In this social critique paper I will try to give my opinion on euthanasia and society views on euthanasia. I will deal with each reason in turn. In developing countries death remains very much a part of life. From a young age these people are well acquainted with the certainty of death. both need euthanasia.

However, for members of western society, death is an issue that most prefer be left behind the closed doors of a hospital. To a large proportion of our society the topic of death and dying is best left unspoken, many find it uncomfortable and disturbing. This fear of a 'thing' we have little control over is very much apart of our society, and is manife

EUTHANASIA IS NOT OF GOD The writer openly proclaims his Christian beliefs and has prior to this point attempted to put forward an argument aside from God, for both the believer and non-believer alike to consider. However he chooses to end his debate on a premise that is only valid to those who believe in God, and for some that is sufficient ground on which to base an argument, without the above. A problem only exists when God alone is offered as the reason for an action. For the atheist or even the agnostic such a statement is of little significance and gives no substance to an argument. Further it is a statement that is difficult to judge or prove as either true or false.

EUTHANASIA IS MYOPIC AND LAZY? Here the author accuses pro-euthanasia lobbyists of being both shortsighted and lazy, lacking imagination to see beyond to the long-term consequences of euthanasia that will plunge society into an inevitable downward spiral or slippery slope. He attempts to paint a picture in the reader's mind by using a human biological example to demonstrate the possible effects of euthanasia on society. Euthanasia, he argues, should be seen as a type of social leukemia where the individual cells of a society will 'at an ever increasing rate' self-destruct, eventually destroying society itself. However, I fail to see the benefit to society, of prolonging the lives of individuals at whatever cost to the person. Whether the whole is greater than its parts or the parts greater than the whole has been a long-standing debate. In this case, I cannot see the benefit to the whole of rejecting euthanasia, nor do I believe the whole is always greater than its parts. Let the author look these patients in the eye and tell them their suffering will somehow benefit society. Further, I find it hard to accept that all health professionals, forced to face the issue of euthanasia on a regular basis, are either myopic or lazy. They are asked to make decisions no one else wants to make that many in our society hope to never confront. In my opinion, to choose to stop treatment, to withdraw lifesaving measures is a far more difficult decision than to continue treatment. I believe that for many health professionals it is easier to save a life than to let it go. When there is no longer any quality of life, I am forced to wonder if death is so bad an option and whether prolonging life is the best care we can give.

EUTHANASIA IS IRREVERSIBLE The writer starts by clearly defining the differences between direct and passive euthanasia and natural death, terminology that is essential to understanding the issue at hand. However, once established by the writer, these concepts seem to have little relevance t

Some common words found in the essay are:
EUTHANASIA GOD, EUTHANASIA ENTROPIC, MYOPIC LAZY, Daniels Jones, EUTHANASIA Euthanasia, EUTHANASIA IRREVERSIBLE, Euthanasia Wrong, BAD EXAMPLE, Life News', Mitford English, health professionals, prolonging life, terminally ill, human life, betterment human life, myopic lazy, medical profession, laws physics, act euthanasia, euthanasia society, life death, whatever cost person,
Approximate Word count = 1820
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)