example of thesis statement for mercy killing

Tips on How to Write a Euthanasia Argumentative Essay

Abortion, birth control, death sentencing, legalization of medical marijuana, and gender reassignment surgery remain the most controversial medical issues in contemporary society.  Euthanasia is also among the controversial topics in the medical field. It draws arguments from philosophy, ethics, and religious points of view.

By definition derives from a Greek term that means good death, and it is the practice where an experienced medical practitioner or a physician intentionally ends an individual's life to end pain and suffering. The names mercy killing or physician-assisted suicide also knows it.

Different countries have different laws as regards euthanasia. In the UK, physician-assisted suicide is illegal and can earn a medical practitioner 14 years imprisonment. All over the world, there is a fierce debate as regards mercy killing.

Like any other controversial topic, there are arguments for and against euthanasia. Thus, there are two sides to the debate. The proponents or those for euthanasia believe it is a personal choice issue, even when death is involved.

On the other hand, those against euthanasia or the opponents believe that physicians must only assist patients when the patients are sound to make such a decision. That is where the debate centers.

This article explores some of the important basics to follow when writing an exposition, argumentative, persuasive, or informative essay on euthanasia.

Steps in Writing a Paper on Euthanasia

When assigned homework on writing a research paper or essay on euthanasia, follow these steps to make it perfect.

1. Read the Prompt

The essay or research paper prompt always have instructions to follow when writing any academic work. Students, therefore, should read it to pick up the mind of the professor or teaching assistant on the assigned academic task. When reading the prompt, be keen to understand what approach the professor prefers. Besides, it should also tell you the type of essay you are required to write and the scope.

2. Choose a Captivating Topic

After reading the prompt, you are required to frame your euthanasia essay title. Make sure that the title you choose is captivating enough as it invites the audience to read your essay. The title of your essay must not divert from the topic, but make it catchy enough to lure and keep readers. An original and well-structured essay title on euthanasia should give an idea of what to expect in the body paragraphs. It simply gives them a reason to read your essay.

3. Decide on the Best Thesis Statement for your Euthanasia Essay

Creating a thesis statement for a euthanasia essay does not deviate from the conventions of essay writing. The same is consistent when writing a thesis statement for a euthanasia research paper. The thesis statement can be a sentence or two at the end of the introduction that sums up your stance on the topic of euthanasia. It should be brief, well crafted, straight to the point, and outstanding. Right from the start, it should flow with the rest of the essay and each preceding paragraph should support the thesis statement.

4. Write an Outline

An outline gives you a roadmap of what to write in each part of the essay, including the essay hook, introduction, thesis statement, body paragraphs, and the conclusion. We have provided a sample euthanasia essay outline in this article, be sure to look at it.

5. Write the First Draft

With all ingredients in place, it is now time to write your euthanasia essay by piecing up all the different parts. Begin with an essay hook, then the background information on the topic, then the thesis statement in the introduction. The body paragraphs should each contain an idea that is well supported with facts from books, journals, articles, and other scholarly sources. Be sure to follow the MLA, APA, Harvard, or Chicago formatting conventions when writing the paper as advised in the essay prompt.

6. Proofread and Edit the Essay

You have succeeded in skinning the elephant, and it is now time to cut the pieces and consume. Failure to proofread and edit an essay can be dangerous for your grade. There is always an illusion that you wrote it well after all. However, if you take some time off and come to it later, you will notice some mistakes. If you want somebody to proofread your euthanasia essay, you can use our essay editing service . All the same, proofreading an essay is necessary before turning the essay in.

Creating a Euthanasia Essay or Research Paper Outline

Like any other academic paper, having a blueprint of the entire essay on euthanasia makes it easy to write. Writing an outline is preceded by choosing a great topic. In your outline or structure of argumentative essay on euthanasia, you should highlight the main ideas such as the thesis statement, essay hook, introduction, topic sentences for the body paragraphs and supporting facts, and the concluding remarks. Here is a sample outline for a euthanasia argumentative essay.

This is a skeleton for your euthanasia essay:

Introduction

• Hook sentence/ attention grabber
• Thesis statement
• Background statement (history of euthanasia and definition)
• Transition to Main Body
• The legal landscape of euthanasia globally
• How euthanasia affects physician-patient relationships
• Biblical stance on euthanasia
• Consequences of illegal euthanasia
• Ethical and moral issues of euthanasia
• Philosophical stance on euthanasia
• Transition to Conclusion
• Restated thesis statement
• Unexpected twist or a final argument
• Food for thought

Sample Euthanasia Essay Outline

Title: Euthanasia is not justified

Essay hook - It is there on TV, but did you know that a situation could prompt a doctor to bring to an end suffering and pain to a terminally ill patient? There is more than meets the eye on euthanasia.

