IS EUTHANASIA JUSTIFIED?

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST EUTHANASIA Euthanasia stems from an ancient Greek word meaning good death. One definition given for euthanasia in the readings is the intentional putting to death of a person with an incurable of painful disease. Euthanasia is currently illegal in New Zealand, but due to contemporary concerns, legislation involving euthanasia has become the topic of heated debate. The debate surrounding Euthanasia is emotive and controversial, with some labelling it murderous and others, merciful. There are strong arguments both for and against the practice and principles of euthanasia, and I will endeavour to impartially examine both sides of this ongoing debate, concentrating on the material provided in the course reader. Religious and cultural perspectives are generally at the forefront of arguments involving this controversial subject. In the first reading, Euthanasia and Moral Reasoning, Leigh Turner explores the contemporary presence of multiple accounts of the meaning of human life, of suffering and of autonomy, and acknowledges that with regard to the topic of euthanasia, differing social worlds collide. Religious rhetoric in particular has been used to front arguments for both the justification and condemnation of euthanasia. Religious communities in opposition of euthanasia stress the sanctity of the soul, where life is interpreted as a God-given gift that should never be renounced, presenting the argument that our lives are not our own, they belong to God. Within these religious traditions, the self has no claim to make decisions concerning life and death. In this context the Sixth Commandment is interpreted as Thou shalt not murder. In Death with Dignity? Michael Bott defines murder as the intentional act of taking innocent human life, and he goes on to argue that in regards to biblical principles, euthanasia is an intentional act of taking innocent human life, and is therefore prohibited by the Sixth Commandment, and a violation of divine law. On the flip side, others use religious rhetoric to argue that choice is a fundamental human right, and also a gift from God, with this argument placing emphasis on individual freedom and personal autonomy. In the reading written by Michael Laws, it is argued that free will is one of Gods most fundamental gifts to humankind, and that euthanasia is yet another one of those individual moral choices. Law's presents the argument that a much-deserved personal freedom will be gained with the option of voluntary euthanasia. Further, he suggests that from a Christian perspective it could be argued that a terminally ill person had already received a death sentence from God, and that euthanasia is simply an option in effectively managing ones passing. Euthanasia is widely understood to be a means of escape from suffering. The subjectivity of suffering also comes into play within the arguments presented for and against euthanasia. Again, religious rhetoric is evident, with some believing suffering to be deserved, purposeful and planned; a meaningful, and in some cases necessary experience for an individual, part of Gods plan and the means to an individuals ultimate salvation. Turner comments that rationales for pain have appeared in all cultures and religions, and that these cultures have always provided an example on which behaviour in pain could be modelled, with suffering seen as a meaningful characteristic of life, dying and death.

In contrast, suffering can also be seen as biological phenomena without religious, moral or philosophical significance. There is then, no need to endure suffering as it lacks personal or cosmological significance, in this context euthanasia is acknowledged as a plausible alternative to suffering. Again, arguments arise, Bott suggests that due to modern medical advancements most people who suffer terminal illness need not, due to the advances in palliative care, end their lives racked with pain. But this, again, is subjective. Concepts such as unbearable pain are open to subjective interpretation and are incapable of precise definition. The advancement of medical care is an important issue for consideration in the euthanasia debate. With improved capacity to prolong the process of dying, the natural and unalterable can become, to a certain extent, the measurable and manipulable. In the reading entitled The Naturalness of Dying McCue claims that: Dying, which was once viewed as natural and expected, has become medicalized into an unwelcome part of medical care. It has been distorted from a natural event of great significance into the end point of untreatable or inadequately treated disease or injury. He goes on to assert that due to this physicians engage in inappropriately heroic battles against dying and death, even when it may be apparent to physician, patient, and family that a rapid, good death is the best outcome. This presents the argument that technological advancements in medical care have made death a starkly unnatural event that can deprive the dying of their autonomy. But would the option of euthanasia increase personal autonomy? Bott considers that once voluntary euthanasia is legalised there will be great pressure placed on the elderly and infirm to exercise this freedom to end all freedoms. This presents the concern that consent for euthanasia may be given under psychological pressure, with patients worried about financially burdening their families with the costs for their medical care. Even if these costs are covered by public money, there is a concern that hospital personnel would have economic incentive to advise or pressure people towards euthanasia consent. The bureaucratisation of the health-care system has also come under fire in the euthanasia debate, with McCue describing modern clinical care as impersonal and fragmented. With health care practitioners working in large-scale institutional settings, much of their own personal autonomy is lost amongst the regulatory processes. The possibility of private, consensual agreements among physicians and patients is significantly restrained, which Turner argues, increases the need for the examination and resolution of this subject at the level of public policy. The Netherlands present an interesting example of issues that arise with the introduction of euthanasia into public policy. Described by John Keown as the slippery slope syndrome, the fine line between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, and the difficulty in regulating this is highlighted. The danger of the decision of death resting with the doctor, instead of the individual, is examined using the Netherlands as a case study. Bott considers that once we

