Alper

Class: P5B
B. Bier
Topics: Death penalty and Euthanasia
 Essay outline – argumentative essay – Topic 2
Name: Alper Kural
Class: P5B
Topic: Euthanasia
(Working) Title: Is Euthanasia Everybody’s Right
_________________________________________

Paragraph Key words Topic sentence

(max. 5 words)

Introduction Thesis: It should be possible for

1 terminally ill patients or individuals
suffering from chronic severe pain
to die peacefully and quickly
Body choise Regardless matter whether you
2 have a fatal condition or are
elderly, you should have a say in
what happens to you when it's time
to end your life.
Suffering The terminally ill people who are
3 medical suffering should especially be
allowed to end there lives without
suffering in the form ass
euthanesia.
Weaken Allowing people to kill themselfes
4 Easy so easdy would make the society
weak and give them an easy choise
to die without any suffering.

Conclusion
5

References BBC. (2014). Overview of pro-euthanasia arguments.

Write down your
sources (APA- www.bbc.co.uk.
style), in order to
easily compile a Chaturvedi, S. B. (2012). Euthanasia: Right to life vs right to
reference list die. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
during your test.
Government of the Netherlands. (2017). Euthanasia, assisted
suicide and non-resuscitation on request. Government.nl.
MedicalNewsToday. (2022). What are euthanasia and assisted
suicide? Medicalnewstoday.com.
ProCon.org. (2018). Legalization. Eathanasia.procon.org.
1: (BBC, 2014)
2: (Chaturvedi, 2012)
3: (Government of the Netherlands, 2017)
4: (MedicalNewsToday, 2022)
5: (ProCon.org, 2018)
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951#statistics

ARTIKEL 1 (EUTHANASIA) 
Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia 
Euthanasia may be voluntary or involuntary. 

Voluntary: When euthanasia is conducted with consent. Voluntary euthanasia is currently legal in 
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and New 
Zealand. It is also legal in the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Washington, Maine, 
Colorado, New Jersey, California, and Vermont. 

Non-voluntary: When euthanasia is conducted on a person who is unable to consent due to their 
current health condition. In this situation, the decision is made by another appropriate person,
on  behalf of the individual, based on their quality of life. 

Involuntary: When euthanasia is performed on a person who would be able to provide informed 
consent, but does not, either because they do not want to die, or because they were not asked.
This  is called murder, as it’s often against the person’s will. 
Controversy 
Various arguments are commonly cited for and against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

Arguments for 

Freedom of choice: Advocates argue that the person should be able to make their own choice. 

Quality of life: Only the individual really knows how they feel, and how the physical and emotional 
pain of illness and prolonged death impacts their quality of life. 

Dignity: Every individual should be able to die with dignity. 

Witnesses: Many who witness the slow death of others believe that assisted death should be 
allowed. 

Resources: It makes more sense to channel the resources of highly skilled staff, equipment,
hospital  beds, and medications toward lifesaving treatments for those who wish to live, rather than
those  who do not. 

Humane: It is more humane to allow a person with intractable suffering to be allowed to choose
to  end that suffering. 

Loved ones: It can help to shorten the grief and suffering of loved ones.
We already do it: If a beloved pet has intractable suffering, it is seen as an act of kindness to put it to 
sleep. Why should this kindness be denied to humans? 
Arguments against 
The doctor’s role: Healthcare professionals may be unwilling to compromise their professional roles, 
especially in the light of the Hippocratic Oath. 

Moral and religious arguments: Several faiths see euthanasia as a form of murder and
morally  unacceptable. Suicide, too, is “illegal” in some religions. Morally, there is an argument
that  euthanasia will weaken society’s respect for the sanctity of life. 
Patient competence: Euthanasia is only voluntary if the patient is mentally competent, with a lucid 
understanding of available options and consequences, and the ability to express that
understanding  and their wish to terminate their own life. Determining or defining competence is
not  straightforward. 