Thesis statement : despite the arguments for and against euthanasia, it is legally and morally wrong to kill any person, as it is disregard of the right to life of an individual and the value of human life.

Paragraph 1: Euthanasia should be condemned as it ends the sacred lives of human beings.

• Only God gives life and has the authority to take it and not humans.
• The bible says, Thou shalt not kill.
• The Quran states, "Whoever killed a Mujahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).

Paragraph 2: Euthanasia gives physicians the power to determine who lives and who dies.

• Doctors end up playing the role of God.
• It could be worse when doctors make mistakes or advance their self-interests to make money. They can liaise with family members to kill for the execution of a will.

Paragraph 3: it destroys the patient-physician relationship

• Patients trust the doctors for healing
• When performed on other patients, the remaining patients lose trust in the same doctor of the facility.
• Under the Hippocratic Oath, doctors are supposed to alleviate pain, end suffering, and protect life, not eliminate it.

Paragraph 4: euthanasia is a form of murder

• Life is lost in the end.
• There are chances that when tried with other therapeutic and non-therapeutic approaches, terminally ill patients can always get better.
• It is selfish to kill a patient based on a medical report, which in itself could be erratic.
• Patients respond well to advanced care approaches.

Paragraph 5: ( Counterargument) euthanasia proponents argue based on relieving suffering and pain as well as reducing the escalating cost of healthcare.

• Euthanasia helps families avoid spending much on treating a patient who might not get well.
• It is the wish of the patients who have made peace with the fact that they might not recover.

  Conclusion

In sum, advancement in technology in the medical field and the existence of palliative care are evidence enough that there is no need for mercy killing. Even though there are claims that it ends pain and suffering, it involves killing a patient who maybe could respond to novel approaches to treatment.

Abohaimed, S., Matar, B., Al-Shimali, H., Al-Thalji, K., Al-Othman, O., Zurba, Y., & Shah, N. (2019). Attitudes of Physicians towards Different Types of Euthanasia in Kuwait.  Medical Principles and Practice ,  28 (3), 199-207.

Attell, B. K. (2017). Changing attitudes toward euthanasia and suicide for terminally ill persons, 1977 to 2016: an age-period-cohort analysis.  OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying , 0030222817729612.

Barone, S., & Unguru, Y. (2017). Should Euthanasia Be Considered Iatrogenic? AMA journal of ethics, 19(8), 802-814.

Emanuel, E. (2017). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: focus on the data.  The Medical Journal of Australia ,  206 (8), 1-2e1.

Inbadas, H., Zaman, S., Whitelaw, S., & Clark, D. (2017). Declarations on euthanasia and assisted dying.  Death Studies, 41 (9), 574-584.

Jacobs, R. K., & Hendricks, M. (2018). Medical students' perspectives on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and their views on legalising these practices in South Africa.  South African Medical Journal ,  108 (6), 484-489.

Math, S. B., & Chaturvedi, S. K. (2012). Euthanasia: the right to life vs right to die.  The Indian journal of medical research, 136 (6), 899.

Reichlin, M. (2001). Euthanasia in the Netherlands.  KOS , (193), 22-29.

Saul, H. (2014, November 5). The Vatican Condemns Brittany Maynard's Decision to end her Life as �Absurd'.

Sulmasy, D. P., Travaline, J. M., & Louise, M. A. (2016). Non-faith-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.  The Linacre Quarterly, 83 (3), 246-257.

Euthanasia Essay Introduction Ideas

An introduction is a gate into the compound of your well-reasoned thoughts, ideas, and opinions in an essay. As such, the introduction should be well structured in a manner that catches the attention of the readers from the onset.

While it seems the hardest thing to do, writing an introduction should never give you the fear of stress, blank page, or induce a writer's block. Instead, it should flow right from the essay hook to the thesis statement.

Given that you can access statistics, legal variations, and individual stories based on personal experiences with euthanasia online, writing a euthanasia essay introduction should be a walk in the park.

Ensure that the introduction to the essay is catchy, appealing, and informative. Here are some ideas to use:

• Rights of humans to life
• How euthanasia is carried out
• When euthanasia is legally allowed
• Stories from those with experience in euthanasia
• The stance of doctors on euthanasia
• Definition of euthanasia
• Countries that allow euthanasia
• Statistics of physicians assisted suicide in a given state, locality, or continent.
• Perception of the public given the diversity of culture

There are tons of ideas on how to start an essay on euthanasia.  You need to research, immerse yourself in the topic, and scoop the best evidence. Presenting facts in an argumentative essay on euthanasia will help convince the readers to argue for or against euthanasia. Based on your stance, make statements in favor of euthanasia or statements against euthanasia known from the onset through the strong thesis statement.

