Re-Word Essay, English homework help

User Generated

Hmv727

Humanities

Description

Some of the essay is plagiarized, I need someone to reword it. If you need to, delete some sentences in there as the paper only has to be 9 pages. Also I need to add more business aspects to Euthanasia.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Name 1 Uzair Professor Smith English 102-004 November 20, 2016 Ethical Business Argumentative Synthesis Essay http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/euthanasiapoliticalkeyissues/economics/ The opponents of euthanasia strongly agree with the principles of Natural Law. They strongly feel the need to guard the sanctity of life. They believe that people should not have control over their death. The use of treatment and medication to prolong a person’s life is promoted. But, the use of euthanasia is the easy way out. The opposition of euthanasia strongly believes that no amount of pain can outweigh the value of a sacred life. This approach is so strict that it doesn’t compromise with an individual in any way whatsoever. But, the opponents of euthanasia give no importance to the autonomy of an individual which is an extremely important American value. The illegal state of euthanasia contradicts the importance given to autonomy in the United States. Along with that, the government seems to have no concern for the thousands of citizens suffering incurable or terminal illnesses. An article regarding the benefits of euthanasia by Ezekiel J. Emanuel states that “legalizing euthanasia or PAS would benefit by relieving unremitting and excruciating pain 25,000 or fewer of the 2.3 million Americans who die each year” (Emanuel 1999). The country should focus on treating its citizens rather than forcing upon them the belief of Natural Law. The concept of forcing a person to live after knowing that there is no cure for his disease is wrong. Legalizing euthanasia would also help strengthen the relationship between patients and their physicians. Patients need that psychological reassurance of knowing that the physician has an alternative for them if dying is too painful. If a physician is unable to cure his patient’s illness, he needs to at least make sure that they’re able to die peacefully. Unfortunately, the illegal status of euthanasia does not allow a physician to perform his job properly. Unlike the absolute opposing position, this position promotes active euthanasia for a small group of people. It mainly disagrees with the legalization of euthanasia except for those that suffer from a terminal illness. This approach fights for a good cause but it simply does not go far enough. The approach relates to the ethical perspective of utilitarianism by claiming that the legalization of euthanasia will benefit the country. First, it would give peace and satisfaction to the patients’ families by offering a painless death to the patient. The option of euthanasia would also benefit insurance companies and hospitals. As bad as it sounds, a lot of money could be saved when terminally ill patients choose euthanasia instead of treatment. It isn’t bad at all since the euthanasia will be completely voluntary. In addition to that, legalizing euthanasia will allow physicians to make better decisions for dying patients and make it easier for them to gain their patient’s trust. However, it would not be fair for all the people that need euthanasia if only the terminally ill patients get to have it. After all, terminal patients are in pain for a shorter period than those suffering from chronic illnesses that are incurable. The legalization of euthanasia for only terminally ill patients will be controversial rather than being that change everyone agrees with. If it’s only legalized for terminally ill patients, physicians will begin to illegally end other patients’ life as well. As mentioned in the article, Euthanasia and assisted suicide today, by Rita L. Marker, “since doctors are intentionally ending their patients' lives now, it would be far better to legalize the practice so that there could be safeguards” (Marker 59). This has been the case in all of America since the limited legalization of euthanasia in Oregon. The illegal practice of euthanasia became popular in the mid-90s when Dr. Kevorkian helped a patient die on live television. Physicians like Kevorkian will practice their profession in their way regardless of what the law says. Why not make it legal for everyone that needs it to safeguard the reputation of our country. The point is to legalize the practice of euthanasia so it can be practiced under proper guidelines. It doesn’t make sense to legalize it bit by bit; rather, it should be done once and it should be done thoroughly. Another extreme side of this spectrum is the people who want to legalize euthanasia for almost anyone and everyone. This absolute approach makes complete sense in terms of giving people their ‘right to die’ but, it doesn’t make sense to euthanize people that have no real need to die. This position backs its argument up with an ethical perspective that gives all importance to the self. It is reasonable to say that a person should have the right to make his own decisions. However, there are rules and regulations that a person must follow. A person can do whatever he wants to, but he must be willing to face the consequences of his actions. In this case, just because a person wants to die, it doesn’t mean that he should be given the right to die. Certain criteria should be met; the point is to organize the system to make it fair not to give everyone what they desire and make it absurd. More specifically, if a person can be cured then he shouldn’t need to die. They want euthanasia legalized for people dealing with depression and similar psychological disorders that can be cured. Sometimes, it just takes too long for these people to return to their normal state. But, that doesn’t mean that a physician should agree upon ending that patient’s life. Instead, in such cases, the physician, nurses, and family members should do all it takes to make the patient feel comfortable. They must be able to reassure the patient that he can be normal once again. Moreover, this position also pleads for legalizing euthanasia for old people. Once again, there is no real need for them to die either. Some old people claim that they’re ‘tired of living’ which clearly is not a legitimate reason to use euthanasia. As citizens of America, our job is to benefit one another. We need to make sure that the maximum number of people are happy. But, at the same time, we should consider those people for whom it is impossible to be happy. The qualified proposition presents a proper way of legalizing euthanasia to argue against the ridiculous absolute proposition. Using ethical egoism to justify their reasoning, the qualified