Guilt: Patients may feel they are a burden on resources and are psychologically pressured into 
consenting. They may feel that the financial, emotional, and mental burden on their family is too 
great. Even if the costs of treatment are provided by the state, there is a risk that hospital personnel 
may have an economic incentive to encourage euthanasia consent. 

Mental illness: A person with depression is more likelyTrusted Source to ask for assisted suicide,
and  this can complicate the decision. 

Slippery slope: There is a risk that physician-assisted suicide will start with those who are terminally 
ill and wish to die because of intractable suffering, but then begin to include other individuals. 

Possible recovery: Very occasionally, a patient recovers, against all the odds. The diagnosis might
be  wrong. 

Palliative care: Good palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary. 

Regulation: Euthanasia cannot be properly regulated.

https://euthanasia.procon.org/top-10-pro-con-arguments/
ARTIKEL 2 (EUTHANASIA) 
1: LEGALIZATIAN 

PRO: 

“The right to die should be a matter of personal choice. 

We are able to choose all kinds of things in life from who we marry to what kind of work we do and
I  think when one comes to the end of one’s life, whether you have a terminal illness or whether 
you’re elderly, you should have a choice about what happens to you… 

I’m pro life – I want to live as long as I possibly can, but l also believe the law should be changed
to  let anyone with some severe medical condition which is causing unbearable symptoms to have
an  assisted suicide. I wouldn’t want to be unnecessarily kept alive against my own will.” 

CON: 

“[C]ampaigning to end certain people’s lives doesn’t end suffering – it passes on the suffering to 
other similar people, who now have to fear they are the next people in line to be seen as having 
worthless lives. And people who have died from a drug overdose have no freedom of choice at all. 
Moreover, societies that authorize suicide as a ‘choice’ for some people soon end up placing 
pressure on them to ‘do the right thing’ and kill themselves… Seeing suicide as a solution for some 
illnesses can only undermine the willingness of doctors and society to learn how to show real 
compassion and address patients’ pain and other problems. In states that have legalized assisted 
suicide, in fact, most patients request the lethal drugs not due to pain (or even fear of future pain), 
but due to concerns like ‘loss of dignity’ and ‘becoming a burden on others’ – attitudes that these 
laws encourage. The solution is to care for people in ways that assure them that they have dignity 
and it is a privilege, not a burden, to care for them as long as they live.”
2: LEGALIZATIAN: MEDICAL PERSPECTIVES 
PRO: 

“I have long favored legalizing physician-assisted dying for terminally ill patients whose suffering 
cannot be relieved in any other way, and I was the first of the original fourteen petitioners to put the 
Massachusetts Death with Dignity Act on the ballot in November. In 1997, as executive editor of the 
New England Journal of Medicine, when the issue was before the US Supreme Court, I wrote an
editorial favoring it, and told the story of my father, who shot himself rather than endure a 
protracted death from metastatic cancer of the prostate. 

It seems to me that, as with opposition based on whether the physician is ‘active,’ the argument
that  physicians should be only ‘healers’ focuses too much on the physician, and not enough on the 
patient. When healing is no longer possible, when death is imminent and patients find their suffering 
unbearable, then the physician’s role should shift from healing to relieving suffering in accord with 
the patient’s wishes. Still, no physician should have to comply with a request to assist a terminally ill 
patient to die, just as no patient should be coerced into making such a request. It must be a choice 
for both patient and physician.” 