Essay Topics and Ideas on Euthanasia

• Should Euthanasia be legal?
• What are the different types of euthanasia?
• Is euthanasia morally justified?
• Cross-cultural comparison of attitudes and beliefs on euthanasia
• The history of euthanasia
• Euthanasia from a Patient's Point of View
• Should euthanasia be considered Iatrogenic?
• Does euthanasia epitomize failed medical approaches?
• How does euthanasia work?
• Should Physician-Assisted Suicide be legal?
• Sociology of Death and Dying
• Arguments for and against euthanasia and assisted suicide
• Euthanasia is a moral dilemma
• The euthanasia debate
• It Is Much Better to Die with Dignity Than to Live with Pain Essay
• Euthanasia Is a Moral, Ethical, and Proper
• Euthanasia Law of Euthanasia in California and New York
• Effect of Euthanasia on Special Population
• Euthanasia is inhuman
• Role of nurses in Euthanasia
• Are family and relative decisions considered during the euthanasia
• The biblical stance on euthanasia

Related Articles:

• Argumentative essay topics and Ideas
• Topics and ideas for informative essays

Get Help with Writing Euthanasia Argumentative Essay for School

We have covered the tips of writing an argumentative essay on euthanasia. Besides, we have also presented a sample euthanasia essay outline, which can help you write your essay. However, sometimes you might lack the motivation to write an essay on euthanasia, even when you have access to argumentative essay examples on euthanasia. 

It is the right time to pay someone to write your argumentative essay . We have the best essay writers who have expertise in creating the best argumentative essays on any topic.  They understand the entire process of argumentative writing and can create a top-grade euthanasia essay within the shortest turnaround time.

Do not wait until it is too late; let our nerds help you ace your homework. Order an essay today and forget your academic writing woes.

Order Essay on Euthanasia!

Gradecrest is a professional writing service that provides original model papers. We offer personalized services along with research materials for assistance purposes only. All the materials from our website should be used with proper references. See our Terms of Use Page for proper details.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.3: Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing (Nathan Nobis)

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 30133

• Golden West College via NGE Far Press

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

9 Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing Nathan Nobis 24

1. Introduction

Sadly, there are people in very bad medical conditions who want to die. They are in pain, they are suffering, and they no longer find their quality of life to be at an acceptable level anymore. Given all that, they want their lives to end: they want to be out of their misery. Some of these people are kept alive by machines or other medical treatments. If these machines were turned off or the medical interventions stopped, these people would die.

Can it be morally permissible , or not wrong , to turn off these machines or stop treatment and so let someone die, in circumstances like these? Many people think it can be. They believe that, morally, we do not have to do everything we can to keep someone alive, no matter their quality of life or what they want. Indeed, sometimes keeping someone alive, when they could be allowed to die, would be wrong: we really should just let them die.

Here I develop an argument for this view, that what’s usually called “passive euthanasia” can be morally permissible. More interestingly though, I explain how the reasons in favor of passive euthanasia suggest and support thinking that in some circumstances “active euthanasia” is justified, so it can be OK to actively kill some patients, for example, by giving them an overdose of drugs that will painlessly end their lives. So, I argue that if you think it can sometimes be OK and appropriate to let some patients die, then you should also think it can sometimes be OK and appropriate to actively kill some patients.

2. Definitions

Let’s begin with some definitions to better understand the issues.

First, our topic is euthanasia , which is sometimes called “mercy killing.” The word euthanasia relates to the idea of a “good death.” People typically seek euthanasia to avoid a very bad death full of agony, pain, and suffering and all that results from that: for example, people wracked with horrific pain might not be able to meaningfully experience their final days or weeks with loved ones, due to the constant agony: when you are in terrible pain, it’s hard to talk, and listen, and share.

The most common type of euthanasia involves someone euthanizing someone else. Another type involves someone performing euthanasia on themselves, or euthanizing themselves: this is a type of suicide.

Euthanasia is usually classified as three types: voluntary , non-voluntary and involuntary :

Here we will only discuss arguments about voluntary euthanasia, but readers can thoughtfully extend that discussion to the unique circumstances of non-voluntary euthanasia. Since involuntary euthanasia, passive or active, is generally wrong, it won’t be discussed further.

