratic oath. This oath encourages
doctors to care for and never harm those under their care.

-For the past 2,500 years, doctors have taken the Hippocratic oath. This oath encourages
doctors to care for and never harm those under their care. This is an existing evidence to refuge
that ending a life will diminish one's suffering with care.

On May 7, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI said that "Freedom to kill is not a true freedom  but a
tyranny that reduces the human being into slavery."

- On May 7, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI said that "Freedom to kill is not a true freedom, but a
tyranny that reduces the human being into slavery". This entails that the right to kill oneself,
makes the human less humane and is being turned into slavery.

According to a study of Narbekovas and Meilius (2004), Euthanasia would make moral sense
only if it were possible to say, morally, that this dignity had vanished. To commit euthanasia is to
act with the specific intention that somebody should be nobody. This is the fundamental error of
all immorality in human relations.

-According to a study of Narbekovas and Meilius (2004), Euthanasia would make moral sense
only if it were possible to say, morally, that this dignity had vanished. To commit euthanasia is to
act with the specific intention that somebody should be nobody. This is the fundamental error of
all immorality in human relations.

In recent years, as national health care expenditures have risen from 5.3 percent of the gross
national product (GNP) in 1960 to 7.5 percent in 1970 and to 10.5 percent in 1982, increasing
concern has been expressed over what Eli Ginzberg (1980), the noted economist, has called
“the high cost of dying.”

-In recent years, as national health care expenditures have risen from 5.3 percent of the gross
national product (GNP) in 1960 to 7.5 percent in 1970 and to 10.5 percent in 1982, increasing
concern has been expressed over what Eli Ginzberg (1980), the noted economist, has called
“the high cost of dying.”

Research has revealed that many terminally ill patients requesting euthanasia, have major
depression, and that the desire for death in terminal patients is correlated with depression.

-Research has revealed that many terminally ill patients requesting euthanasia, have major
depression, and that the desire for death in terminal patients is correlated with depression.