argumentative essay in favor of euthanasia

Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia Essay

Mankind has always struggled to deal with numerous illnesses that have been in existence at different periods of time. Different treatment alternatives have been employed ranging from those by traditional medicine men to the modern scientific methods.

All these efforts have been motivated by the desire to remain alive for as long as one can (Buse 7). However, there are situations when living is more problematic and either the victim or other stakeholders contemplate ending life. This is referred to as euthanasia.

It is the act of deliberately terminating life when it is deemed to be the only way that a person can get out of their suffering (Johnstone 247). Euthanasia is commonly performed on patients who are experiencing severe pain due to terminal illness.

For one suffering from terminal illness, assisted death seems to be the better way of ending their suffering. The issue of euthanasia has ignited heated debate among the professionals as well as the law makers and the general public (Otlowski 211).

The physicians should do everything humanly possible to save lives of their patients, however, euthanasia should be considered as the only alternative to save extreme cases like the terminally ill patients from their perpetual pain and suffering.

Euthanasia can either be active/voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. In voluntary euthanasia, the patient suffering from terminal illness may give consent to be assisted end his/her prolonged severe pain through death (Bowie and Bowie 215).

The patient may also decline to undergo burdensome treatment, willingly terminating treatment procedures like removal of life support machinery, and simply starving. Non-voluntary euthanasia, on the other hand, involves who cannot make sound decisions.

They may be too young, in a coma, senile, mentally challenged, or other severe brain damage (Gorsuch 86). Involuntary euthanasia involves ending the life of the patient without his/her consent. This usually happens when the patient is willing to live despite being in the most dangerous situations.

For instance, an infantry man has his stomach blown up by an explosive and experiences great pain. The army doctor, realizing that the soldier would not survive and has no pain relievers decide to spare the man further suffering and executes him instantly.

Also, a person could be seen on the 10 th floor of a building on fire, the person’s clothes are on fire and cries out for help. The person on ground has a rifle and decides to shoot him dead with a strong conviction that the individual would have experience a slow and painful death from the fierce fire.

Due to the sensitivity of the issue, laws that will protect the rights of both the patient and the physicians who practice euthanasia should be put in place.

A patient has the right to demand or refuse a given form of medication as long as it will alleviate their suffering (Bowie and Bowie 216). It amounts to violation of the patient’s rights if the physician does not respect the will of the patient.

Each one has a right to determine what direction their lives should take and is their own responsibility (Buse 7). A study conducted among adult Americans indicates that about 80% of them support the idea.

They argue that someone suffering from terminal illness, a condition which no medical intervention can reverse, should be allowed to undergo euthanasia. It is inappropriate to subject an individual into a slow but painful death. Such an individual ought to be assisted to end his/her life in order to avoid a prolonged painful death.

The laws guiding the practice of euthanasia in the state of Oregon are quite clear. Active euthanasia should only be performed on a patient who is 18 years and above, of sound mind and ascertained by at least three medical doctors that assisted death is the only alternative of helping the patient (Otlowski 212).

Under such a situation, the doctor prescribes the drugs but is not allowed to administer them. The patient in question takes the drug (s) voluntarily without any assistance from the doctor. The patient will then die in dignity, without any intense pain that living with the condition would bring.

It is evident that some terminal illness may not present unbearable pain to the patient. Instead, a chronically ill patient who is in a no-pain state will not be in a humanly dignified state. The patient of doctor may propose euthanasia as the better treatment alternative.

This has been occasioned by the advancement in the field of medicine where pain can be significantly control (Buse 8). All patients are entitled to pain relief. However, most physicians have not been trained on pain management and hence the patients are usually left in excruciating pain (Johnstone 249).

Under such a condition, the patient suffers physically and emotionally causing depression. Leaving the patient in this agonizing state is unacceptable and euthanasia may be recommended.

Moreover, the physician who practices euthanasia should be protected by the law. This can be achieved by giving him/her the ‘right’ to kill. A doctor handling a patient who is in excruciating pain should be in a position to recommend euthanasia so as to assist the patient have a dignified death.

It is not required by law or medical ethics that a patient should be kept alive by all means. Hence, the patient should be allowed to demand death if he/she considers it necessary (Gorsuch 88).

It would be inhumane and unacceptable to postpone death against the wish of the patient. It would also be unwise to insist on curing a condition which has been medically regarded as irreversible or incurable.

Most terminal illnesses are very expensive to cure although they are known to be incurable. The patient as well as family members ought to be relieved of the accompanying financial burden (Buse 8). The patient, considering the amount of money and other resources used in an attempt to keep him alive, may demand to be assisted to die.

This can only be possible through euthanasia (Johnstone 253). In fact, spending more on the patient would only serve to extend the individual’s suffering. Human beings are caring by nature and none would be willing to live their loved ones to suffer on their own.

They would therefore dedicate a lot of time providing the best care that they can afford. Some would even leave their day to day activities in order to attend to the terminally or chronically ill relative or friend.

Euthanasia, therefore, serves to spare the relatives the agony of constantly watching their family member undergo intense suffering and painful death. In most occasions, attempts to keep a patient alive would mean that he/she be hospitalized for a very long period of time (Bowie and Bowie 216).

Terminally ill patients in hospitals imply that facilities would be put under great pressure at the expense of other patients who would benefit from using the same services. These facilities include; bed space, medical machines, drugs, human resource, among others. Even if they were to be given homecare, a lot of time resource and facilities would be overstretched.

Other than the issue of homecare and the financial obligations that may arise, there is also the issue of personal liberty and individual rights. Those who front this argument explain that the patient has the right to determine when and how they die.

Since the life of a person belongs to that person only, then the person should have the right to decide if he or she wants to end it, if ending life would also mean ending irreversible suffering (CNBC News para 4).