3. An Argument for Passive Euthanasia

‘No’ suggests that we must always do everything we can to keep someone alive, even if they are miserable, want to die, and say so. To many, that’s just cruel. If a dog or cat were in a similar condition, we would do the merciful and humane thing and put them out of their misery: this is perhaps the one way that animals are often treated better than humans.

The judgment that ‘yes, it can be OK to let someone die’ can be supported by both consequentialist (or utilitarian) and Kant-inspired moral reasoning. What Kant himself argued about these issues might be different from what’s argued here: Kant sometimes applied his own moral principles to practical issues in unconvincing ways.

For the consequentialist, the person being out of their misery is a better consequence for them, and overall, than their staying alive: killing them decreases the net unhappiness, pain, and badness in the world. For the Kantian, letting them die respects their autonomy (or personal self-governance): we should respect people’s decisions about profound issues in their own lives. Given their reasonable desires, respecting their wishes treats them as “end in themselves,” but forcing them to live in their unwanted condition treats them as a “mere means” toward our own ends, not their own.

‘Yes’ can also be supported by spelling out conditions in which it can be OK to let someone die. We begin with an ‘if’ and develop a moral principle:

If …

• someone is dying, and
• is in horrible pain and suffering, and
• that pain and suffering cannot be relieved, and
• that person wants to die and clearly says so, and
• informed, thoughtful and caring people agree that the person would be better off no longer living…,

then it can be permissible to let that person die.

To many people, a principle like this seems plausible. And it justifies passive euthanasia in many circumstances.

The details of a principle like this, however, take us to harder questions about euthanasia, harder than those that arise in most circumstances: for examples, what if someone wants to die now but isn’t currently in horrible pain and suffering, or is expecting to die, but many years later after a very slow decline? Should anyone else have “say” over your own life or judge whether some pain and suffering is “horrible enough” for you to reasonably wish to die? If so, who? What if someone isn’t dying and doesn’t even have a bad medical condition but just finds their life not worth living and so wants to die (and so, say, plans to starve themselves to death or do other things that will result in their death)? These harder questions, and others, would need to be addressed for a complete defense of this or similar principles and any arguments based on them.

In sum, a basic case for passive euthanasia can be supported by utilitarian, Kantian and common-sense moral thinking. Let’s consider two objections before moving on to the case for active euthanasia.

3.1. First, some claim that pain can always be controlled, and patients always kept comfortable, so there is never a need to let anyone die (or, of course, actively kill them).

In reply, medical professionals try their best to control pain and make patients comfortable and they often are effective. But the insistence that pain can always be made bearable for everyone is, unfortunately, not true: some patients’ pains cannot be controlled to their own satisfaction.

3.2. Second, some argue that “miracles” are always possible, so there’s always a chance that someone gets better and even survives, and so we shouldn’t let patients die.

These hopes are understandable, but there are conditions that nobody has ever recovered from, and so the chances are very slim. And we don’t usually make important decisions based on very unlikely chances: for example, you could be in an unlikely car accident where a seatbelt harms you, rather than helps you: nevertheless, wearing a seatbelt is the smart choice.

Also, no type of euthanasia, passive or active, would prevent a miracle, especially a genuine miracle involving divine intervention: turning off the machines could be the occasion for a miraculous recovery, and an overdose of painkillers could be miraculously transformed into life-saving medications. People hoping for a miracle shouldn’t forget what miracles really could be.

4. An Argument for Active Euthanasia

The basic argument for active euthanasia, that is, for intentionally killing people who, due to their medical conditions, wish to be killed and say so is fairly simple.

We begin by reflecting on the basic reasons why passive euthanasia can be OK: it gets people out their misery and respects what they want for their own lives. “Letting people die” is a means toward those ends or goals. However, these goals can be pursued more directly and immediately by actively killing patients who wish to die. Letting people die often takes a long time, and that time will often be filled with pain and suffering, which the patient wants to avoid. Killing people, when they want to be killed , achieves the goals that they want, that is, to be out of their misery, more quickly and with less pain. And that is what they want, so they get what they want, quicker.

So, the basic assumptions that less unwanted pain and suffering is typically better than more and people’s desires about profound matters affecting their own lives and deaths usually should be fulfilled sooner than later , and the fact that killing someone is often a more effective means towards those ends, justifies active euthanasia, at least in some circumstances.

5. Objections: Potentially Relevant Differences Between Active and Passive Euthanasia

There are many objections to this type of reasoning, all intended to explain why active euthanasia is wrong but passive euthanasia can be permissible. Let’s consider some of the most common.

5.1. First, some claim that it’s always wrong to intentionally kill someone, so passive euthanasia can be OK but active euthanasia is wrong.

