Euthanasia 10

A detailed Summary of Euthanasia 10

Assisted Suicide - the act or practice of helping in taking the life of one who willfully wants to die. Just by definition alone it becomes painfully obvious; this is going to be a controversial subject. A term that goes hand and hand with assisted suicide, one in which I will be discussing at great length is Euthanasia. That is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. The term is from a Greek word meaning "good death". In case those definitions didn't make it obvious enough, assisted suicide is usually done by doctors. I've done quite extensive research on this subject over the past month and a half and I'm going to give you several facts, and opinions (including my own) on the subject.

In order to understand the great amount of controversy behind the topic, one must first realize its history. Over the past few decades, America has witnessed a strange and keen shift in society's view of life. In the 1960s the shift began as some states began legalizing abortion. In the 1970s, the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade put the federal government's stamp of ap

http://www.rights.org/deathnet/Kfiles_details.html, Kevorkian Files, 1998

You're probably asking yourself how I could I do any research on Euthanasia, and not mention Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Have no fear, as I will talk about him now. For those who are unfamiliar with him, Dr. Kevorkian is the most famous doctor who advocates, and used to regularly practice Euthanasia. Kevorkian has assisted in the suicides of at least 40 patients. Many of them were not terminally ill. However, those who were not, were paraplegic (had no use of arms or legs), had multiple sclerosis, were blind and had multiple sclerosis, cancer of some sort, or heart disease, emphysema, and arthritis. Others were invalids. I believe those who oppose need only to go to http://www.rights.org/deathnet/Kfiles_details.html on the web to find out why Euthanasia is very humane and very right morally. It is a list of Kevorkian's patients, their conditions, and their statements before dying. (I would have included this list with the paper, but it would have taken up 3 pages +). Many of these patients could not speak or move their legs. Would you want to live if that's how you had to get by? I know I wouldn't. Others were blind, and had no use of either arms or legs. Some were in a great deal of pain and sick of going to the hospital every day to be treated. Some had their legs amputated, and could not move freely. Many could not physically kill themselves; they did not have enough muscle left. How is it morally right to watch one suffer like this? I don't understand how anyone could argue that Kevorkian's patient's time to go had come. He was doing them a favor, and was doing their family a favor. It's not about money, it's about being humane and ending the suffering of patients and patients' families. A lady whose name I unfortunately do not recall came and talked to my government class this year. She was with MADD an organization against drunk driving. A statement she made is one every anti-Euthanasia activist should hear. Her daughter was in a fatal car accident, she went headfirst into a telephone poll, and died almost instantly. Had she lived, she would have been nothing more than a vegetable. This lady said, "...and I thank God for taking her, because I could not have lived seeing her like (an invalid)". Nobody wants to see a family member, a loved one left to be unable to think on his or her own. Many of these people have unrepairable brain damage, which makes them prone to their beds, and they constantly look spaced out, because they are unable to function or concentrate. They don't need to continue their suffering.

Yet another website, http://www.cmf.org.uk/ethics/twelve.htm#1, argues that people with terminal illness are vulnerable, and unable to make decisions regarding themselves and their willingness to go on. He's basically saying; let us think for those people and don't let them think on their own. That denies us, the human race, the most important right we have, the right to be able to think on our own, the right to believe what we know is true.

Upon researching Euthanasia, one can't help but come across the case of Baby Doe. The most common example used when talking about the moral wrongs involved with physician-assisted suicide. Baby Doe was born in an Indiana hospital on Good Friday, in 1982. Doe was born with a condition called Downs' syndrome. If you are not familiar with Downs it is a condition which almost always leads to retardation. However, it may be very minor, at birth it is not possible to tell how severely it will effect one's mental capacity. A common ailment with Downs' is the inability to get food into the stomach. Surgery is usually needed to correct this. Without the surgery, the child would starve. His parents refused to let the surgery be done. Doe's father had worked kids who had Downs' syndrome. He saw how hard it was on the parents of these children, and it hardened his heart toward them. He did not want to have to go

Some common words found in the essay are:
Earth Maybe, Jay Johnson, Euthanasia Kevorkian, Baby Doe, Infact It's, Assisted Suicide, November Kevorkian, Suicide Euthanasia, Roe Wade, NONVOLUNTARY Euthanasia, assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, family friends, assisted suicide euthanasia, people don't, i'm saying, terminal illness, jack kevorkian, life feel, opposing viewpoints series, clinically depressed, morals ethics,

Approximate Word count = 3399
Approximate Pages = 14 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: Politics