This mean that individual undergoing great and irreversible suffering have the power to chose “a good death” and thus decide when they want to die (para 7).. Furthermore, these patients are dependent on life sustaining medication, which adds only adds the misery.

This brings forth the question about whether such patients can be forced to take life sustaining drugs if the said drugs only lead to extended life full of suffering.

The law should provide for such individuals to refuse to take such drugs and also to request drugs that will lead to end of their misery, even it if mean that these drugs will end their lives.

Therefore patients in this condition should be allowed the legal tight to end their miseries through assisted suicide.

Those who oppose any form of euthanasia argue that a terminally ill patient or a person suffering irreversible pain from an incurable disease should be assisted to live by all means including any medical procedure that guarantees that they live the longest possible period.

This argument is valid but has logical flows. The argument presupposes that such patients need to be prevented from dyeing through any possible means. In reality though, this efforts are futile as when a patient has determined that death is the easier way out of the misery they are suffering, the emotional distress will only pull them closer to death (Morgan 103).

Furthermore, such efforts to prolong the patients’ lives do not prevent death, as but just postpone it at the same time extending the patients suffering. This is because such patient’s life is hanging by the thread and they have been brought near to death by the virtue of their illness.

In severe cases such patient may result to suicide, as in the case of Sue Rodriguez, Canadian woman who suffered Lou Gehrig’s disease, and was refused the right for assisted death (CNBC News para 2). As such efforts to prolong their lives pushed them closer to death

While some countries such as The Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark have embraced the idea of euthanasia, others have move at a snails pace in this direction. Canada, one of the most developed countries is such countries.

Euthanasia is still illegal in Canada and any person found trying it is subject to prosecution. Furthermore, any person found to have assisted another person commit suicide is also liable to prosecution for up to 14 years in prison.

Still in Canada, the law after many years of legal battle has differentiated euthanasia and assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is what is otherwise referred to as active euthanasia where a terminally ill patient asks for help to end life.

The law in Canada has also allowed for these patients to refuse life sustaining medication if such medication does not in any way improve the quality of their lives (CNBC para 17).

If the law acknowledges the power of a person to refuse such medication then it must also allow such a person the legal right to determine the condition and the manner in which they die. This means that there is light, though, at the end of the tunnel for Canadians patients who may wish to end their lives.

Such argument for any form of euthanasia tends to conglomerate around two valid arguments. First, if a terminally ill patient who is suffering extreme and irreversible pain is determined to be of sound mind and is adult then such patients should be allowed to make judgment about their lives.

If such a patient decides that ending their lives will be end their misery, then no doctor has the legal as well as moral obligation of coercing the patient to continue taking medication that only prolongs their suffering (Morgan 145).

If doctors manage to successfully administer the drugs against the wishes of such a patient, they will have committed an assault against the patient and this is a legal as well as a professional misconduct (Morgan 146). Secondly, the desires of such a patient are supreme.

This means that the patients’ right to self determination overrides the fundamental but not absolute belief that life is holy and should only be ended by the maker.

Therefore such patient’s should be treated as competent enough to make decisions about their lives and that no medical officer has the legal or moral right to determine that such a patient is wrong. Any medical help provide to such a patient thus be for the benefit of the patient.

From a religious point of view, it can be argued that God is love and people of God should demonstrate compassion. If someone is undergoing intense pain and a slow but sure death, it would be evil to allow such a person to experience the full extent (Gorsuch 89).

Euthanasia would therefore be the better option. Helping the patient have a dignified death can be the best show of agape love. There is also the issue of quality of life where if someone is leading low quality or worthless life, then one should opt for euthanasia.

The essay has discussed several points in favor of euthanasia as an alternative when it comes to treating people suffering from terminal illness or responding to perplexing situations where death is the ultimate end although one may go through severe pain and agonizing moments.

It has also highlighted three main forms of euthanasia; voluntary/active, non-voluntary, and involuntary. Anyone can argue against the points raised in this essay but it would be difficult to justify why an individual should be allowed to suffer for a long time either willingly or unwillingly.

The doctors should do everything humanly possible to save lives of their patients, however, euthanasia should be considered as the only alternative to save extreme cases like the terminally ill patients from their perpetual pain and suffering.

Works Cited

Bowie, Bob & Bowie, Robert A. Ethical Studies: Euthanasia (2 nd ed). Neslon Thornes, 2004, Pp. 215-216.

Buse, Anne-Kathrin. Euthanasia: Forms and their Differences . GRIN Verlag, 2008, Pp. 7-8.

CNBC news. “ The Fight for the Right to Die. ” CNBC Canada . 2011.

Gorsuch, Neil M. Euthanasia- The Future of Assisted Suicide . Princeton University Press, 2009, Pp. 86-93.

Johnstone, Megan-Jane. Euthanasia: Contradicting Perspectives (5 th ed). Elsevier Health Sciences, 2008, Pp. 247-262.

Morgan, John. An Easeful Death?: Perspectives On Death, Dying And Euthanasia. S ydney: Federation press Pty Ltd. 1996. Print.

Otlowski, Margaret. Euthanasia and the Common Law . Oxford University Press, 2000, Pp. 211-212.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 14). Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/

"Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia." IvyPanda , 14 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia'. 14 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia." April 14, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia." April 14, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia." April 14, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argument-for-euthanasia-essay/.