In reply, while we should agree that it’s, at least, nearly always wrong to intentionally kill someone, we should observe that most people want to live and do not currently have lives full of pain, suffering, and misery. So, the rule against killing is good in general, but we can argue that there are justifiable exceptions to this rule and that euthanasia is one of them.

5.2. Second, some argue that allowing active euthanasia puts us on a “slippery slope” to murdering patients, and people in general, who are not in challenging medical circumstances or do not want to die. That’s wrong, so we shouldn’t allow euthanasia, which might lead to that.

In reply, we can rightly wonder why that would happen, since arguments for euthanasia are very specific on the conditions where it might be permissible. They are especially clear that if someone wants to live, they should not be euthanized.

5.3. Third, some argue there is always an important (moral) difference between “allowing” something to happen and “doing” something, and so passive euthanasia is OK but active is not.

We might wonder if there is a clear distinction here. Consider this example:

You see that someone is about to unknowingly walk and fall into a deep pit in the ground. You could easily warn them of the pit, but you keep quiet and they fall in and are seriously injured. You tell yourself that if you had pushed them into the pit, you’d be blameworthy, but since you have “done nothing” you are completely blameless.

Many would find this judgment unbelievable: you did do something: what you did was stay silent and not warn them of the pit. “Inaction” is itself an action: doing nothing is doing something . Furthermore, what you did (in “doing nothing”) was wrong. It would often be worse for you to push the person into the pit yourself (or maybe not?), but your letting them fall in was wrong: you partially caused their injury: had you acted differently, they wouldn’t have gotten hurt.

Examples like these suggest that there are not clear moral or conceptual differences between doing something and allowing something to happen . The objection above mistakenly assumes there are.

5.4. There’s an important (moral) difference between killing and letting die, and so passive euthanasia is OK but active is not.

This final objection is similar to the previous. James Rachels famously responds with an example like this:

An evil aunt will inherit lots of money if her five-year-old nephew dies. She plans to drown him in the bathtub and make it look like an accident. She will get away with it. He just started his bath and she’s on her way to the bathroom to drown him. She opens the bathroom door and is delighted to see that he has slipped in the bathtub and is drowning. She watches, ready to push him under if he steadies himself and is able to save his own life. But, as her luck would have it, he doesn’t and so he drowns. She never touches him throughout the ordeal and inherits the cash, never telling a soul what happened.

What an awful story. What an awful aunt. Her motives were awful and what she did was wrong. If she explained that she didn’t “do anything,” that she didn’t do anything wrong, that, at best, she merely “let someone die” – it’s not like she killed anyone! – she is profoundly mistaken: letting someone die can be just as bad (or nearly as bad) as killing someone. We might even say that a way to kill someone is to let them die.

The objection here depends on a clear moral distinction between killing and letting die. There is no such distinction.

5.5. Mistakes are possible, so we shouldn’t allow euthanasia.

A final objection is not to the ethics of euthanasia per se, but whether, as a social or legal policy, it should be allowed: it’s possible that we could think an action is, or can be, morally permissible, but that for various reasons, as society we shouldn’t allow it.

The concern is that where active euthanasia is allowed, some people who should not be killed could be killed. This is true: this is a possibility. It’s also true that where passive euthanasia is allowed, some people could be let die who should be kept alive. The argument is that since mistakes and wrongdoing regarding euthanasia are always possible, we should not allow it as a society. (This is consistent with thinking that euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible).

In reply, we cannot ignore the opposing truth that if euthanasia is not allowed, that would result in mistakes and wrongdoing also: people would be wrongly kept alive, and wrongly forced to endure more suffering than they can bear and their deepest desires for their own lives disrespected.

These possible mistakes, unlike the possible mistakes in allowing euthanasia, however, cannot be corrected or addressed by any safeguards or precautions, if euthanasia is not allowed. The wisest strategy then is to allow euthanasia, with limits and safeguards, and work to ensure that any mistakes and wrongdoing are minimized, and hopefully prevented completely.

6. Conclusions

There are, of course, more objections to these arguments, and other important arguments and concerns to discuss, and factual information to review, to have genuinely responsible views about these matters: this essay is just a start.

These issues of this essay are important and not just for people currently facing difficulties where euthanasia might be part of the response. These issues are important to all of us since we have no idea what will happen to us, and our loved ones, years down the road, tomorrow, or even later today: an accident or illness might befall us that forces us to ask and answer hard questions about whether our lives are still worth living. While we hope these questions aren’t forced on us, we should ask them now and work on answering them now, together and as individuals. Part of a good death is that it is an end of a good life, and an opportunity to begin a better life is always now.

