Euthanasia: Why It Should Be Permitted Under Law
This paper examines the case for permitting euthanasia under a defined legal framework. Drawing on ethical, medical, and financial considerations, the paper argues that mercy killing can be a reasonable course of action for patients with incurable conditions who face severe pain and diminished dignity. The discussion covers the definition and scope of euthanasia, arguments in its favor including patient dignity and cost burdens on families, and key opposing viewpoints concerning abuse and the "duty to die." The paper also analyzes euthanasia through a virtue ethics lens, concluding that while the debate remains contentious, carefully constructed legal structures can mitigate risks and protect patient rights.
- Introduction: Euthanasia introduced as a hotly debated issue
- Euthanasia: An Overview: Definition, scope, and legal status of euthanasia
- Why Euthanasia Should Be Permitted: Arguments from patient dignity and family cost burden
- Opposing Viewpoints: Abuse risk and 'duty to die' counterarguments addressed
- Euthanasia and Virtue Ethics: Virtue ethics framework applied to dignified death
- Conclusion: Call for euthanasia within a clear legal framework
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper maintains a clear, consistent thesis — that euthanasia should be permitted within a legal framework — and returns to it throughout each section.
- It fairly presents opposing arguments (risk of abuse, "duty to die") before rebutting them, demonstrating balanced analytical reasoning rather than one-sided advocacy.
- The inclusion of a virtue ethics section elevates the argument beyond pragmatic or emotional appeals, grounding it in a recognized philosophical framework.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper effectively uses the concession-rebuttal technique: it acknowledges the strongest counterarguments (abuse potential, coercion of the elderly and disabled) and then proposes a concrete solution — well-crafted legislation — rather than dismissing the objections outright. This approach strengthens the overall argument by showing the author has engaged seriously with opposition views.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief introduction establishing the controversy, followed by a definitional overview of euthanasia. The central argumentative section presents two pro-euthanasia claims (dignity and cost). A dedicated opposing viewpoints section then addresses two classical objections before a standalone virtue ethics analysis. A short conclusion synthesizes the discussion and reaffirms the call for a legal framework. The six-section structure is logical and easy to follow.
Introduction
Known as mercy killing in some quarters, euthanasia has over time become one of the most hotly debated issues in medicine and ethics. As with other controversial debates, many arguments have been presented both in support of and in opposition to euthanasia, with those actively involved in the debate basing their viewpoints mainly on ethical, medical, and religious considerations. However, taking into account the various viewpoints that have been presented over time, it would be prudent to permit euthanasia under certain conditions.
Euthanasia: An Overview
According to Thamson (1999), euthanasia is "bringing about someone's death because to do so would be in that person's interests." In most cases, it is those with conditions considered incurable who undergo euthanasia. However, in some scenarios, people may ask that their life be ended for a variety of other reasons, including but not limited to severe pain and mental anguish. Generally, a request for euthanasia is lodged by the individual seeking to have his or her life ended. If a patient is too ill to make such a request — that is, if the patient cannot communicate — such a request may be lodged by the courts, medical professionals, or relatives and family members. In most countries across the world, euthanasia remains illegal.
Why Euthanasia Should Be Permitted
It is important to note that in some cases, physical pain and suffering not only brings about great discomfort but also tends to lower the dignity of the affected individual. In those scenarios where a patient's condition has worsened to a point where the chances of recovery are nil, it defies logic to allow that patient to continue suffering. In such a case, it would be reasonable to administer euthanasia to the suffering individual in order to preserve his or her dignity and spare further pain. Norman, Jackson, and Rosenbaum (2010) capture this argument effectively with their assertion that "sometimes, living with a painful disease may reasonably be seen as worse than death." In such a scenario, the decision to end an individual's life can be made by the suffering individual, the courts, or the patient's relatives, depending on the prevailing circumstances.
Euthanasia should also be permitted for terminally ill patients on cost grounds. A condition that cannot be treated can end up costing a family a significant amount of money in terms of ongoing management and care. Furthermore, critically ill patients on life support may remain in an unconscious state for an extended period without registering any improvement. It would be reasonable in such cases to administer euthanasia so as to ensure that the patient's family is not left destitute upon the patient's eventual death.
Regarding the legal landscape, euthanasia remains illegal in most countries across the world. The only U.S. states permitting euthanasia, according to Norman, Jackson, and Rosenbaum (2010), include Oregon, Washington, and Montana.
Conclusion
Given the entrenched positions adopted by those who support euthanasia and those who oppose it, it is unlikely that the debate will be resolved in the near future. However, based on the discussion above, it is clear that euthanasia in certain instances represents the most reasonable course of action. To guarantee both the rights and dignity of patients, euthanasia should be undertaken within a well-defined legal framework that includes robust safeguards against abuse and coercion.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.