have established the acceptability of this culture of death, it is feasible to assume that euthanasia could be taken a step further, that is, practice of involuntary euthanasia in the name of compassion. The article by Keown provides evidence that a large proportion of patients who were euthanised in the Netherlands neither asked for it, nor consented to it. A survey disclosed that it was the primary purpose of doctors to shorten the lives of over 10 000 patients in 1990, the majority without the patients explicit request. It seems that there is a gross inadequacy in the regulation of euthanasia in the Netherlands, and Keown found that doctors are able to avoid prosecution by asserting that a request was no longer essential in all cases, or by asserting the defence of necessity. There are also problems in regards to patients incapable of requesting euthanasia, such as babies, people in a vegetative state, or those with advanced dementia. If a doctor can make the judgement in relation to an able-minded patient, then logically he can make it in relation to an incompetent one. This means then, that the legalisation of euthanasia is not resulting in greater patient autonomy, but instead results in greater power of doctors over the life and death of their patients. Although it can be argued that strict-safeguards would be put in place to prevent the slide into non-voluntary euthanasia in New Zealand, the example of the Dutch shows that there seems to be a gap between the theory and practice of voluntary euthanasia. A pro-euthanasia alternative is offered in the reading Death in a Pill. The suggestion of a selfadministered pill is put forward as an option, granting a painless death at a time of ones choosing. It is argued that a peaceful pill provides such peace of mind and immense comfort by giving its owner control over their own life and death that it actually helps to prolong life. But processes regarding the theoretical regulation of this pill have been scrutinised, with fears that it could provide too easy and option, creating unnecessary death for those that it was not designed for, depressed and suicidal teenagers for example. The final reading presents a study regarding the Rites of passage and the hospice culture. In this article Katherine Froggatt paints a very positive picture of hospice care, stressing its family orientated nature and spiritual and holistic outlook. Froggatt claims that within the hospice movement, death is managed in an open and honest way, offering an alternative approach to the transition of life and death, and providing a space that moves out of the secular and into the sacred. Hospice care is described as being transitory, using the idea of dying as a journey but also offering pain relief to reduce or eliminate suffering and distress, as well as providing an environment that is socially, emotionally, psychologically and spiritually supportive to both the patient and his family. In this context, Frogatt believes that one is able to die without intervention in a supportive and spiritual environment without pain. Throughout this essay exploring the ideas presented in the course readings, I have endeavoured to maintain a neutral perspective on the euthanasia debate, presenting arguments and ideologies that both support and condemn euthanasia. Death is highly subjective, and its associated moralistic implications affect us all at an intrinsic level. Due to this, in our contemporary and increasingly secular society, in regards to the euthanasia debate as Turner put it - differing social worlds collide. Euthanasia is and will remain an emotional subject full of contradictory debate.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bott, M. Apologia Death with Dignity? Wellington, 1995. Froggatt, K. Mortality, Vol.2, No. 2, 1997 Rites of passage and the hospice culture. Downloaded by Victoria University of Wellington, 04:16 12, June 2008. Hausmann, E. Mortality, Vol.9, No. 3, 2004 How the press discourse justifies euthanasia. Downloaded by Victoria University of Wellington, 01:24 12, May 2008. Keown, J. Euthanasia Examined Euthanasia in the Netherlands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Laws, M. The Case for Death with Dignity. Draft Bill, Hawkes Bay, 1995. McCue, J. The Naturalness of Dying. Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 273, 13, 1995. Nitschke, Philip and Stewart, F. Killing Me Softly: Voluntary Euthanasia and the Road to the Peaceful Pill. Penguin: Melbourne, 2005. Turner, L. Morality, Vol.2, No.3, 1997 Euthanasia and the distinctive horizons for moral reason. Downloaded by Victoria University of Wellington, 01:30 27, May 2008.

