"The Debate around Legalizing Euthanasia" is a wonderful example of a paper on medical ethics. The research process required me to identify a topic from a list of problems shared by my professor. I chose to address the topic of Euthanasia after reading a report by the Institue of Medicine that suggested that it was essential to understand the options available for dying patients and their families and understand the experience of dying. According to the report, people should create supportive environments for people about to die and their families that ensure that they die free of available pain and find the peace that is significant to them.
While I did not have a personal connection to euthanasia, I was curious why most physicians and healthcare professionals advocate for it. My targeted audience was my colleagues, researchers, healthcare providers, and professors. I paid attention to their demographic attributes like their education, beliefs, and gender while choosing what language to use in my research process. Overall, I avoided medical jargon by using simple English, gender-neutral language to attract all genders in my audience, and an active voice to relay my points clearly. Concerning, the research synthesis which is the process of combining findings from various primary researches aimed at testing the thesis statement, I used both quantitative and qualitative methods of research. For my writing process, I gave myself deadlines to complete a research outline to prevent back-racking and repetition.
Producing the first draft. For this stage, I sort optimum writing conditions and written in plain English. I revised my draft to confirm whether my analysis was conclusive. I also did a self-critique and asked colleagues to critique my work during the research process.
I then edited my document by looking at it with a critical eye to spot any problems in the sentence structures and grammar. I then proofread to confirm that my heading, cations, and references were correct. I finalized by presenting the proof rad paper to my professor. I learned that I could not write in noisy places and that I was easily distracted. My greatest strength was that I developed a keen interest in the topic and dedicated a fair amount of m time studying, which proves my commitment.
Given more time, I would utilize data obtained from interviews with terminally ill patients n their thoughts about euthanasia. My time was limited and so was my ability to access the patients. Euthanasia Research Process Our previous discussion demonstrated that people on both sides of the debate on euthanasia care about patients with terminal illnesses and want to prevent pain. The varying opinions are because some people argue that euthanasia abuses the autonomy of human rights and is morally and ethically wrong. It should be banned across the nation.
While others argue that is rooted in the idea that human beings are free to choose a peaceful life over a life not worth living full of pain (Lyon 2015). Our study maintains that legalizing euthanasia would not be beneficial to patients, moreover, it is ethically wrong and should be banned across the nation. The Debate Around Legalizing Euthanasia The word euthanasia is a greek word that means good death. It is the intentional killing by act or omissions of a patient for their alleged benefit (Goel, 2008).
It encompasses active, passive, voluntary, and involuntary dimensions, depending on death's cause (Math, S, & Chaturvedi, 2012). The request for euthanasia has led to the debate about its legalization. Although some states in the United States like Oregon, Washington, and Montana have legalized active euthanasia, the Netherlands is the only country where euthanasia is practiced openly (Chao, Chan & Chan, 2002). Physicians in the Netherlands cannot be prosecuted if they engage in euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. One of the most apparent issues of legalizing euthanasia in the Netherlands is the slippery slope phenomenon (Chao, Chan & Chan, 2002).
Studies from the Netherlands indicate that legalizing euthanasia in the country has placed many people at risk. They argue that if the trend continues, it will involve the mentally ill, racial unwanted, and socially unproductive. True to the beliefs, in 1993, a doctor in the country gave a lethal l injection to a baby girl with a birth defect with her parents' consent (Chao, Chan & Chan, 2002). It proves that accepting euthanasia may give rise to situations that undermine the rights of vulnerable patients and will coarsen society to condone greater sins. Moreover, euthanasia should not be legalized because physicians have an ethical duty not to kill, and patients lose trust in their physicians.
Additionally, an action whose sole intention is to kill is inherently wrong despite pain and suffering (Ebrahimi, 2012). Furthermore, it limits patients' autonomy because terminally ill patients think that it is the only option to relieve their pain and suffering yet there are other options to relieve pain such as palliative care. Conversely, advocates for euthanasia argue that euthanasia promotes patients' autonomy and is a form of respect for patients that allows them to chose death over a life of pain and suffering (Lyon, 2015).
They add that patients have a right to self-determination which gives them a right to refuse treatment/ Conclusion We need to strengthen accountability for the quality of care given to dying patients because most patients that request euthanasia do so because of unbearable pain. The pain can be relieved through palliative and contemporary therapeutics, thus preventing their desire to die. Euthanasia should not be an option, it eradiates autonomy, prevents risks, and is morally wrong.
Chao, D. V. K., Chan, N. Y., & Chan, W. Y. (2002). Euthanasia revisited. Family Practice, 19(2), 128-134.
Ebrahimi, N. (2012). The ethics of euthanasia. Aust Med Stud J, 3, 73-5.
Goel, V. (2008). Euthanasia A dignified end of life!. International NGO Journal, 3(12), 224-231.
Lyon, N. (2015). Protecting Patients' Autonomy: Supporting the "Right to Die"." Sound Decisions: An Undergraduate Bioethics Journal 1(1), 2.
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.