• Euthanasia: Every For and Against
• Singer’s Views on Voluntary Euthanasia, Non-voluntary Euthanasia, and Involuntary Euthanasia
• Is Euthanasia a Morally Wrong Choice for Terminal Patients?
• Why Active Euthanasia is Morally Wrong
• Active Euthanasia: Ethical Dilema
• Euthanasia: Is It the Best Solution?
• When Ethics and Euthanasia Conflict?
• The Ethics of Euthanasia
• Legalizing Euthanasia
• Attitudes Related to Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Among Terminally Ill Patients
• Analysis of abortion as an ethical issue
• Advanced Diagnostic Procedures: The Individual Impact of Genetic Diagnosis
• Listening Skills and Healthcare: A Quantitative Survey Technique
• Teamwork and Communication Errors in Healthcare
• A New Fight to Legalize Euthanasia

+61 272 520 888

15% discount on first order.

Sample argumentative essay: people should be granted the right to die.

An argumentative essay is a type of essay whose purpose is to advance a specific point or claim. It is a thesis -driven academic paper that features credible evidence and sound reasoning to communicate its message. The goal of this paper is to convince the reader to acknowledge the message as valid. This sample argumentative essay asserts the message that a person’s right to die should be their own rather than that of others.

While the  legalization of euthanasia has been the subject of extensive public and academic discourse for decades now, it remains a polarizing and controversial issue that generates heated debates across the world. This may be due to the fact that many regard euthanasia as a moral dilemma . But despite the slow evolution of the matter, there have been changes in how euthanasia and other end-of-life issues are perceived. For instance, there are more countries around the world today where euthanasia is legal than a few decades ago including Ireland, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Norway, and Sweden among others (Englehart, 2021; The Week, 2021). The debate, of course, is predicated upon the question of whether or not a person has the right to die. The right to life is universally acknowledged. But how about the right to die? Does this right exist in the first place? With the rate at which the discourse evolves, it is reasonable to assume that the issue is still far from being decided, thus leaving those who seek it and those who oppose it in a gridlock. In light of the ongoing battle between opinions, this paper holds that the decision-making over matters of one’s death should be acknowledged as a person’s right. It is the right of a person with a sound mind, with consultation with medical professionals as a form of safety net, to determine how they end their life in face of terminal illness because they wield autonomy over their own body.

The main reason why a person should be the one to decide over their right to die is because they have autonomy over their own body. A person’s absolute ownership of their body is a universally recognized right. Provided that what one wants for one’s own body is with a sound mind and does not constitute a threat to public safety or security, then it is deemed to be acceptable. This is the principle that underlies many of the most basic rights, from more mundane rights such as the right to wear what one wants to wear to more debatable rights such as the right to undergo an abortion for medical reasons. If autonomy over one’s body is widely acknowledged, then there is no reason why this principle should not be applied in the case of end-of-life issues. As stated by Michael Irwin, a former general practitioner and patron of the British Humanist Association, “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” (Irwin, 2013). This principle is especially important, given that the conversation about end-of-life issues is situated within the context of illness, pain, and death. As Engelhart notes in her book The Inevitable: Dispatches on the Right to Die  (2021), people seek death not as a self-destructive impulse but as a desire to depart in peace and without pain and with their dignity intact. It is the person who suffers the emotional, psychological, physical, existential, and financial tolls of a terminal illness. It is therefore only fitting that they be granted the power to exercise their right to die.

A person should also be able to decide on their right to die because the medical community serves as a safety net for this issue. One of the main arguments against the right to die movement is the belief that it will negatively affect vulnerable populations such as those living with mental health conditions. In other words, upholding the right to die might inadvertently enable people with mental illness to commit suicide. While this fear is certainly valid, upholding the right to die is not necessarily a slippery slope, and this is because the medical community serves as a safety net that can minimize this risk. As Jarvis (2021) notes, “In the United States, physician-assisted suicide is permitted in a slowly growing number of states, but only to ease the deaths of patients who fit a narrow set of legal criteria.” People who seek approval to terminate their life have to be evaluated and found to be mentally competent, officially diagnosed with a terminal disease, have a prognosis of half a year or shorter, and physically capable of self-administration of medications. They also need to have a history of previous requests for termination of life. These criteria serve as a safety net that will help prevent unnecessary deaths and ensure that the right to die is exercised with great prudence.

End-of-life issues will likely remain controversial topics for many years to come, and this is understandable considering the sensitive nature of death and the natural fear that people feel towards it. Death, however, is a normal and inevitable part of life, which means that the facts of it should be faced. What brings about death is something that the vast majority of people never get to have a say on. Illness, in particular, is something that no one wants but happens to countless people all the same. But that does not mean that people should have no say in how they exit this world. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

An argumentative essay is one of the most important papers you need to learn. But there are other types of essays such as persuasive essays , descriptive essays , and narrative essays . There are also non-essay projects like theses , lab reports , research papers , and dissertations . Writing all these is demanding, which is why you need to enlist the help of professional writers from CustomEssayMeister. Our writing experts are here to assist you with all your writing needs.

Engelhart, K. (2021). The inevitable: Dispatches on the right to die. St. Martin’s Publishing Group.

Irwin, M. (2013, August 19). Euthanasia: The right to die should be a matter of personal choice. The Mirror . https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/euthanasia-right-die-should-matter-2182127

Jarvis, B. (2021, May 10). We’ve had great success extending life. How about ending it? New Yorker . https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/17/weve-had-great-success-extending-life-what-about-ending-it

The Week. (2021, September 22). Countries where euthanasia is legal. https://www.theweek.co.uk/102978/countries-where-euthanasia-is-legal

more in Essay / Euthanasia

• Sample Argumentative Essay: The Case of Martha Sepúlveda and the Legalization of Euthanasia
• Sample Compare and Contrast Essay: Euthanasia on Humans and Animals
• Sample Argumentative Essay: Why Should Euthanasia Be Legalized
• Sample Argumentative Paper: The Euthanasia Decree or Aktion T4

Let’s get your assignment done!