proponents of euthanasia choose the neediest of all people that demand euthanasia. This way, there exists a specific criterion for being able to use euthanasia or assisted suicide. The perspective of ethical egoism pushes for euthanasia only when it is needed to be used. The point is to benefit the self in the best way possible. In any case regarding euthanasia, physicians should have tried prolonging life or finding a cure for the illness before performing euthanasia. This process allows physicians to initially agree with the teachings of Natural Law and utilitarianism by trying to maximize the good and respecting the authority of God. But when those approaches fail, euthanasia becomes the last resort; benefiting the self and causing no harm to others. This approach is only applicable to patients suffering from terminal and chronic incurable diseases. For the rest of the patients that also deal with severe pain, physicians must continue to find ways to decrease pain and prolong life. A lawyer with an opinion that was pro-choice might argue that physician-assisted suicide should be legal. Americans are granted multiple rights in this country, and these include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we have the right to life, we should also have the right to end our own life. If someone is in pain and wants to use their right not to be forced to suffer, that should be their decision. We shouldn't have other people making our decisions for us. In a case from a Human Rights magazine, doctors that felt like physician-assisted suicide should be made legal, sued the state of New York to try and make it legal. They argued that “while a competent person has the right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment, another competent patient does not have the right to seek assistance to kill himself.” (Cathy) This quotation illustrates the point of fairness when it comes to ending lives. Other lawyers might argue that the physicians are not trained enough to be the ones to end a person’s life. They don't have the skills to talk to people and show them other options. In the Human Rights magazine, it says that "If a physician must adhere to limiting prescriptions for the primary purpose of relieving suffering, and not have a purpose of hastening death, then you cannot have an open and candid discussion between the patient and the physician, if the patient's objective, is, in fact, to bring about death.” (Cathy) This shows that the discussion between the patient and doctor will not be good enough to make the patient reconsider if they only have death on their minds. The financial prospects of delaying one’s death can be just as important as the easing of the patient’s pain and suffering as medical costs are never cheap. In one paper composed by Leo Chan of the Department of Finance and Economics at Woodbury School of Business, Utah Valley University and Donal Lien of the Department of Economics at the University of Texas at San Antonio a theoretical model is proposed to measure the economic costs and benefits to physician-assisted suicide. “Since the benefits of euthanasia are derived from avoiding pain and suffering associated with additional treatment and medications, making life after a terminal illness diagnosis painless will certainly reduce the potential benefits of euthanasia.” (Chan, Lien) This means that in a situation where a patient is diagnosed with a terminal illness the level of pain is a direct factor in determining the price of life versus the price of death. Debates over euthanasia continue today. It focuses on the fact that it is a patient’s right to die with dignity by avoiding unendurable pain. The absolute proponents of euthanasia give importance to personal autonomy and bodily integrity. They argue that the law against euthanasia contradicts a person’s right to liberty. The United States of America has written many of its laws that follow the rules of Christianity. The country was established as a ‘Christian Nation’ and still, holds most of its Christian values today. One of the main reasons for assisted suicide being illegal in America today is that Christianity does not approve of it. Christians, like the people of most other religions, believe that life is a gift from God. The belief is that we, as human beings, do not have the choice to die when we want. Life was provided by God and can only be taken away by the will of God. We, as human beings, don’t and shouldn’t have any control over our own death. Along with claiming that committing suicide is disrespecting the authority of God, the opposition to assisted suicide believes that the option of assisted suicide diverts people’s minds in the wrong direction. Instead of being given the option of assisted suicide, John. M. Strate, a Ph.D in political science, states in his article that, “those who want to die must be protected from PAS and from making the wrong moral choice; the desire to die is irrational, caused by depression, pain or other kinds of suffering that require medical, including psychiatric, diagnosis and treatment” (28). He believes that no one should want to die; rather, they should look for means to help them live for as much longer as possible. He also believes that no matter what it is that people are suffering from, their only option is to receive treatment for it. If the treatment will not cure the disease, nevertheless extend a person’s time on Earth then, treatment is the best option. Even if the treatment is more painful than no treatment and far more painful than assisted suicide, the person should still choose treatment. By doing so, the patient is doing what he is supposed to do. The absolute opponents of euthanasia believe in the intense religious approach that a person never had any other choice, to begin with; he must accept whatever life must offer. Religion explains that life does not belong to us, it belongs to God. The law on euthanasia makes complete sense from a religious point of view. However, it seems a bit too extreme from any other point of view. Religion should be promoted but it should not be forced upon anyone. First, not everyone believes in religion. Those that do believe in it have at least a basic idea of its rules. Yet, if they still choose to go against their religion, then that is between them and God. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have laws at all. Religion simply encourages people to do the right thing but doesn’t stop them from the doing the wrong thing. Laws are made to prevent crime and maintain discipline. Assisted suicide should not be considered a crime because it doesn’t cause any harm. It only minimizes harm for the patients that want to die. Critics would argue that it does harm the society. However, protecting the society’s image is not more important than ending an individual’s excruciating physical pain. It should be acceptable to help an innocent in hastening their death to prevent harm. The qualified opponents of euthanasia felt the need to legalize assisted suicide for a small number of people. The need to legalize it was initially brought to the public’s attention in the early 1990’s. Dr. Jack Kevorkian and his supporters appealed for the legalization of assisted suicide in America. All appeals were ignored by the government and the American Medical Association. It wasn’t until much later that they had considered legalizing assisted suicide in some parts of America. After a long wait, Oregon legalized assisted suicide in 1995, becoming the first state ever to do so (Kaveny 125). Even today, Oregon is the only state where assisted suicide is legal. Regardless of the rules and regulations, by 1996, Dr. Kevorkian took part in assisting the deaths of over 50 people in various parts of America (Kaveny 125). His attitude brought many supporters, but it also angered many others. At that time, most his patients were terminally ill or suffering from diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s or Alzheimer’s. He believed that assisted suicide was certainly a humane act for patients such as his. In 1998, he videotaped one of his patient’s death, which was shown on the CBS show called ’60 minutes’. He was then convicted of murder and sentenced to 10 to 25 years in prison. And since then, the legalization of assisted suicide has been an ongoing debate. Many of his supporters only wanted to legalize assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. Kevorkian and his supporters were not taken seriously, but they themselves did not listen to others that were suffering. They only focused on the terminally ill patients. If majority supporters of assisted suicide considered for a variety of suffering patients, maybe it would’ve been legalized at least for the terminally ill. However, that would only be the first step in the process. Physicians should be able to aid in ending suffering not only for the terminally ill patients but for every patient. In the process of legalizing euthanasia, the absolute proponents of euthanasia went a bit too far as they got carried away in their practice of euthanasia. The leader of the proponents was Dr. Kevorkian who promoted assisted suicide saying that “dying is not a crime.” He said that by the end of his career, he had helped more than 130 people die (Murphy 3). Kevorkian was so focused on his practice of assisted suicide that he basically wanted to help any patient end suffering. Rarely did he even look to cure the patient’s illness by means such as medication or treatment. He agreed upon helping the patient die right away. His decisions were a bit too extreme sometimes and weren’t always the most humane ones either. His intentions were pure; he never wanted to harm anyone. But in a way, he did harm some people because he could’ve cured their disease instead of helping them die. In addition to that, he never wanted to work with the opposing party to come to a settlement. He always broke the laws and angered them instead. He continued to lie about stopping the practice of assisted suicide and, many say that he never actually stopped. His chaotic style of practice brought assisted suicide further away from legalization. The qualified proponents of euthanasia have had trouble determining whom they should legalize it for. Many physicians believe that it’s morally right for them to use assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. They believe that not helping them die is an immoral form of euthanasia. To let a person, die naturally after knowing that he is suffering from an incurable terminal illness is known as passive euthanasia. This form of euthanasia causes the patient a lot more pain than actively euthanizing him. But, the term ‘terminal illness’ is focused on so much in this case that people forget that there are other forms of illnesses, dysfunctions, and disorders that are extremely painful and long lasting. For example, a severe brain injury or paralysis might not kill a person within six months or so but it causes major pain both physically and emotionally. Also, mental retardation can be extreme in some cases; it causes harm to the victim as well as the family members. In such cases, euthanasia should be a legal right. After all, a doctor’s job is to minimize pain for his patient in the best way possible. If it can’t be done in the process of saving a patient’s life, it should be done by ending his life. I started the argument by stating the main problems of the opposition to physicianassisted suicide. The opposing absolute position is unfair because it simply forces people to follow the existing law without any sort of exception. I talked about the qualified con position wanting to legalize euthanasia, but only for the terminally ill. Their approach is sensible but it does not take into consideration the right of every single individual; it limits freedom for some people, while it wants to provide others with complete freedom. On the other hand, the absolute proposition ignores the negative impact euthanasia can have in the country. The most logical approach seems to be to legalize euthanasia not only for terminally ill patients but also for patients suffering from severe chronic illnesses that can’t be cured. As simple and sensible it may seem to legalize euthanasia for these people, others will think otherwise. Those that do think otherwise are the ones that have the power to bring change; most importantly, we will need to work on building strong relationships with those that hold opinions much different from ours. If we continue to work with a positive mindset, I’m sure that with the help of other researchers, doctors, and media, we will be able to satisfy our needs. Works Cited Murphy F. Timothy. “A Philosophical Obituary: Dr. Jack Kevorkian Dead at 83 Leaving End of Life Debate in the US Forever Changed.” The American Journal of Bioethics, 11(7): 3–6, 2011 Strate M. John, Zalman Marvin, Hunter J. Denis. “Physician-assisted suicide and the politics of problem definition.” Mortality, February 2005; 10(1): 23 – 41. Lu, Cathy. "Should terminally ill patients have the right to ask for help from physicians to end their lives?" Debate Over Physician-Assisted Suicide. 1997: Print. Chan, L., & Lien, D. (2010). The value of planned death. Published manuscript, Department of Finance and Economics and Department of Economics, Utah Valley University and the University of Texas at San Antonio, Utah Valley, and San Antonio, Utah and Texas. Wellman, Carl. “A Moral Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide”, American Philosophical Quarterly Vol.38, No. 3 (Jul. 2001), pp. 271-286.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