CON: 
“It is understandable, though tragic, that some patients in extreme duress–such as those suffering 
from a terminal, painful, debilitating illness–may come to decide that death is preferable to life. 
However, permitting physicians to engage in assisted suicide would ultimately cause more harm 
than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as 
healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks… 
[P]ermitting physicians to engage in euthanasia would ultimately cause more harm than good. 
Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or 
impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks. Euthanasia could readily be extended to 
incompetent patients and other vulnerable populations. The involvement of physicians in euthanasia 
heightens the significance of its ethical prohibition. The physician who performs euthanasia assumes 
unique responsibility for the act of ending the patient’s life.”
3: lagalizatian: lawmakers view 

PRO: 

“The crux of the matter is whether the State of California should continue to make it a crime for a 
dying person to end his life, no matter how great his pain and suffering. I have carefully read the 
thoughtful opposition materials presented by a number of doctors, religious leaders and those who 
champion disability rights. I have considered the theological and religious perspectives that any 
deliberate shortening of one’s life is sinful. I have also read the letters of those who support the bill, 
including heartfelt pleas from Brittany Maynard’s family and Archbishop Desmond Tutu… In the end, 
I was left to reflect on what I would want in the face of my own death. I do not know what I would 
do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain, however, that it would be a 
comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to 
others.” 

CON: 

“Legalising euthanasia would have a wide range of profoundly detrimental effects. It would diminish 
the protection offered to the lives of all. It would allow the killing of people who do not genuinely 
volunteer to be killed, and any safeguards, although initially observed, would inevitably weaken over 
time. 

There would be other long-term consequences of legalising euthanasia that we cannot yet envisage. 
We can be sure that these consequences would be pernicious, however, because they would 
emanate from an initiative which, while nobly motivated, is wrong in principle – attempting to deal 
with the problems of human beings by killing them.”
ARTIKEL 3 (Euthanasia)
https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-and-non-resuscitation-
on-request#:~:text=Requests%20for%20euthanasia%20often%20come,only%20escape%20from
%20the%20situation.

Euthanasia, assisted suicide and non-resuscitation on request

Euthanasia is performed by the attending physician administering a fatal dose of a suitable drug to
the patient on his or her express request. The relevant Dutch legislation also covers physician-
assisted suicide (where the physician supplies the drug but the patient administers it). Palliative
sedation is not a form of euthanasia: the patient is simply rendered unconscious with pain reducing
drugs and eventually dies from natural causes.

What the law says

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal only if the criteria laid down in the Dutch Termination of Life
on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act are fully observed. Only then is the
physician concerned immune from criminal prosecution. Requests for euthanasia often come from
patients experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement. Their request must be
made earnestly and with full conviction. They see euthanasia as the only escape from the situation.
However, patients have no absolute right to euthanasia and doctors no absolute duty to perform it.

Guidelines for euthanasia of semi-conscious patients

Sometimes, a patient may lapse into semi-consciousness just before a scheduled euthanasia. If there
are still signs of suffering, the doctor may perform euthanasia despite the patient’s lowered
consciousness. This is laid down in guidelines on the subject prepared by the Royal Dutch Medical
Association at the request of the Board of Procurators General of the Public Prosecution Office and
the Healthcare Inspectorate. These guidelines on euthanasia of patients with lowered consciousness
do not represent any implicit relaxation of the law; they are merely designed to provide guidance for
physicians in this difficult situation.

Advance directives

Some people feel that they would wish euthanasia to be performed if they ever find themselves in a
particular situation which they would now regard as unbearable and offering no prospect of
improvement. Their best course of action is to discuss the situation they envisage with their family
doctor and make a written directive covering those circumstances. Such advance directives define
the precise circumstances in which the patients concerned would wish euthanasia to be performed.
The document constitutes a request to the physician and must contain a clear and unambiguous
expression of the patient’s wishes.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide

Termination of life on request can take two forms. In the case of euthanasia, the physician
administers a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient. In assisted suicide, by contrast, the
physician supplies the lethal drug but the patient administers it. Both forms are covered by the Act
and in both cases doctors must fulfil the statutory due care criteria. Every instance of euthanasia and
assisted suicide must be reported to 1 of the 5 regional euthanasia review committees. The
committee will judge if the physician has taken due care. If a physician fails to do so, he may be
prosecuted. Penalties vary but may be as much as 12 years in prison for euthanasia and up to 3 years
for assisting suicide.