For and Against Euthanasia: An Ethical Perspective

Euthanasia is a medical practice of ending the life of a suffering patient with the injection of barbiturate or paralytic. Assisted death is legal in the majority of the European Union countries, Colombia, and several American states. However, the countries where euthanasia is legal are in the minority. Indeed, this medical practice is immensely contradictory and raises a wide range of ethical issues. The current essay discusses the argument for and against euthanasia from an ethical point of view.

The critical argument in favor of euthanasia is that it is a way to make a person who suffers from an incurable disease die in dignity and free of the pain. What is more, this death will be peaceful, and a patient could die surrounded by the nearest and dearest instead of writhing in agony caused by pain that could no longer be reduced with painkillers. Veterinarians can euthanize an animal if it cannot be cured. At the same time, human beings have no choice but to suffer even if they also cannot be healed. From this perspective, euthanasia should be practiced because it is humane and helps escape a patient’s suicide.

Secondly, the concept of euthanasia implies that a patient decides on his or her life. For example, it is up to every individual to decide whether to put a coronavirus vaccine, take medicines prescribed by a doctor and follow the recommendation. Furthermore, patients are obliged to sign a consent for operation or treatment. In other words, in all these situations, people have a right to manage their lives and health independently.

However, when it comes to how and when to end the life, they become deprived of this right and forced to suffer in anticipation of death. Besides, to some extent, euthanasia resembles suicide because it is a patient who decides whether he or she wants to live or not. This comparison leads to the following contradiction: suicide is not unlawful, while, in the majority of countries, euthanasia is while in both cases, a person makes an independent choice to end the life.

The opponents of euthanasia argue that this medical procedure diminishes the value of human life. The study conducted by Parmar et al. (2016) shows that opponents believe that a “person should be kept alive as long as possible regardless of his age, disease, disabilities and personal preferences” (p. 21). Interestingly enough, they use the same case of mercy killings of animals that were mentioned in the second paragraph of the paper as an argument in favor of euthanasia. From this point of view, the precious lives of conscious people are equated to the lives of pets deprived of conscience.

Furthermore, suppose doctors are allowed to assist the death of patients. In that case, that might decrease the quality of care provided to terminally ill patients because, undoubtedly, it is cheaper to kill a person than to provide proper palliative care. Additionally, some practitioners might use euthanasia to manipulate patients and their families. Overall, the ethical arguments against the legalization of euthanasia stress the value of human lives and the obligation of medical personnel to do their best to cure patients.

To conclude, it is hard to come to a common view on euthanasia because arguments for and against it are equally persuasive. Nonetheless, the fact that mercy killing of people is forbidden in most countries shows that the global community is not ready to reconcile with it. Still, the ban on euthanasia has given rise to such a phenomenon as suicide tourism in countries where euthanasia is legal. Probably, the debates on euthanasia remain topical because the arguments against it are put forward by healthy people whose family members and friends do not endure unbearable physical pain that could be relieved only through death.

Parmar, P., Rathod, S., & Parikh, A. (2016). Perceptions of patients towards euthanasia–A medico-legal perspective. International Association of Infant Massage , 20 (12), 21-30.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2023, November 10). For and Against Euthanasia: An Ethical Perspective. Retrieved from https://studycorgi.com/the-argument-for-and-against-euthanasia/

StudyCorgi. (2023, November 10). For and Against Euthanasia: An Ethical Perspective. https://studycorgi.com/the-argument-for-and-against-euthanasia/

"For and Against Euthanasia: An Ethical Perspective." StudyCorgi , 10 Nov. 2023, studycorgi.com/the-argument-for-and-against-euthanasia/.

1. StudyCorgi . "For and Against Euthanasia: An Ethical Perspective." November 10, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/the-argument-for-and-against-euthanasia/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "For and Against Euthanasia: An Ethical Perspective." November 10, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/the-argument-for-and-against-euthanasia/.

StudyCorgi . 2023. "For and Against Euthanasia: An Ethical Perspective." November 10, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/the-argument-for-and-against-euthanasia/.

StudyCorgi . (2023) 'For and Against Euthanasia: An Ethical Perspective'. 10 November.

This paper, “For and Against Euthanasia: An Ethical Perspective”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language.

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Euthanasia Argumentative Essay on Legalization

Introduction.

Several diseases have arisen and survived throughout human history, and people have had difficulty developing effective cures or therapies against them. Individuals have tried their hand at traditional and cutting-edge scientific methodologies in searching for a solution. Because, in the end, we want to make sure that people live as long as possible, all of our efforts have been concentrated on making that happen. However, there are times when the suffering that comes with living is so intense that the person experiencing it or people who care about them could consider euthanasia as a means of escape (Kumar et al. 91-96). Assisting another person in taking their own lives in the belief that doing so would relieve them of their pain is known as “euthanasia.” People with a terminal illness and in excruciating agony are often candidates for euthanasia. Therefore, it refers to the practice in which a medical practitioner actively supports a patient who is terminally sick in committing suicide. Many people have different opinions on whether or not it is moral to legalize euthanasia. Even though some people will not agree with me, it is my solid conviction that euthanasia should be legalized in the United States of America. People should be free to choose how they want their lives to end, and euthanasia should be permitted on a global scale if we are to take into account several ethical and practical issues that support this position. People who decide to end their lives can avoid additional suffering and pain, exercise their right to their lives, prevent additional costs, save others (their loved ones) from suffering, respect their autonomy, and become free from certain legalities.