James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” New England Journal of Medicine 1975; 292: 78-80.

For Further Reading

Young, Robert, “Voluntary Euthanasia”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/ >.

Cholbi, Michael, “Suicide”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/suicide/ >.

Woollard, Fiona and Howard-Snyder, Frances, “Doing vs. Allowing Harm”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/doing-allowing/ >.

For Review and Discussion

1. What are the reasons someone might their life to end? Are those reasons strong enough to support their ending their life? Why or why not?

2. We regularly euthanize non-human animals, but euthanizing people is limited to certain countries (most notably The Netherlands). Is there a major difference between non-human animals and people that justifies our different use of euthanasia? Why or why not?

3. What is the strongest argument opposed to allowing active euthanasia? Is this argument stronger than the arguments in favor of active euthanasia? Why or why not?

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Euthanasia: 100, 200 and 300 Words Samples

• Updated on  
• Feb 22, 2024

Essay on Euthanasia: Euthanasia refers to the act of killing a person without any emotions or mercy. Euthanasia is an ethnically complex and controversial topic, with different perspectives and legal regulations on different topics. School students and individuals preparing for competitive exams are given assigned topics like essays on euthanasia. The objective of such topics is to check the candidate’s perspectives and what punishment should be morally and legally right according to them. 

If you are assigned an essay on euthanasia, it means your examiner or teacher wants to know your level of understanding of the topic. In this article, we will provide you with some samples of essays on euthanasia. Feel free to take ideas from the essays discussed below.

Master the art of essay writing with our blog on How to Write an Essay in English .

Table of Contents

• 1 Essay on Euthanasia in 150 Words
• 2.1 Euthanasia Vs Physician-Assisted Suicide
• 2.2 Euthanasia Classification
• 3 Is Euthanasia Bad?

Essay on Euthanasia in 150 Words

Euthanasia or mercy killing is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life.  This term was coined by Sir Francis Bacon. Different countries have their perspectives and laws against such harmful acts. The Government of India, 2016, drafted a bill on passive euthanasia and called it ‘The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patient’s Bill (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners). 

Euthanasia is divided into different classifications: Voluntary, Involuntary and Non-Voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, with the patient’s consent. On one side, some supporters argue for an individual’s right to autonomy and a dignified death. On the other hand, the opponents raise concerns about the sanctity of life, the potential for abuse, and the slippery slope towards devaluing human existence. The ethical debate extends to questions of consent, quality of life, and societal implications.

Also Read: Essay on National Science Day for Students in English

Essay on Euthanasia in 350 Words

The term ‘Euthanasia’ was first coined by Sir Francis Bacon, who referred to an easy and painless death, without necessarily implying intentional or assisted actions. In recent years, different countries have come up with different approaches, and legal regulations against euthanasia have been put forward. 

In 2016, the government of India drafted a bill, where euthanasia was categorised as a punishable offence. According to Sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, any attempt to commit suicide and abetment of suicide is a punishable offence. However, if a person is brain dead, only then he or she can be taken off life support only with the help of family members.

Euthanasia Vs Physician-Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia is the act of intentionally causing the death of a person to relieve their suffering, typically due to a terminal illness or unbearable pain. 

Physician-assisted suicide involves a medical professional providing the means or information necessary for a person to end their own life, typically by prescribing a lethal dose of medication.

In euthanasia, a third party, often a healthcare professional, administers a lethal substance or performs an action directly causing the person’s death.

It is the final decision of the patient that brings out the decision of their death.

Euthanasia Classification

Voluntary Euthanasia

It refers to the situation when the person who is suffering explicitly requests or consents to euthanasia. A patient with a terminal illness may express his or her clear and informed desire to end their life to a medical professional.

Involuntary

It refers to the situation when euthanasia is performed without the explicit consent of the person, often due to the individual being unable to communicate their wishes.

Non-Voluntary

In this situation, euthanasia is performed without the explicit consent of the person, and the person’s wishes are unknown.

Active euthanasia refers to the deliberate action of causing a person’s death, such as administering a lethal dose of medication.

It means allowing a person to die by withholding or withdrawing treatment or life-sustaining measures.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are a defeat for all. We are called never to abandon those who are suffering, never giving up but caring and loving to restore hope. — Pope Francis (@Pontifex) June 5, 2019

Also Read: Essay on Cleanliness

Is Euthanasia Bad?

Euthanasia is a subjective term and its perspectives vary from person to person. Different cultures, countries and religions have their own set of values and beliefs. Life is sacred and gifted to us by god or nature. Therefore, intentionally causing death goes against moral and religious beliefs. 

