Claret College of Isabela Roxas Avenue, Isabela City Senior High School Unit

Claret College of Isabela
Roxas Avenue, Isabela City

Senior High School Unit
POSITION PAPER ON
EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE
Proponents:
Alaida A. Amil
Christine Bautista
Alanisa Gandawali
Coleen Kate Ramos
Maida Rahma Salisa
Mr. Georgie P. Santillan

Adviser
In September 2014, a convicted murderer and rapist who argued he
was living a life of unbearable psychological suffering in prison was granted
the right to die under Belgium's liberal euthanasia laws, paving the way for at
least 15 similar requests from other inmates. He did not deserve to die
peacefully without paying for his crime first. He deserved punishment, a
heavy one which would make him realize the weight of his crimes. Ladies and
gentlemen, this is one of the main reasons why we strongly disagree with
euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The definitions of euthanasia and assisted suicide vary.
One useful distinction is: Euthanasia: A doctor is allowed by law to end a
person's life by a painless means, as long as the patient and their family
agree. Assisted suicide: A doctor assists a patient to commit suicide if they
request it.
For example, it could be considered euthanasia if a doctor deliberately

gave a patient with a terminal illness drugs they do not otherwise need for
their comfort, such as an overdose of sedatives or muscle relaxant, with the
sole aim of ending their life. Assisted suicide is the act of deliberately assisting
or encouraging another person to kill themselves. If a relative of a person
with a terminal illness obtained strong sedatives, knowing that the person
intended to use the sedatives to kill themselves, they may be considered to be
assisting suicide.
Euthanasia can be classified as: voluntary euthanasia, where a

person makes a conscious decision to die and asks for help to do so non-
voluntary euthanasia, where a person is unable to give their consent to
treatment (for example, because they're in a coma) and another person takes
the decision on their behalf, often because the ill person previously expressed
a wish for their life to be ended in such circumstances.
Moving on ladies and gentlemen we will be introducing 3 main points as to
why we do not want the euthanasia and assisted suicide to take place.
Number 1, it goes against ethics. Critics of euthanasia claim that no one
has the right to take one’s life and the life of another person and the act of
mercy killing, despite the good intentions, violates this. There is often doubt
about whether Euthanasia is really what the patient wants- sometimes they
are too ill to make rational decisions. To commit euthanasia is to fail to see
the intrinsic worth or dignity of the person. The judgement that what has
worth, intrinsically, somehow does not have worth, is both logically and
morally wrong.
The ethics of euthanasia is based on dualistic anthropology and wrong
moral presuppositions underlying the defence of euthanasia, namely,
proportionalism and consequentialism. The basic claim of proponents of the
ethics of euthanasia is that human persons are consciously experiencing
subjects whose dignity consists of their ability to make choices and to
determine their own lives. Bodily life, according to them, is a condition for
personal life because without bodily life one cannot be a consciously
experiencing subject. It means that bodily life is distinct from personal
life. Such procedures are not private decisions; they affect the whole society.
Death with dignity, in the end, is the realisation that human beings are also
spiritual beings. We have to promote the way of caring for the dying in which
mercy is extended to the patients without inducing death. Such procedures
are not private decisions; they affect the whole society. Death with dignity, in
the end, is the realisation that human beings are also spiritual beings. We
have to promote the way of caring for the dying in which mercy is extended
to the patients without inducing death.
2. It is against the oath of physicians. People in health care have the

responsibility to save lives and keep others healthy. Doctors take the
Hippocratic Oath, which means that they are obliged to preserve life wherever
possible. With euthanasia, doctors or physicians who practice this act are
violating their oath to preserve lives and not do harm unto others. This act is
a clear opposition to the principles of medicine which is to provide cure for
illnesses and render care to patients.
The Hippocratic Oath included, among other things, the following

words: "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will
I make a suggestion to this effect." "Primum non nocere. First, do no harm.
Medical students have been taking this vow since Hippocrates came up with it
in ancient Greece in the fifth century B.C. It is universally acknowledged to be
the foundation of Western medicine. The statement above is the foundational
moral principle of medicine, pledged by doctors for centuries as they attempt
to cure and relieve suffering without injuring the patient. It’s a principle being
eroded by the movement to legalize physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and
euthanasia. When combined with an impersonal and technological healthcare
system, the movement to support PAS has proven lethal. Prescribed suicide is
an immoral slippery slope that corrupts the doctor-patient trust. Put simply,
it’s dangerous. And it's not just dangerous for the physicians and healthcare
workers, but it's also dangerous for our country, our healthcare system and
for every patient."
Last argument ladies and gentlemen is that euthanasia is a rejection

of the importance and value of human life. People who support
euthanasia often say that it is already considered permissible to take human
life under some circumstances such as self-defences - but they miss the point
that when one kills for self- defences they are saving innocent life - either
their own or someone else's. With euthanasia no one's life is being saved - life
is only taken. History has taught us the dangers of euthanasia and that is why
there are only two countries in the world today where it is legal. That is why
almost all societies - even non-religious ones - for thousands of years have
made euthanasia a crime. It is remarkable that euthanasia advocates today
think they know better than the billions of people throughout history who
have outlawed euthanasia.
Also euthanasia can urge other people to do the same. Euthanasia, like
suicide has a psychological effect on people and society. According to experts,
people with family members who have committed suicide are prone to doing
the same and this also goes with the act of mercy killing. If society will accept
it as a normal practice, it can influence more people to consider euthanasia.
This can be bad especially if the sickness was wrongly diagnosed but the
patient was already euthanized.
REFUTATION
Mercy for a hopelessly ill and suffering patient and, in the case of
voluntary euthanasia, respect for autonomy, have been the primary reasons
given by those who have argued for the moral permissibility of euthanasia.
Today, there is widespread popular support for some forms of euthanasia and
many contemporary philosophers have argued that euthanasia is morally
defensible.
They continuously argue that euthanasia means that people who have a
bad quality of life, for example people with terminal diseases that are in
constant pain, do not have to live like that anymore. It costs a lot of money to
keep brain-dead people on life-support machines. And our answer to this
would be Euthanasia is seen as murder in lots of countries, and murder is
against the law.
It is implied in the Human Rights act that everyone has the right to die.
Euthanasia is much more dignified than dying slowly of a degenerative illness.
But no, this is wrong because accepting Euthanasia, we are saying that
people who are disabled and ills lives are worth less than normal people.
Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors- they may use it to a
disadvantage and kill lots of people they want dead under the umbrella of
'Euthanasia'
CONCLUSION
Allowing Euthanasia puts pressure on ill people to end their lives so that
they are no longer a burden to their families. They may also feel moral
pressure to free up medical resources. If we do not allow Euthanasia we will
not have this problem. Campaigning to end certain people's lives doesn't end
suffering – it passes on the suffering to other similar people, who now have to
fear they are the next people in line to be seen as having worthless lives.
Seeing suicide as a solution for some illnesses can only undermine the
willingness of doctors and society to learn how to show real compassion and
address patients' pain and other problems. There would be other long-term
consequences of legalising euthanasia that we cannot yet envisage. We can
be sure that these consequences would be pernicious, however, because they
would emanate from an initiative which, while nobly motivated, is wrong in
principle - attempting to deal with the problems of human beings by killing
them."
The empirical slippery slope cannot be ignored when one looks at the
facts across the world… [T]here remains a real possibility of the extension of
euthanasia to infants, those with mental incapacities or disabilities, and the
elder. Denying euthanasia honours the sanctity of life and the equal,
underived, intrinsic moral worth of all persons, including the very weakest
who can no longer contribute to society – principles of which so many other
laws pivot." One might say that it is an individual’s right to choose whether
when he/ she dies but no. Ladies and gentlemen, let me ask you, is there
more sacred than life on this earth? With this, our team proudly opposes the
idea of euthanasia and assisted suicide or the so-called mercy-killing.

Claret College of Isabela Roxas Avenue, Isabela City Senior High School Unit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Claret College of Isabela Roxas Avenue, Isabela City Senior High School Unit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Claret College of Isabela Roxas Avenue, Isabela City Senior High School Unit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Claret College of Isabela

Roxas Avenue, Isabela City

Mr. Georgie P. Santillan

For example, it could be considered euthanasia if a doctor deliberately

Euthanasia can be classified as: voluntary euthanasia, where a

2. It is against the oath of physicians. People in health care have the

The Hippocratic Oath included, among other things, the following

Last argument ladies and gentlemen is that euthanasia is a rejection

You might also like