Patients suffering unbearably while battling for their lives may benefit significantly from euthanasia. Many people who support euthanasia argue that, in some cases, dying is better than living. It is indisputable that the patient’s final days are a living nightmare due to the pain and suffering that often accompany terminal conditions. At that point, suicide may seem the most humanitarian way to end their suffering (Baksheev et al. 1360-1363). The patient’s suffering may have been exacerbated by the fact that he or she had a terminal illness from which there is almost little hope of recovery. If there is no chance of recovery, it is cruel to subject the sufferer to more suffering. It is morally correct to act following the principle of beneficence and reduce a dying person’s pain and discomfort. Unfortunately, terminally sick patients may experience more than just suffering; occasionally, they may be placed in an even more terrible situation. Consequences may include generalized fatigue, loss of appetite, and an increased sense of helplessness. The only thing the patient cares about now is ending their life, and they have given up on living with any sense of pride or honor. This highlights the potential weight of the patient’s wish for a peaceful passing.

Euthanasia also demonstrates compassion for the patients and stops the emotional and physical anguish that others would otherwise endure, such as the patient’s loved ones and those near them. The emotional misery that often comes hand in hand with some disorders may be just as painful as the physical pain they cause. A prime example of this would be the HIV/AIDS pandemic. As it worsens, those affected by this ailment are put through unimaginable suffering. The resilience of their bodies progressively decreases, they begin to weaken, and in the end, they shrivel up and die. In addition to the obvious physical suffering, they are also going through a great deal of mental anguish because they are aware that even with the highest quality of medical care, their symptoms will only be marginally improved for a short period. That death is ultimately unavoidable (Kumar et al. 91-96). Suppose terminally ill patients are legally allowed to seek euthanasia to speed up the dying process. Do the patients’ loved ones not have a moral obligation to end the patients’ mental and physical suffering? Since those in charge of providing euthanasia are aware that the patient is in pain and that death is close at hand, it is a kind gesture for the patient to let death come sooner than anticipated. In this context, euthanasia is seen as a compassionate solution to the problem of intolerable suffering.

Additionally, euthanasia is ethically commendable since it gives individuals the option to terminate their lives most satisfyingly. The United States of America Constitution allows individuals to seek personal happiness. In this discussion, “freedom of choice” means that every individual has the right to decide whether or not to continue living, even if they are terminally ill (Baksheev et al. 1360-1363). Those dealing with terminal conditions should not be denied the choice to end their lives early because of opposition to legalizing euthanasia. For whatever reason, death does not arrive as swiftly as they would want, so they have no option but to take their own lives. When governments forbid terminally ill persons from committing suicide, they are violating the constitutional right of such individuals to terminate their own life free from pain and suffering. For instance, in Texas, it is against the law to actively hasten or hasten the death of a person, whether by euthanasia, mercy killing, or other means of hastening death. The Declaration of Independence, the country’s founding document, also guarantees every citizen the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There is a direct correlation between this liberty and the last act of one’s life. Refusing terminally ill persons the choice of committing suicide would violate their right to life. Those in the latter stages of a fatal illness and so much anguish that they cannot bear to continue living should be offered the option to terminate their lives prematurely. As a result, people should not be prevented by too restrictive rules from ending their lives on their terms if they choose. For instance, euthanasia may be practiced lawfully in Oregon, New Jersey, Hawaii, Washington, Colorado, Washington, Maine, the District of Columbia, California, and Vermont. In these states, patients who are candidates for voluntary euthanasia decide on their own whether or not to end their lives. A guardian will decide if the person in question cannot provide informed permission.

Moreover, euthanasia should be legalized since it demonstrates respect for people’s liberties. The act of dying when and in the manner one chooses is a highly personal and private concern. Patients who have fatal conditions, such as acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), multiple sclerosis (M.S.), or Alzheimer’s disease (A.D.), are aware of their impending mortality and want control over the process of dying. They cannot bear the idea of surrendering control and being forced to depend on the assistance of others. Second, people who are nearing the end of their life and are terminally ill do not want to spend their money on the ever-increasing expenses of medical care; instead, they would want to die away as soon as possible so that their heirs may reap the full financial benefits of their inheritance. These justifications have a significant weight because the patients are in perpetual, immense pain and have accepted the reality that there is no possibility of treatment and that death is imminent. Furthermore, the patients have acknowledged that there is no chance of a cure and that death is imminent.

Another advantage of euthanasia is that it offers the emotional solace that loved ones need when they are forced to watch a loved one suffer while they get medical treatment. However, no one wants to see a loved one endure unnecessary pain in a hospital, which may sometimes occur. Given all this, it is not hard to see why so many individuals think euthanasia should be legalized. If a person’s loved ones are made to watch while someone they care about is in pain, it may give them a great deal of emotional suffering, which can spread to every part of their existence (Arsić 28-34). Hospital bills for patients with life-limiting conditions might consume significant cash. Most individuals with terminal illnesses spend the last days of their lives connected to various life support systems, leaving behind a significant medical bill for their loved ones. Euthanasia may save a patient’s family $10,000 in medical expenses even if a patient passes away while in excruciating pain; it is not unheard of for the total cost of their hospital stay to slowly escalate during their time there. Due to their poor financial conditions, some families may have little choice but to take out loans to pay for medical treatment for a family member. It would help lessen the emotional toll of caring for a sick loved one and save families a ton of money on medical treatment if euthanasia were widely acknowledged and used in hospitals (Arsić 28-34).

