Its anti-life Essay Example for Free

Its anti-life Essay Now I’m not going to delve into the argument of whether an unborn fetus is life because that’s a complete and utter waste of time. But I do want to know if life is as valuable as everybody claims. Do you really think about how valuable the life of a beggar is when you meet him or her down the street? Do you value the life of a murderer when you’re facing him at gunpoint? Do you value the life of a corrupt government official when he is using his power for profit? The truth is we only value life when the absence of life is there. The rest of the time we don’t really give a crap about it. We waste life, we self-destruct, we kill, we steal and yet when we see a loved one die or when we find out we’re dying we start valuing life. Isn’t that simply hypocrisy? The truth is, the only life that’s valuable to us is our own life and the lives of those who are close to us. You people rant about how important human life is yet when exposed in our vulnerable state all you see is a facade of hypocrisy to shield your irrational beliefs. You brag about valuing the human life yet all you really care about is your own selfish life. It isn’t life that’s important to humans. What’s important is the â€Å"person† inside each and every human being. You can tell me that the reason why some people don’t care about life is because there is good and there is evil when it comes to people. If that is so then that means that life is also either good or bad. And when it comes to human nature, people almost never put any value into anything that is bad. Euthanasia is defined as the practice of ending a life prematurely in order to end pain and suffering. The process is also sometimes called Mercy Killing. Euthanasia can fall into several categories. Voluntary Euthanasia is carried out with the permission of the person whose life is taken. Involuntary euthanasia is carried out without permission, such as in the case of a criminal execution. The moral and social questions surrounding these practices are the most active fields of research in Bioethics today. Many Supreme Court cases, such as Gonzales v. Oregon and Baxter vs. Montana, also surround this issue. Voluntary euthanasia is typically performed when a person is suffering from a terminal illness and is in great pain. When the patient performs this procedure with the help of a doctor, the term assisted suicide is often used. This practice is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg. It is also legal in the state of Oregon, Washington and Montana. Passive euthanasia is carried out by terminating a medication that is keeping a patient alive or not performing a life-saving procedure. Active euthanasia involves the administration of a lethal drug or otherwise actively ending the life. These two types of procedures carry different moral and social issues. Euthanasia Debate Controversy There is a lot of controversy surrounding the issue of euthanasia and whether or not it should be legal. From a legal standpoint, the Encyclopedia of American Law categorizes mercy killing as a class of criminal homicide. Judicially, not all homicide is illegal. Killing is seen as excusable when used as a criminal punishment, but inexcusable when carried out for any other reason. In most nations, euthanasia is considered criminal homicide: however, in the jurisdictions mentioned above, it is placed on the other side of the table with criminal punishment. Arguments regarding the euthanasia debate often depend on the method used to take the life of the patient. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act made it legal for residents to request a lethal injection from a doctor. This is seen in other jurisdictions as being a criminal form of homicide. However, passive euthanasia through denial of drugs or procedures is considered to be legal in almost all jurisdictions. Those who argue for euthanasia feel that there is no difference. Those who are against it disagree. Euthanasia and Religion Many arguments also hinge on religious beliefs. Many Christians believe that taking a life, for any reason, is interfering with Gods plan and is comparable to murder. The most conservative of Christians are against even passive euthanasia. Some religious people do take the other side of the argument and believe that the drugs to end suffering early are God-given and should be used. One of the main groups of people who are involved with the euthanasia debate is physicians. One survey in the United States recorded the opinions of over 10,000 medical doctors and found that sixteen percent would consider stopping a life-maintaining therapy at the recommendation of family or the patient. Fifty five percent would never do such. The study also found that 46 percent of doctors believe that physician assisted suicide should be allowed in some cases. The controversy surrounding euthanasia involves many aspects of religion, medical and social sciences. As this is one of the most studied fields of bioethics, one can rest assured that more studies will be performed to learn more about this issue and how to best address it. Firstly, I disagree with your definition of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the putting to death, by painless method, of a terminally-ill or severely debilitated person through the omission (intentionally withholding a life-saving medical procedure, also known as passive euthanasia) or commission of an act (active euthanasia), as defined by the leanlegal dictionary online. I also find your first point confusing; in what way does the legalisation of euthanasia affect the close family ties in Filipinos? I, being a Filipino, can relate, and I fail to see your point. Secondly, define what you mean by the doctors ethics? In a case to case basis, a doctor will not be performing euthanasia if he/she is against it, therefore it is a fallacy to generalise to all doctors. Lastly, euthanasia is against the constitution, that is why the topic is should it be legalised. Saying it is currently not legal is restating the topic, no relevance. Now for my arguments. Firstly, the financial costs of keeping a person on a life support machine are enormous, not to mention hospital bills and 24-hour medical care. 80% of the Filipinos live in poverty, how many people can afford this? What happens then if the family cannot afford keeping the relative on life support? Do they get arrested? Secondly, the emotional distress that is caused by seeing your loved one in a vegetative state for an extended period of time while doctors continually tell you that there is no hope for recovery is potentially traumatizing. Some people who consider this as suffering for the vegetable loved one will want euthanasia, but they havent the option. Legalising this will not force everyone to take this course, but rather only provide an option. Lastly, the medical facilities and time that is devoted towards the vegetative patient with low chances of recovery could be spent helping someone else in greater need. Already in the Philippines we have a shortage of medical personnel and equipment, this additional burden will only cause more damage.