Argument Essay For Gay Marraige

y y y y y y y

Submitted by: dmdavo99 Date Submitted: 02/22/2009 Category: English Words: 454 Pages: 2 Views: 2026 Popularity Rank: 1894 Same Sex Marriage! It is human nature to deviate from change; people just arent comfortable with anything new. Eventually though, changes are essential for economic, and social prosperity. In the past 200 years America has been the for-runner in the major changes, free Negros, woman rights, suffrage, and democracy. Its about time America, despite all prejudicial argument, leads the world, once again, into an age that includes peaceful equality for homosexuals and allows same sex marriage. In the American constitution, it states that all men (referring to people) are created equal with equal rights.If America is all its supposed to be then why does it leave out homosexuals and their right to marry. Two days ago the first black president in history was elected and people were universally proud to be American. Their thought process is completely logical, America has made history, and theyre proud to be part of it. Every one of them so proud about how America not only has an awesome constitution, but lives up to it as well. What they overlooked is the hypocrisy involved with this thought. Because on the same night, the oh so equal America passed Amendment two, denying homosexuals common rights. Marriage is a very complex ordeal. There are many intertwining issues, insurance, inheritance, and shared property. First of all homosexuals have never done anything wrong not to deserve these everyday deserved rights. If a homosexual partnership has lasted for a long time and the two are relying on themselves for morale and financial support, why should one not have social security (or life insurance) if the other passes away? Also if they live together shouldnt they have the right to share mortgage, and then share the property? They are no different from heterosexuals and they deserve the rights equally as much as heterosexuals do. There is a lot of controversy caused by this issue. The biggest argument against same sex marriage is that it will disrupt the sanctity of traditional marriage. First off this is a crock full of crap, how does allowing homosexual marriage pose a threat to traditional marriage, when it doesnt revoke any previous issues? In the even if people are so against same sex marriage for that reason, the government can call it partnership, and still give them the same marital rights. In the end people dont want to see homosexuals get married because they arent susceptible to a massive change. In order to prevent people from calling them prejudice they come up with excuses that make no logical sense. If America is all it is cut out to be, equal rights, than same sex marriage shouldnt even be an issue.

A University In Every Town

Sample argumentative essay: A University in Every Town The Turkish government is planning to open 15 new universities in developing provinces of Turkey. This is a response to pressure coming from local MPs who in turn voice the demands of their constituencies. However, while the already existing 85 universities are wrestling with financial and academic difficulties, it does not seem to be a good idea to add new universities to the system of higher education. First of all, the new universities will experience staffing problems. That is, they will have difficulty finding faculty that is qualified to teach in these budding universities. In our country the number of academicians who meet the academic requirements is limited. New universities will have two choices: either to draw from the existing pool or to employ under qualified people. To attract those instructors from other universities they will have to offer attractive incentives . However, since these will be state universities they will not have the necessary funds and most academics will be unwilling to go to small town universities where academic and life standards are below par. The only venue open to these universities will be to employ local professionals or under qualified instructors. The inevitable result will follow: a drop in the quality of education. In addition to recruitment problems, small town universities will have financial difficulties. The funds allocated to them by the state will not be enough to build from scratch all the facilities that make a university a "real university". A university is more than a few classrooms. Students will need dorms, gyms, cafeterias, sports facilities, labs and computers for their academic and social development. How many new universities can claim to have only a few of these facilities on their campuses? The result will be a small town "university" which consists of a sole building that houses classrooms and offices, and nothing more. It is argued that the establishment of a university in a developing town will contribute to the development of local culture, community and economy. However, if a university is wrestling with staff recruitment problems, or if it cannot solve its financial difficulties it means that it cannot be of any help to the local community or economy either. It will only employ a few locals, provide substandard education to a few local youth, and it will not fulfill the the aim for which it was initially established. Universities are institutions of higher education and they need to provide education to satisfy certain standards. In order to provide such quality education they need to have qualified teachers and must provide minimum social and academic facilities. Since funds are limited, we should raise the standard of our existing universities first. Only after that, should we invest in establishing new ones.