Also, euthanasia legalization raises the concern of individual liberty versus state interests. The State undoubtedly cares deeply about protecting the lives of its people. Such curiosity is natural and indicative of a well-run state since it is motivated by citizens’ faith in their government. Therefore, it is seen as evidence of a government properly doing the job it was elected to do when the government takes precautionary steps to safeguard its citizens, such as arresting thieves and mobsters, interning drug traffickers and human smugglers, punishing wife batterers and rapists or sentencing mass murderers to imprisonment or the death penalty. When it becomes a personal decision, however, unlike the various forms of public safeguards, the level of interest from the State is not commensurate with the level of interest from terminally ill people who choose to end their lives through death. If the State reinforces this skewed “against the State” level of interest by prohibiting it, it will be perceived as an intrusion on individual freedom. Perhaps the most significant U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln, defined democracy as government “by the people, of the people, and for the people.” So, it stands to reason that the people’s will takes precedence in the United States, a strong democracy. It follows, therefore, that in the debate over whether or not to legalize euthanasia, the people’s will should be accorded the highest priority. The majority of people believe euthanasia should be made legal.

It has been suggested that euthanasia is ethically permissible if it is carried out following the desires of a patient suffering from a terminal illness. On the other hand, it would be unethical for physicians to refuse a terminally ill patient’s request for euthanasia just because the law prohibits them from doing so (Dintcho). The practice of euthanasia ought to be legalized everywhere in the United States and the rest of the world so that those suffering from life-threatening conditions may terminate their lives with the honor and peace they have earned. Many physicians and other medical professionals would not give it a second thought to assist terminally ill patients in ending their lives with dignity if they were permitted to do so under the law. In addition, they would not hide the fact that they had done it in any way and would be very forthright about it.

In conclusion, euthanasia should be seen as a means to offer individuals more control over their deaths, reduce the amount of suffering that people experience, and reduce the amount of money people spend on medical care. People on life support or with a fatal condition that causes them chronic agony can contemplate euthanasia. This may make their suffering more manageable. It is true that if you are paralyzed and unable to care for yourself, spending the rest of your life in a hospital bed is not exactly what you would call having a high quality of life (Baksheev et al. 1360-1363). However, if you can communicate with other people, there is a possibility that you could have a better quality of life. It is nonsensical to say that legalizing euthanasia offers enormous moral and ethical issues, especially because of its message about the value of human life. Freedom in its purest form exists only when an individual is unfettered in their ability to choose whether their own life is worth living. The decision ultimately rests with the patient and the patient alone. If a person cannot make decisions for themselves—for example, if they are in a coma—their loved ones are the only ones authorized to do so. In addition, if euthanasia is legalized, physicians who have received patients’ informed permission might stop carrying out the practice secretly (Dintcho). A change in the law regarding euthanasia does not always lead to its widespread acceptance. It is about giving people the credit they deserve when they use their freedom. Because euthanasia is a morally acceptable practice, it should be legalized globally, not only in the United States. However, legislation should establish acceptance criteria for each occurrence, eliminating arbitrary judgments that lead to the untimely deaths of people and adding stress to the lives of those who are already under enormous pressure.

Dintcho, Arisa D. “Should Active Euthanasia Be Morally and Legally Permissible?” Sound Decisions: An Undergraduate Bioethics Journal 5.1 2020: 1.

Arsić, Miloš. “Euthanasia and moral dilemmas.” Medicinski časopis 56.1 (2022): 28-34.

Kumar, Ajay, Aseem Mehra, and Ajit Avasthi. “Euthanasia: A Debate—For and Against.” Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, Education and Research 55.2 2021: 91–96.

Baksheev, Andrey Ivanovich, et al. “Euthanasia in modern society: the topicality, practicability, and medical aspect of the problem.”  Journal of pharmaceutical sciences and research  10.6 (2018): 1360–1363.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

Crime, deviance, and contemporary american politics, the role of the us constitution in african american life, modernity at large, a research on the high prevalence of mental illness in the united states, initiatives and policies for combating financial crimes in the uk, understanding special education paper assignment, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Assisted Suicide — Euthanasia Has A Positive Influence: Arguments

Euthanasia Has a Positive Influence: Arguments

• Categories: Assisted Suicide

About this sample

Words: 835 |

Published: Mar 18, 2021

Words: 835 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, why is euthanasia good.

• BBC (2004). Retrieved form www.bbc.com/ethics/euthanasia/overview/introduction.shtml
• Hausmann, E. (2004). How press discourse justifies euthanasia. Mortality, 9(3), 206- 222. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13576270412331272798
• Swarte, N. B., Van Der Lee, M. L., van der Bom, J. G., Van Den Bout, J., & Heintz,
• A. P. M. (2003). Effects of euthanasia on the bereaved family and friends: a cross sectional study. Bmj, 327 (7408), 189. Retrieved form https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7408/189.short
• Christian Barnard, cardiac surgeon September 24, 1984 – Nice France – Presentation at Federation of Associations for the Right to Die. Retrieved from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Euthanasia
• Norwood F. (2005). Euthanasia talk. Euthanasia discourse, general practice and end-of-life care in the Netherlands. Dissertation: University of California. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10730-007-9048-z?LI=true
• Friedrich Nietzsche, The Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ, 1889.
• DeMarco, D. (1999). The Sacredness of Human Life in a Desacralized World.
• The Linacre Quarterly, 66(1), 49-55. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/20508549.1999.11877529

Should follow an “upside down” triangle format, meaning, the writer should start off broad and introduce the text and author or topic being discussed, and then get more specific to the thesis statement.

Provides a foundational overview, outlining the historical context and introducing key information that will be further explored in the essay, setting the stage for the argument to follow.

Cornerstone of the essay, presenting the central argument that will be elaborated upon and supported with evidence and analysis throughout the rest of the paper.

The topic sentence serves as the main point or focus of a paragraph in an essay, summarizing the key idea that will be discussed in that paragraph.

The body of each paragraph builds an argument in support of the topic sentence, citing information from sources as evidence.

After each piece of evidence is provided, the author should explain HOW and WHY the evidence supports the claim.

Should follow a right side up triangle format, meaning, specifics should be mentioned first such as restating the thesis, and then get more broad about the topic at hand. Lastly, leave the reader with something to think about and ponder once they are done reading.

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 Ernest (PhD)

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

3 pages / 1552 words

1 pages / 295 words

4 pages / 1796 words

3 pages / 1143 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, 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 [...]

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 [...]

Euthanasia, the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve their suffering, has been a topic of ethical debate for decades. This essay explores the nuanced and multifaceted arguments in favor of euthanasia, delving [...]

Some people agree with euthanasia or mercy killing because "It frees up hospital beds and resources". However, just because hospital beds are needed by other patients, that does not mean it is ok to allow people to die in order [...]

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 [...]

Chantal Sebire, a 52-year-old former schoolteacher and mother of three, was refused the right to die by a French court last week. Ms Sebire suffered from a disfiguring and incurable facial tumour which caused her to lose 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

Plagiarism checker

Writing help, paraphrasing tool, arguments for and against euthanasia.

• Assisted Suicide , Euthanasia , Medicine , Right To Die

How it works

Euthanasia is also known as physician-assisted suicide or good death. It refers to the method where animals that are suffering or in discomfort are helped to rest in death. Many pet owners consider Euthanasia a more compassionate manner of bidding their beloved animals goodbye. In the case of people, many states have not legalized euthanasia for people with dementia or those suffering from incurable diseases. Euthanasia creates an ethical dilemma on three main lines: legal, medical, and philosophical. There are four different forms of euthanasia. These include directly assisted suicide, voluntary or active suicide, indirectly assisted suicide and involuntary or passive suicide. 

Arguments For Euthanasia

Euthanasia proponents argue that ill people deserve the right to alleviate their suffering with a compassionate, quick, and dignified death. These supporters dispute the claim that rights to death are equally protected by the constitutional demands that cover such rights as procreation, marriage, and cessation or refusal of life-saving treatment. Many media opponents of voluntary active euthanasia frequently argue that the legalization of to use of medical assistance to die is such a radical movement whose implication distresses society.

Arguments Against Euthanasia

The people that oppose the concept of euthanasia are concerned with the fact that physician-assisted suicide communicates an unsafe message to society that death is the way out of life’s problems. Some clinical workers and psychologists claim that terminally ill patients that request physicians to assist them to die do not want to die. When people are made to know that they are suffering from incurable diseases, most of them spiral into a deep depression and they should not be served with the option of giving up. Although Dr. Kevorkian thought he offered patients some help, the rational jury charged him with second-degree murder since many states have not legalized euthanasia. Immanuel Kant and other philosophers were against euthanasia regardless of the state of the individual’s physical or mental health. The philosopher believed that people ought to act in a manner that can be accepted as a universal law. Therefore, when assisting patients to die, we ought to be willing that euthanasia becomes a universal law that can be applied to anyone. Besides, Kant asserted that rational duty and not emotional reasoning should guide us in doing moral things.

Final Assessment

It is thus clear that both the supporting and opposing side to this subject have substantial claims and each side gives patients certain rights. Since death is inevitable, our reactions to patients’ desire for death on their terms ought to be approached with an open mind. Respecting each individual’s desire would imply that each person should have a right to choose when they need to depart this life. Although I do not advocate for murder, I believe one has a personal choice to voluntary euthanasia. Americans have the freedom to make various choices in life such as abortion, same-sex marriage, and so forth. Therefore, legalizing euthanasia should not be a crime. It is not fair to deny individuals suffering from an incurable disease or loss of autonomy the right to overcome agonizing symptoms through compassionate death. Regardless of the opponents to physician-assisted suicide, they do not experience the pain and suffering themselves and so they are not entitled to interfere or challenge the patient’s personal choice. None could know what a better option is than the patient suffering from a terminally ill condition. I was also against euthanasia until my father voluntarily requested to die with dignity when his illness made his life unenjoyable. Since I cannot ponder my death going through a slow and painful departure, I am sure that none wants to witness their beloved suffer such an experience. 

The deadline is too short to read someone else's essay

Cite this page.

Arguments For and Against Euthanasia. (2019, Mar 13). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia/

"Arguments For and Against Euthanasia." PapersOwl.com , 13 Mar 2019, https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia/

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Arguments For and Against Euthanasia . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia/ [Accessed: 16 Nov. 2023]

"Arguments For and Against Euthanasia." PapersOwl.com, Mar 13, 2019. Accessed November 16, 2023. https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia/

"Arguments For and Against Euthanasia," PapersOwl.com , 13-Mar-2019. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia/. [Accessed: 16-Nov-2023]

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Arguments For and Against Euthanasia . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-for-and-against-euthanasia/ [Accessed: 16-Nov-2023]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Make sure your essay is plagiarism-free or hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Plagiarized Text

Leave your email and we will send a sample to you., not finding what you need, search for essay samples now.

Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly?

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

Don't use plagiarized sources

Where do you want us to send this sample, attention this is just a sample..

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Dissertation
• PowerPoint Presentation
• Book Report/Review
• Research Proposal
• Math Problems
• Proofreading
• Movie Review
• Cover Letter Writing
• Personal Statement
• Nursing Paper
• Argumentative Essay
• Research Paper

How To Write A Vivid Euthanasia Argumentative Essay?

Table of Contents

Euthanasia (good death from Greek) is the practice of intentional life ending aiming to relieve patients’ pain and suffering. The topic of its use is fiercely debated all over the world.

People have divided into two camps: some say Euthanasia is the matter of choice, even when it comes to choosing death. Another group claims that doctors mustn’t be empowered to offer death to people who may not even realize the decision they make.

Every country where Euthanasia is legal has its own specific legislative base of its use. Nevertheless, there is one aspect of this topic that unites all the people together: the issue is considered from the moral and ethical perspective.

Euthanasia argumentative essay: the basics

The topics for an argumentative essay writing are usually two-sided: voting for or against the topic, agree or disagree with the statement, choose one option or another.

Writing any argumentative assay requires highlighting both possible points of view, no matter what is your own. Remember, you should explain both sides equally correct and impartial.

So let’s take a closer look into the details…

How to write a Euthanasia thesis statement?

Before writing an essay on Euthanasia you have to think about your own attitude towards the topic. It will help you write a good thesis statement.

…Why you need it?

The thesis is the representation of the essay’s main idea. You’ll have to clarify both sides of the topic, sure. Still, you also need to express your own point of view. And that is made with the thesis statement in the first place.

You may clearly state your opinion in the thesis, like:

“Injecting a medication to a hopeless patient is a murder.”

“Taking life from a person who wants to end up sufferings is mercy.”

Also, you can try to intrigue your readers and present your thesis as a question with no answer provided right away. Like:

“Helping people die: is it murder or mercy?”

“Would you personally use your right for euthanasia if there was no chance to get better?”

Variations are welcomed.

Euthanasia essay introduction: general recommendations

Most professional essay writing services agree that writing an introduction is always the hardest thing. You get the fear of the blank paper, writer’s block, and the stress from remembering all the requirements you should ideally follow.

… Sounds familiar?

There are no reasons to be that stressed, actually. The web is full of info, interesting statistics, law variations, and personal stories.

A combination of those would be both, catchy and informative, that’s all you need for a perfect intro.

Start with some background information to help your reader understand the subject better.

What kind of info would be relevant?

• A brief definition of Euthanasia.
• When it might be allowed.
• Laws of the countries where it is permitted.
• Personal stories of friends/relatives.
• Stories of doctors and nurses.

All of that can be easily found online. Your goal here would rewrite it in your style, make it appealing to read and combined logically. End your introduction with the thesis statement. You already know how it’s done.

Specifics of Euthanasia essay main body

The main body for an argumentative essay should consist of two parts, one for each point of view. Once you express your point of view in the introduction, then it would be logical to start the main body from it.

Still, it is far from being obligatory. You may start with whatever you find more comfortable.

Like, f.e., you decide to start by talking about the positive aspects of Euthanasia. List the statements using words “firstly,” “secondly,” “moreover,” etc. Begin with the weakest argument and move up to the most solid one you have.

Provide the reader with some positive examples, including personal stories, if they fit in, try to find shreds of evidence of euthanasia practice in your country.

Here are some ideas for statements in favor of Euthanasia:

• A patient’s life can be worse than death.
• It is better to die from Euthanasia than from suicide.
• Euthanasia can help in saving budget funds. Saved money may help somebody else.
• Some people don’t want to see how their relatives suffer hopelessly.
• Death from Euthanasia can be more humane than natural.

Once you finish with the arguments for the first part, go on representing the opposite point of view. A good idea to begin the second paragraph with phrases like “on the other hand,” “the other side of the coin is,” “however,” etc.

List a couple of statements against Euthanasia. You may also search for some scandals including the illegal activity of doctors who made such decision without consulting the patient’s relatives.

Here are several ideas that might be helpful.

• Life is the primary integral right and can’t be taken away.
• If there are many organizations and measures to prevent suicides, why should we offer death to someone?
• Each aspect of Euthanasia can’t be foreseen in the law.
• It’s impossible to define who may/may not be offered the Euthanasia.
• What if the person who chose Euthanasia could recover and live the life to its fullest?

What to write in Euthanasia essay conclusion?

In conclusion, you sum up all the ideas highlighted in your essay, without adding new ones. Start with phrases like “to sum up,” “to conclude,” “in conclusion,” “on balance,” “in a nutshell,” etc.

Here you should also express your point of view and paraphrase the thesis you used in the introduction. For uttering your point, use inputs like “my point of view is,” “I strongly believe,” “I am convinced,” “to tell you the truth,” and so on.

How to create a Euthanasia essay outline?

An outline is a brief sketch of your essay. If you need to write it, select the main ideas of your work and write them down in a couple of sentences.

The sketch outline for an essay on Euthanasia may be like:

“Th work is about the problem of Euthanasia. I highlight some statements for and against the use of Euthanasia and support them with top examples. In conclusion, I explain my personal position on this question.”

The full version of an outline would look something like this…

Introduction

• Hook sentence
• Thesis statement
• Transition to Main Body
• History of Euthanasia
• Euthanasia statistics in countries where it is legal
• Impact of legal Euthanasia on people’s life
• Negative consequences of illegal Euthanasia
• Transition to Conclusion
• Unexpected twist or a final argument
• Food for thought

The use of Euthanasia argumentative essay example

This topic is pretty vast. It can be both good and bad for you. Due to the variety of topics within the issue of Euthanasia, it might be easy to find something you are genuinely interested in.

On the other hand, there are dozens of various materials, thousands of articles, and billions of opinions you should consider before writing. Sometimes it might be difficult for you to get a full picture.

Therefore, a sample of the essay on this topic is presented here. It follows all the standards of an argumentative essay and shows you how this type of work may be completed.

On balance…

I’d say that it’s great to work with such an ambiguous topic. You’ll definitely benefit from training your persuasive and analytical skills while working on this essay.

Hope you’ve found some inspiration here, good luck!

Not excited to write an essay on euthanasia? Buy argumentative essay instead! Luckily, we’ve got dozens of writers, who are 100% fit for the job. Order an essay and save time for yourself!

Writing a Speech About Yourself

Essays About Stereotyping – The Positive Side

Interesting Facts That Should Go into Your Essay on Sexual Harassment