Statement of Issue
Euthanasia should be viewed as not simply a medical procedure carried out based on the principles of healthcare ethics (i.e., terminating the suffering of the patient), but also as an irrefutable right of a person to die.
Research Plan
It is required to identify the key arguments against and in favor of euthanasia. Moreover, it is necessary to nail down the reasons for people to approve of euthanasia or to dismiss it. In order to carry out the analysis of the existing opinions, several ways of viewing the issue must be provided, including ethical, medical and legal ones. It will also be required to consider the recent researches on euthanasia, as well as case studies and court cases. After a thorough literature review is carried out, the discussion of the existing arguments will commence. In the analysis of the claims in favor and against euthanasia, the cause and effect relationships between the factors affecting the choice of euthanasia should be established.
Overview of Claims
Main topic: Euthanasia must be accepted as the procedure that allows for the compliance with one of the basic human rights, i.e., the right to die. Despite the fact that euthanasia is currently prohibited in all states of the USA, it should be noted that self-assisted dying is legal in Washington and several other states (Montana, Oregon, New Mexico and Vermont). While involuntary euthanasia is not to be allowed, euthanasia as the method of terminating the suffering of a patient must be practiced in the U.S. healthcare institutions.
Claim 1:.The right to die is one of the basic human rights that must be appreciated and complied with by the state governmental bodies. Therefore, people should be provided with an opportunity to terminate their suffering in case when medical assistance is impossible.
Type of argument: inductive (Wood, 2015)
Support (use at least one outside source): Lachman, V. (2010). Physician-assisted suicide: Compassionate liberatio or murder? MEDSURG Nursing, 19(2), 121–125.
Claim 2: Though healthcare ethics presupposes that the healthcare specialist must not carry out any actions that will do the patient any harm, it could be argued that in case of a terminal and painful disease the inaction is even more harmful than action; therefore, euthanasia as the action aimed at relieving the patient of their pain can be considered the only ethical step possible.
Type of argument: deductive
Support (use at least one outside source): ANA Center for Ethics and Human Rights. (2013). Position statements: Euthanasia, Assisted suicide and aid in dying. Washington, DC: American Nurses Association.
Claim 3: By claiming that euthanasia should be banned, people care not about the person, who may be suffering more than (s)he can handle, but themselves, i.e., their concept of ethics and the compliance with the existing moral code, not to mention the threats of legal issues that the introduction of the law may entail. Therefore, when considering the argument, one may dismiss the ethical concerns of the opponents as invalid.
Type of argument:deductive
Support (use at least one outside source): Ebrahimi, N. (2012). The ethics of euthanasia. Australia Medical Student Kournal, 3(1), 73–75.
Conclusion
With the integration of personal and professional responsibility into the U.S. healthcare, as well as the reconsideration of some of the current legislation principles from the perspective of basic human rights (the right to die in particular), one must admit the necessity to consider euthanasia a legal procedure.
References
ANA Center for Ethics and Human Rights. (2013). Position statements: Euthanasia, assisted suicide and aid in dying. Washington, DC: American Nurses Association.
Ebrahimi, N. (2012). The ethics of euthanasia. Australia Medical Student Kournal, 3(1), 73–75.
Lachman, V. (2010). Physician-assisted suicide: Compassionate liberation or murder? MEDSURG Nursing, 19(2), 121–125.
Wood, N. (2015). Perspectives on argument (8th ed.). London, UK: Longman.