Euthanasia and minors

Minors may themselves request euthanasia from the age of 12, although the consent of the parents
or guardian is mandatory until they reach the age of 16. Sixteen and seventeen-year-olds do not
need parental consent in principle, but their parents must be involved in the decision-making
process. From the age of 18, young people have the right to request euthanasia without parental
involvement.

Euthanasia and patients with dementia

For some people, the prospect of ever suffering from dementia may be sufficient reason to make an
advance directive (living will). This can either be drawn up independently or discussed first with the
family doctor. A physician can perform euthanasia on a patient with dementia only if such a directive
exists, if statutory care is taken and if, in his opinion, the patient is experiencing unbearable suffering
with no prospect of improvement.
ARTIKEL 4 (Euthanasia)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612319/

The word euthanasia, originated in Greece means a good death1. Euthanasia encompasses various
dimensions, from active (introducing something to cause death) to passive (withholding treatment or
supportive measures); voluntary (consent) to involuntary (consent from guardian) and physician
assisted (where physician's prescribe the medicine and patient or the third party administers the
medication to cause death)2,3. Request for premature ending of life has contributed to the debate
about the role of such practices in contemporary health care. This debate cuts across complex and
dynamic aspects such as, legal, ethical, human rights, health, religious, economic, spiritual, social and
cultural aspects of the civilised society. Here we argue this complex issue from both the supporters
and opponents’ perspectives, and also attempts to present the plight of the sufferers and their
caregivers. The objective is to discuss the subject of euthanasia from the medical and human rights
perspective given the background of the recent Supreme Court judgement3 in this context.

In India abetment of suicide and attempt to suicide are both criminal offences. In 1994, constitutional
validity of Indian Penal Code Section (IPC Sec) 309 was challenged in the Supreme Court4. The
Supreme Court declared that IPC Sec 309 is unconstitutional, under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the
constitution in a landmark judgement4. In 1996, an interesting case of abetment of commission of
suicide (IPC Sec 306) came to Supreme Court5. The accused were convicted in the trial court and
later the conviction was upheld by the High Court. They appealed to the Supreme Court and
contended that ‘right to die’ be included in Article 21 of the Constitution and any person abetting the
commission of suicide by anyone is merely assisting in the enforcement of the fundamental right
under Article 21; hence their punishment is violation of Article 21. This made the Supreme Court to
rethink and to reconsider the decision of right to die. Immediately the matter was referred to a
Constitution Bench of the Indian Supreme Court. The Court held that the right to life under Article 21
of the Constitution does not include the right to die5.

Arguments against euthanasia

Eliminating the invalid: Euthanasia opposers argue that if we embrace ‘the right to death with
dignity’, people with incurable and debilitating illnesses will be disposed from our civilised society.
The practice of palliative care counters this view, as palliative care would provide relief from
distressing symptoms and pain, and support to the patient as well as the care giver. Palliative care is
an active, compassionate and creative care for the dying6.

Constitution of India: ‘Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural
termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of
‘right to life’. It is the duty of the State to protect life and the physician's duty to provide care and not
to harm patients. If euthanasia is legalised, then there is a grave apprehension that the State may
refuse to invest in health (working towards Right to life). Legalised euthanasia has led to a severe
decline in the quality of care for terminally-ill patients in Holland7. Hence, in a welfare state there
should not be any role of euthanasia in any form.

Symptom of mental illness: Attempts to suicide or completed suicide are commonly seen in patients
suffering from depression8, schizophrenia9 and substance users10. It is also documented in patients
suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder11. Hence, it is essential to assess the mental status of
the individual seeking for euthanasia. In classical teaching, attempt to suicide is a psychiatric
emergency and it is considered as a desperate call for help or assistance. Several guidelines have
been formulated for management of suicidal patients in psychiatry12. Hence, attempted suicide is
considered as a sign of mental illness13.