Nature vs. Nurture

There has always been a large controversy over whether inherited genes or the environment influences and effects our personality, development, behavior, intelligence and ability. This controversy is most often recognized as the nature verses nurture conflict. Some people believe that it is strictly genes that effect our ways of life, others believe that it is the environment that effects us, and some believe that both of these influence our behavior. Either way, social scientists have been struggling for centuries deciding whether our personalities are born or made. Tests are done often on identical twins that were separated to see how they are each influenced by their separate environments. In the past twenty years, it has been discovered that there is a genetic component to every human trait and behavior. However, genetic influence on traits and behavior is partial because genetics account on average for half of the variation of most traits. Urie Bronfrenbrenner, who studies genetics, said, "It is not nature vs. nurture, but the interaction of nature and nurture that drives development." Researchers are finding that the balance between genetic and environmental influences for certain traits change as people get older. Also, people may react to us in a certain way because of a genetically influenced personality and, we may choose certain experiences because they fit best with our instinctive preferences. This means that our experiences may be influenced by our genetic tendencies. One way researchers study the development of traits and behaviors is by measuring the influence of genetics through out ones life span, and it is found to be that the genetic influence on certain trait increase as people age. A research was done to see whether a trait would show up in a child if it was environmentally influenced or genetically influenced. A child was given more negative attention than another was, and it increased the chances of the child having depressive symptoms and anti-social behavior. But these symptoms disappeared when accounted for genetic influences and how parents treat their children.

There are three types of gene/environment relations. The first one is called a passive correlation. It is to be explained as, for example, if a musical ability was genetic, and a child was passed a musical ability trait, than the child would most likely have musically inclined parents. Their parents then would provide them with the genes and environment to promote the development of that ability. The second one is called evocative. This happens when genetically distinct people evoke different reactions from peers and parents and others. And the third association is called an active correlation. This is when people actively select experiences that fit with their genetically influenced preferences. This doesn't mean that there are no environmental influences on behavior, because, for example, it is found to be that a loss of a parent during childhood promotes alcoholism in women. It is also shown that genetics play a big role in influencing people within society. Leadership is a big quality that everyone has and there is a wide range of variations. Heritability is what researchers call 'the degree to which behavioral variations within a population can be accounted for by genes.' Heritability is what is found to make up a lot of one's personality. For quite some time scientists have been trying to draw a line between heredity and leadership also. There is no single leadership personality. Even intelligence can only go so far with leadership. It also involves how people make decisions, and how they give and carry out rules, how they are involved with a group, and how they inspire and respect others. The list of characteristics is endless. Although genes seem to play as a map for a person's life, researchers caution that genes act only as an influence. Anyone who has enough will or a strong enough experience could effect the way they act or react for the rest of their life. In other words, if an environmental background is changed, the amount of variation that is due to genetics can change.

In conclusion, it is safe to say that the role of genetics and the environment equalize people's traits and behavior. You cannot blame either one because without one, the other would not be activated. Genes effect a lot of your personality and behavior but the environment mutates and molds the way people are going to act. This will always be an ongoing controversy because it is nearly impossible to pin point accurately where the role of genes and the environment steps in.