However, some people have raised concerns about the potential for a slippery slope, where the acceptance of euthanasia could lead to the devaluation of human life, involuntary euthanasia, or abuse of the practice. Some even argue that euthanasia conflicts with their traditional medical ethics of preserving life and prioritizing the well-being of the patient.

Today, countries like the Netherlands and Belgium have legalised euthanasia. In India, the USA and the UK, it is a punishable offence with varying sentences and fines. Euthanasia is a complex and controversial topic and creating a law against or for it requires a comprehensive study by experts and the opinions of all sections of society. 

Ans: Euthanasia refers to the act of killing a person without any emotions or mercy. Euthanasia is an ethnically complex and controversial topic, with different perspectives and legal regulations on different topics.

Ans: The term ‘Euthanasia’ was first coined by Sir Francis Bacon, who referred to an easy and painless death, without necessarily implying intentional or assisted actions. In recent years, different countries have come up with different approaches, and legal regulations against euthanasia have been put forward.  In 2016, the government of India drafted a bill, where euthanasia was categorised as a punishable offence. According to Sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, any attempt to commit suicide and abetment of suicide is a punishable offence. However, if a person is brain dead, only then he or she can be taken off life support only with the help of family members.

Ans: Belgium and the Netherlands have legalised euthanasia. However, it is banned in India.

Related Articles

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.

Shiva Tyagi

With an experience of over a year, I've developed a passion for writing blogs on wide range of topics. I am mostly inspired from topics related to social and environmental fields, where you come up with a positive outcome.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Sensitive Topics: How to Write a Mercy Killing Essay

Don’t Forget to Study a Sample Argumentative Euthanasia Essay

If you have no idea how to approach the topic, you may try and find some examples on the Internet. Although it will be a really bad decision to copy/paste any of them and try to pass it for your own writing, reading one may provide you with the much necessary insight and help you get to grips with the issue. If you have a strong opinion on the subject, you should probably look for an example of argumentative essay that promotes another point of view – when you see how wrong the author is and in what respects, it will be easier for you to build up your own argumentation.

Your Own Take on Mercy Killing Essay

There are a lot of possible approaches you may use when dealing with the topic of euthanasia. But whatever opinion you share, don’t forget that you shouldn’t found your essay on emotions, no matter how much this particular topic asks for it. What you need is real argumentation, supported with facts, statistics, examples from real life and so on. For example, if you support euthanasia, you may mention the number of patients slowly dying of incurable diseases with no hope for recovery who could be otherwise spared the pain and indignity of their position if they were allowed to die. If you are against it, you may mention the examples of people waking up from coma long after the doctors had given up on them and told their loved ones that they may just as well pull the plug on them. Study a sample argumentative essay on the topic and think about the arguments presented by another person – maybe you can disprove them? As you may see, the possibilities are boundless, especially if you have a strong opinion on the subject in question.

Our statistics

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

An Ethical and Judicial Framework for Mercy Killing on the Battlefield - copie

Related Papers

Regina Surber

This MA thesis deals with the following problem: All combatants in an international armed conflict may be killed at any time, irrespective of their activity, dressing in uniform or civilian close, location, being armed or unarmed, voluntary or involuntary conscription, age, etc. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) does not distinguish between the different potential statuses or situations of combatants. The study carefully and systematically assesses the legal status quo regarding the right of combatants to harm or kill enemy combatants under almost any circumstances. Secondly, the author challenges the above mentioned lack of differentiation by an analysis of the moral underpinnings of the relevant bodies of law and also by a more general philosophical critique of the ‘jus ad bellum - jus in bello’ distinction. With regard to the license of combatants to kill enemy combatants, the author shows that the declared moral principles and underpinnings of IHL, if applied coherently, demand a much more nuanced and differentiated manner to evaluate the status of combatants. The author also formulates suggestions how this humanitarian deficiency could be corrected.

Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation

Angela Kallhoff

Kallhoff, Angela. "Justifiable Killing in War? For Taking the Soldier's Stance Seriously in War Ethics." Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society–J-RaT 4.1 (2018): 6-20. The paper builds on a current debate in the philosophy of war, which are rules that contribute to the containment of war and to a system of fair rules in warfare. Both are key issues in the “jus in bello” as a central part of war ethics. Recently, philosophers have questioned a general exculpation of soldiers in that context. Instead of restricting the debate on “justifiable killing” to the “jus ad bellum,”which explores moral restrictions in starting warfare, philosophers examine moral implications when soldiers kill in war. Even though epistemic limitations and duties of soldiers need to be taken into account, the paper argues for a more detailed exploration of acts of killing in war by soldiers.

John R Goss

Violent conflict among human beings is, unfortunately, one of the great constants in our history as a species. As far back as we can see, the human species has engaged in war and other forms of organized violence. But it is equally true that, as far back as human culture and thought have left written records, humans have engaged in thought about morality and ethics. Although cultures vary widely in how they interpret death and killing from a moral and religious perspective, every human culture has recognized that taking human life is a morally grave matter; every human culture has felt the need to justify taking of life in moral and religious terms.

SSRN Electronic Journal

Brigit Toebes

Philosophy & Public Affairs

Israel Law Review

E. Benvenisti

Brown, J. (2019) Deciding who lives and who dies: a moral framework for the apportionment of lethal risk in just humanitarian wars. Birkbeck College, University of London.

James Brown

The Just War Tradition has evolved over time to reflect the differing forms of war, and the sovereigns involved in it. Throughout this tradition, risk has played a key role as the mechanism that allows a non-combatant to be come a combatant and use lethal force. In the modern day, Western states are increasingly accused of engaging in "risk-transfer" warfare, through which they transfer risk away from the own soldiers and onto enemy soldiers and local civilians. Commentators such as Paul Khan, Gregoire Chamayou and Martin Shaw have argued that this undermines the moral right of Western soldiers to use lethal force in the first place. This piece builds a history and moral narrative of the Just War Tradition to date, then advances a version of JWT to apply to the modern humanitarian intervention. It builds a comprehensive understanding that risk plays in the moral framework, then critically disassembles the risk framework, arguing instead that risk cannot be the legitimator for lethal force. Instead, it must be causal liability and self-defence that act as the legitimator for lethal force, and this piece builds a new framework for how this should look.

Social Science Research Network

Michael O. Attah

Kristin Bergtora Sandvik

The experiences of multinational engagements in Kosovo in the late 1990s, and then more recently Afghanistan from 2001 and Iraq from 2003, have led to a political debate about the linkage between legality and legitimacy. At the heart of contemporary political and academic discourses about war are questions about the scope and content of the law of armed conflict. Considerably less attention has been given to another mode of regulating warfare, namely Rules of Engagement (ROE), despite their operational significance. This article seeks to begin to bridge this knowledge gap by examining ROE as a means to achieving greater legal accountability for the use of force against civilians. To that end, the article aims to do two things: first, to use examples from the US and the multinational context to develop a typology of the various issues that might affect ROE adversely in a legal accountability perspective, either as a background context or through the deployment and use of ROE itself; and second, to look at ways of rearticulating ROE, setting them on a path toward a more standardized and judicialized form of accountability. Journal of Military Ethics, Volume 13, Issue 2, 2014

Journal of Applied Philosophy

Sara Van Goozen

According to International Humanitarian Law and many writing on just war theory, combatants who foresee that their actions will harm or kill innocent non-combatants are required to take some steps to reduce these merely foreseen harms. However, because often reducing merely foreseen harms place burdens on combatants – including risk to their lives – this requirement has been criticised for requiring too much of combatants. One reason why this might be the case is that combatants have duties to each other and to their compatriots, such as duties to keep them safe, which are weighty enough to override their duties to foreign non-combatants. In this article, I argue that arguments against the requirement to limit merely foreseen harms which rely on combatants' associative duties fail to establish that it is permissible for combatants to prioritise their own safety over the reduction of merely foreseen harms. Although the argument based on associative duties might work in individual cases, factors peculiar to the situation of combatants mean that such justifications are not normally available to them.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Military Ethics

Cecile Fabre

Human Rights Review

Dr. Shameer Modongal

Ayodeji Perrin

Oxford Bibliographies Online

George Lucas

David Rodin

yitzhak benbaji

Christian Nikolaus Braun

Masters of Arts

Timothy W Shaw

International Review of the Red Cross

Jean-Marie Henckaerts

Gabriel Udoh

Jovan Babic

Jeff McMahan

Jeff Montrose

Philosophy Compass

Gregory Reichberg

Trauma monthly

The Muslim World

Khaled M Abou El Fadl

Bart van der Sloot

11 Chi. J. Intl L. 589

Samuel Estreicher

Hansdeep Singh

Dragan Stanar

Jovana Davidovic

Shannon B Ford

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Home / Essay Samples / Health / Euthanasia / The Ethics of Mercy Killing: A Complex Dilemma

The Ethics of Mercy Killing: A Complex Dilemma

• Category: Health , Life
• Topic: Death , Ethical Dilemma , Euthanasia

Pages: 3 (1495 words)

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Universal Health Care Essays

Sleep Essays

Underage Drinking Essays

Old Age Essays

Digestive System Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->