Counterargument of euthanasia supporters

Caregivers burden: ‘Right-to-die’ supporters argue that people who have an incurable, degenerative,
disabling or debilitating condition should be allowed to die in dignity. This argument is further
defended for those, who have chronic debilitating illness even though it is not terminal such as
severe mental illness. Majority of such petitions are filed by the sufferers or family members or their
caretakers. The caregiver's burden is huge and cuts across various domains such as financial,
emotional, time, physical, mental and social. Hence, it is uncommon to hear requests from the family
members of the person with psychiatric illness to give some poison either to patient or else to them.
Coupled with the States inefficiency, apathy and no investment on health is mockery of the ‘Right to
life’.

Refusing care: Right to refuse medical treatment is well recognised in law, including medical
treatment that sustains or prolongs life. For example, a patient suffering from blood cancer can
refuse treatment or deny feeds through nasogastric tube. Recognition of right to refuse treatment
gives a way for passive euthanasia. Many do argue that allowing medical termination of pregnancy
before 16 wk is also a form of active involuntary euthanasia. This issue of mercy killing of deformed
babies has already been in discussion in Holland20.

Right to die: Many patients in a persistent vegetative state or else in chronic illness, do not want to
be a burden on their family members. Euthanasia can be considered as a way to upheld the ‘Right to
life’ by honouring ‘Right to die’ with dignity.
ARTIKEL 5 (EATHANASIA)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1.shtml

Regulating euthanasia

Those in favour of euthanasia think that there is no reason why euthanasia can't
be controlled by proper regulation, but they acknowledge that some problems
will remain.

For example, it will be difficult to deal with people who want to implement
euthanasia for selfish reasons or pressurise vulnerable patients into dying.

This is little different from the position with any crime. The law prohibits theft,
but that doesn't stop bad people stealing things.

People have the right to die

Human beings have the right to die when and how they want to

In...cases where there are no dependants 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
Many people think that each person has the right to control his or her body and
life and so should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose
hand he or she will die.

Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and
that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing.

And behind that lies the idea that human beings are independent biological
entities, with the right to take and carry out decisions about themselves,
providing the greater good of society doesn't prohibit this. Allied to this is a firm
belief that death is the end.

Religious objections

Religious opponents disagree because they believe that the right to decide when
a person dies belongs to God.

Secular objections

Secular opponents argue that whatever rights we have are limited by our
obligations. The decision to die by euthanasia will affect other people - our family
and friends, and healthcare professionals - and we must balance the
consequences for them (guilt, grief, anger) against our rights.
We should also take account of our obligations to society, and balance our
individual right to die against any bad consequences that it might have for the
community in general.

These bad consequences might be practical - such as making involuntary

euthanasia easier and so putting vulnerable people at risk.

There is also a political and philosophical objection that says that our individual
right to autonomy against the state must be balanced against the need to make
the sanctity of life an important, intrinsic, abstract value of the state.

Secular philosophers put forward a number of technical arguments, mostly based

on the duty to preserve life because it has value in itself, or the importance of
regarding all human beings as ends rather than means.

Top

Other human rights imply a right to die

Without creating (or acknowledging) a specific right to die, it is possible to argue

that other human rights ought to be taken to include this right.

The right to life includes the right to die

 The right to life is not a right simply to exist

 The right to life is a right to life with a minimum quality and value

 Death is the opposite of life, but the process of dying is part of life

 Dying is one of the most important events in human life

 Dying can be good or bad

 People have the right to try and make the events in their lives as good as
possible
 So they have the right to try to make their dying as good as possible

 If the dying process is unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten
it, and thus reduce the unpleasantness
 People also have obligations - to their friends and family, to
their doctors and nurses, to society in general
 These obligations limit their rights
 These obligations do not outweigh a person's right to refuse
medical treatment that they do not want
 But they do prevent a patient having any right to be killed
 But even if there is a right to die, that doesn't mean that doctors have
a duty to kill, so no doctor can be forced to help the patient who wants
euthanasia.