How is it Uzair72?

Name 1
Uzair
Professor Smith
English 102-004
November 20, 2016
Ethical Business Argumentative Synthesis Essay
http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/euthanasiapoliticalkeyissues/economics/
US health spending in 2010 accounted for a GDP of 17.6% compared to a 17.7% in 2009.
This spending was 8233 USD on health per capita in 2010 that was 21/2 times more than the
OECD average of 3268 USD. This Americas expenditure was attributed to be twice more than
our relatively rich European countries like Sweden, France and UK. The percentage increase of
expenditure between 2000 and 2009 has been calculated to be 4.3% per year on average. This
expenditure is largely financed by taxes with also some contributions from the social security
finances. These are the economic reasons that have made euthanasia become an argumentative
topic for quite a long period of time.
The opponents of euthanasia strongly agree with the principles of Natural Law. They
strongly feel the need to guard the sanctity of life. They believe that people should not have
control over their death. The use of treatment and medication to prolong a person’s life is
promoted. But, the use of euthanasia is the easy way out. The opposition of euthanasia strongly
believes that no amount of pain can outweigh the value of a sacred life. This approach is so strict
that it doesn’t compromise with an individual in any way whatsoever.

But, the opponents of euthanasia give no importance to the autonomy of an individual
which is an extremely important American value. The illegal state of euthanasia contradicts the
importance given to autonomy in the United States. Along with that, the government seems to
have no concern for the thousands of citizens suffering incurable or terminal illnesses. An article
regarding the benefits of euthanasia by Ezekiel J. Emanuel states that “legalizing euthanasia or
PAS would benefit by relieving unremitting and excruciating pain 25,000 or fewer of the 2.3
million Americans who die each year” (Emanuel 1999).
The country should focus on treating its citizens rather than forcing upon them the belief
of Natural Law. The concept of forcing a person to live after knowing that there is no cure for his
disease is wrong. Legalizing euthanasia would also help strengthen the relationship between
patients and their physicians. Patients need that psychological reassurance of knowing that the
physician has an alternative for them if dying is too painful. If a physician is unable to cure his
patient’s illness, he needs to at least make sure that they’re able to die peacefully. Unfortunately,
the illegal status of euthanasia does not allow a physician to perform his job properly.
Unlike the absolute opposing position, this position promotes active euthanasia for a
small group of people. It mainly disagrees with the legalization of euthanasia except for those
that suffer from a terminal illness. This approach fights for a good cause but it simply does not
go far enough. The approach relates to the ethical perspective of utilitarianism by claiming that
the legalization of euthanasia will benefit the country. First, it would give peace and satisfaction
to the patients’ families by offering a painless death to the patient. The option of euthanasia
would also benefit insurance companies and hospitals. As bad as it sounds, a lot of money could
be saved when terminally ill patients choose euthanasia instead of treatment. It isn’t bad at all
since the euthanasia will be completely voluntary. In addition to that, legalizing euthanasia will

allow physicians to make better decisions for dying patients and make it easier for them to gain
their patient’s trust.
However, it would not be fair for all the people that need euthanasia if only the
terminally ill patients get to have it. After all, terminal patients are in pain for a shorter period
than those suffering from chronic illnesses that are incurable. The legalization of euthanasia for
only terminally ill patients will be controversial rather than being that change everyone agrees
with. If it’s only legalized for terminally il...


Anonymous
Very useful material for studying!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags