Euthanasia Argued with Utilitarianism Essay Example for Free

Euthanasia Argued with Utilitarianism EssayThe term mercy killing originated from the Greek word for good death. It is the act or practice of ending the life of a person either by lethal injection or the suspension of medical treatment. Because of this many enamor euthanasia as simply bringing relief by alleviating pain and excruciation (1). I strongly agree in legalizing euthanasia in our society, and I provide be applying the ethical doctrine Utilitarianism to reserve my case. Euthanasia minimizes the suffering that affects those involved. Euthanasia is already legal in Holland, Luxembourg and Belgium, and permitted in Switzerland if performed by a non-doctor. In the US, the State of Washington, Montana, and Oregon withdraw already passed laws in support of euthanasia while a recent Gallop poll finds that the vast majority of Americans continue to support right-to-die laws for terminally ill uncomplainings. The spare-time activity benefits to legalizing euthanasia are patients are justd from unwanted suffering, free up the nurses and doctors time for savable patients, vital variety meat can be saved, allowing doctors to save the lives of others, and health care cost would be falld.Certain diseases are incurable and result in a slow agonizing death. What is the purpose to suffer endlessly till the eubstance gives out? Imagine what it would be like to spend six months, or more, vomiting, coughing, enduring pain spasms, and suffering psychologically as well. Would it not minimize suffering, for the patient and the family and friends involved, to give the patient the option to say when they had ample? Patients can die with dignity rather than have the illness reduce them to a shell of their actor selves, and lessen the suffering of their family and friends. I also believe the right to die should be a unfathomed freedom of each person. Nowhere in the constitution does it imply that the government has the right to keep a person from committing suicide. After all, if the patient and the family agree its what they want to do, whose business is it anyway? Who else is it going to hurt? In a country thats supposedly free, this should be a fundamental right.Furthermore, we face a critical deficit of medical staff in this country right now, especially nurses. Recent studies from the pass five socio-economic class have confirmed the obvious, that understaffed hospitals make more mistakes and provide lesser timbre care. This when considered under the utile doctrine is immoral because it contributes to the overall utility that maximizes the suffering, and the moral goal is to maximize the good overall. Things are single going to get worse as the baby boom generation gets older and life spans increase. creation more productive with the nurses and doctors time, the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people can be achieve, because the quality of care will increase and many lives can be saved with the time that was fre ed up. In appendix to increasing the quality of care in hospitals, Vital organs can also be saved, allowing doctors to save the lives of others.Euthanasia allows physicians to preserve vital organs that can be donated to others, assuming the patients are organ donors. heap in need of organ transplants have long waiting lists to look forward to for hearts, kidneys, livers, and other organs that are necessary to save the lives of people who can be saved. However, if certain diseases are allowed to run their wide-cut course, the organs may weaken or cease to function altogether. Once again, we have to put the postulate of the living ahead of the needs of the dying. Finally, healthcare cost will be reduced, which will in turn lower insurance premiums. Consider the huge cost of keeping a dying patient alive for several months.You must pay for x-rays, lab tests, drugs, medical staff salaries, etc. The overall lucre worth is monstrously high. It is not unheard of for medical costs to equal $50,000-100,000 to keep some patients alive. We have to ask ourselves, is this the best way to spend our money when the patient himself would like to die? Wouldnt the money be better spent on the patients that can be saved? Also, consider the drag on a dying patients net worth. Most people want to be able to leave their children and grandchildren with something when they die. Medical costs eat into that estate.As Medicare, and other government programs accelerate the US towards bankruptcy, anything that causes a decrease in integral costs must be brought forward for consideration. In conclusion, Euthanasia minimizes the suffering that affects those involved, and should be universally legalized in the US. As I mentioned before patients can die with dignity rather than have the illness reduce them to a shell of their former selves, and lessen the suffering of their family and friends. We can free up the nurses and doctors time for savable patients , and euthanasia allows physic ians to preserve vital organs that can be donated to others. Healthcare costs will be reduced, which will in turn lower insurance premiums.