Fluent Essays

check attachment for instuction EUTHANASIA 3 Euthanasia Olawoyin Ibitoye Chamberlain University PHIL347 Professor Oakes 09/05/2021 Topic: Euthanasia Recently, the number of cases highlighting the need to change laws and legislation about euthanasia has increased rapidly, increasing the need to study euthanasia. Euthanasia refers to the process of terminating a person’s life to relieve them from pain or end their suffering. Perceptions towards euthanasia have changed despite the existing controversy about the moral perspective of the entire process. The rationale behind euthanasia topic is to understand the ethical issues surrounding euthanasia. Euthanasia presents the ethical problem of whether or not people have the right to choose when and how to end their lives. The main issue is that euthanasia is unethical and should be prohibited because it is against the sanctity of life, violates autonomy and human rights, demeans the role of palliative care, and undermines the doctor-patient relationship. Firstly, euthanasia contradicts the sanctity of life. Human life is sacred, and nothing or no one has the right to take it other than the giver of life (Hurn and Badman-King, 2019). Life is considered a gift from God, and He alone has the power to end it through natural death. As such, human life should be respected and preserved. The sanctity of life in every human being is recognized by allowing terminally ill patients to die a natural death. Suffering is part of human life, and using euthanasia to relieve patients from suffering deprives them of the human dignity and sanctity of life. Secondly, euthanasia is unethical because it abuses personal autonomy and human rights. Every person has the freedom to choose whatever is best for them, including accepting suffering and pain. Involuntary euthanasia deprives patients of the freedom to decide when and how to end their life (Balynska, Blahuta, and Sereda, 2019). Human beings have an inherent right to life as stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Terminating a person’s life without their consent denies them the right to live and die naturally. Thirdly, euthanasia is unethical because it undermines the doctor-patient relationship. The primary role of a physician is to help and save patients from pain. Administering drugs to terminate patients’ lives undermines the medical professions role and portrays doctors as murderers (Yorova and Khakberdiyeva, 2021). Patients built trust and confidence in care providers’ role of relieving them from pain. The use of euthanasia breaks patients’ trust in the care providers’ ability to take care of terminally ill patients. Euthanasia is indeed a controversial topic mainly due to the ethical dilemma surrounding end-of-life decisions. Both society and the government have the sole responsibility of protecting human life. Human reason justifies that terminating a person’s life is unethical because it is against the sanctity of life and violates human rights. References Balynska, O. M., Blahuta, R. I., & Sereda, V. V. (2019). Euthanasia or palliative care: legal principles of the implementation in the context of the realization of human rights to life (Scopus). Hurn, S., & Badman‐King, A. (2019). Care as an alternative to euthanasia? Reconceptualizing veterinary palliative and end‐of‐life care. Medical anthropology quarterly, 33(1), 138-155. Yorova, S. K., & Khakberdiyeva, V. J. K. (2021). DOCTOR AND PATIENT. Scientific progress, 2(1), 1478-1480. 4 Euthanasia Olawoyin Ibitoye Professor Oakes Chamberlain university 09/19/2021 Euthanasia Euthanasia Review Euthanasia is defined as the practice of killing a patient to limit their suffering. The physician causes the death of the patient from an incurable or severe condition. The life termination exercise may involve injection with drugs to induce coma by a doctor and stop the heart from operating. Euthanasia takes place in a medical facility in the presence of medical staff. It slightly differs from physician-assisted suicide (PAS), which refers to the “prescription of lethal medication be voluntarily self-administered by the patient.” Euthanasia causes intentional death. Multiple perceptions surround euthanasia. Some people think the process is illegal, while others believe it is better to end suffering after mutual agreement between the patient and the physicians. Mixed reactions erupt from euthanasia as people try to understand the ethical and legal issues surrounding the exercise. The dilemma emanates from whether people should decide whether to live or die (Balynska et al., 2019). Therefore, this essay argues both sides of euthanasia and identifies which side is stronger and more persuasive than the other. Pros of Euthanasia Euthanasia terminates patient’s suffering and relieves their people from mental, psychological, and financial strains. Euthanasia offers a quality dying experience and is used as the last resort when all other options fail. Instead of waiting for the patient to die in lengthy pain, the physicians decide to end their lives more comfortably without pain. People should dictate their lives, whether to die or live; thus should choose to die if they cannot withstand pain or incurable diseases. Euthanasia enables the patients to end the guilty of burdening their caregivers. Patients may feel ashamed of their status and dependence on people thus decides to undertake euthanasia because they believe death will still happen either way. Cons of Euthanasia Euthanasia contradicts the sanctity of life. Religiously, life is sovereign, and only God should take it from human beings. Euthanasia abuses human rights to life thus considered unethical. Patients often decide to undertake the exercise under emotional influence and may regret it if given another chance to be alive. Euthanasia may undermine the doctor-patient relationship because physicians focus on saving lives, but the patient may demand to undergo euthanasia to end their suffering. Euthanasia is unethical and should be considered illegal because it undermines human life and dignity. Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors and exposes the vulnerable to pressure to end their lives. Legalizing euthanasia may put the lives of the vulnerable under pressure and lead to less care for the terminally ill because their caregivers take euthanasia as an option for prolonged illness or suffering thus may be reluctant to serve the sick (Ten Have & Neves, 2021). The cons of euthanasia outweigh the pros; thus, the disadvantages are more substantial and persuasive than the advantages. Euthanasia is an illegal exercise and should be discouraged because it devalues human life and puts the terminally ill at risk of losing their lives unlawfully. Life has intrinsic value and dignity, and people should strive to protect the vulnerable regardless of their conditions. Ending someone’s life because they suffer from severe pain or incurable condition is unethical. Assisting people to live should be a priority to everybody, including the patient, medical practitioners, and the general public. Euthanasia may be against the sanctity of life based on religion and traditions (Hurn & Badman‐King, 2019). References Balynska, O. M., Blahuta, R. I., & Sereda, V. V. (2019). Euthanasia or palliative care: legal principles of the implementation in the context of the realization of human rights to life (Scopus). Hurn, S., & Badman‐King, A. (2019). Care as an alternative to euthanasia? Reconceptualizing veterinary palliative and end‐of‐life care. Medical anthropology quarterly, 33(1), 138-155. Ten Have, H., & Neves, M. D. C. P. (2021). Euthanasia, General. In Dictionary of Global Bioethics (pp. 493-494). Springer, Cham. 1 Annotated Bibliography Olawoyin Ibitoye Professor Oakes Chamberlain University PHIL347N-11405 10/03/2021 Euthanasia Thesis: Although treatment can be considered futile in some situations, the practice of euthanasia undermines the quality of life and healthcare as the role of healthcare providers is to protect life rather than destroy it. Euthanasia grants authority to health practitioners to make decisions about a patient’s right to life. This diminishes the trust placed on health practitioners as it undermines the quality of life. In addition, the practice is unethical as it undermines the cultural beliefs of patients, thus reducing the quality of care. The nurses’ code of ethics requires nurses to protect patients from harm and death can be considered patient harm, which should then be avoided. Proponents of the practice argue that euthanasia offers a way out of chronic pain and suffering through assisted suicide. This could be true as treating uncurable pain and suffering can be futile and costly causing more pain to patient and family members. However, that does not justify disrespecting human dignity. Annotated Bibliography Balynska, O. M., Blahuta, R. I., & Sereda, V. V. (2019). Euthanasia or palliative care: legal principles of the implementation in the context of the realization of human rights to life (Scopus). Part 1 The article argues that the right to life is a natural inherent human right, the fundamental principle of the existence of mankind, recognized by all civilized countries. Balynska et al. (2019) analyzed and systematized existing problems of the legalization of euthanasia. The authors question euthanasia legalization because they believe its risks outweigh the benefits. They studied the legalities of euthanasia based on the value of human life and preferred palliative care over euthanasia. The authors confirm the objective absence of euthanasia legalization procedure and argue that it is a direct violation of human rights to life. The article suggests the adoption of palliative care as an alternative for euthanasia. Part 2 The source is current, and it discusses euthanasia issues and cases as they have recently been witnessed. The source is credible because it is scholarly and published on a peer-reviewed website (Google Scholar). The source strongly provides evidence of palliative care as a recommendable alternative for euthanasia analyzing peoples opinions, and the actual harm euthanasia causes to the parties involved. The information is persuasive in nature because it explains issues as they occur naturally and demonstrates public opinion towards euthanasia. Hurn, S., & Badman‐King, A. (2019). Care as an alternative to euthanasia? Reconceptualizing veterinary palliative and end‐of‐life care. Medical anthropology quarterly , 33(1), 138-155. Part 1 The article explains the role of palliative care and identifies euthanasia as illegal in the U.K. The authors offer multiple examples of non-human death and emphasize natural death as a means of respecting the sanctity of life. The article argues that the theoretical viability of caring for the emotions and the practical feelings of death should not be contributed by euthanasia but rather natural death. Hurn & Badman-King (2019) argued that paying mindful attention to the diverse ways in which individual animals are cared for as they die reveals the potential violence inherent in both palliative care leading to natural death and euthanasia, blurring perceptions of good and bad death in both veterinary and human medicine. Part 2 The source was published in 2019 and has played a vital role in educating the public about the illegality of euthanasia. It is authoritative, persuasive, and credible because it is authored by scholarly researchers. The source provides adequate evidence about palliative care as an alternative for euthanasia. The source is popular and educative because it teaches the relationship between euthanasia and palliative care. Kalal, N. (2018). Euthanasia: Right to live & right to Key Words: Euthanasia, Legitimate medical Euthanasia, Pros and cons of euthanasia. Part 1 Kalal (2018) emphasized the right to live and argued that every human being is entitled to live; hence taking it away by whichever means should be illegal and severely punishable. The author identifies euthanasia as both a good and a bad activity, based on the type administered. He believes that legitimate medical euthanasia (where euthanasia is the only solution to relieve the patient and their caregivers) is acceptable and should be legalized. He identifies the various advantages and disadvantages of euthanasia and advices the public to make euthanasia-related decisions based on the current situation and in consideration of the consequences. Part 2 The article was published in 2018 and provides relevant information about euthanasia, citing its advantages and disadvantages. It is credible, authoritative, and reliable because it provides real-time information about euthanasia and explains issues as they occur in the locality. The source strongly supports the thesis by providing adequate euthanasia information and reminding the public of their right to live. The information is popular because it is from a reliable source and is posted on a peer-reviewed website, Google Scholar. Simion, M. (2019). EUTHANASIA, PROS, AND CONS IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Fiat Iustitia, 2(2), 172-180. Part 1 Simion (2019) explained the pros and cons of euthanasia based on the European Court of Human Rights. The authors acknowledge the role of courts in protecting human life. Life is God-given, and the creator is the only one to take it away. The sovereignty of human life is immeasurable. According to Simion, euthanasia risks outweigh the benefits. He argues that it leaves caregivers and physicians emotionally unfit and may cause depression and other mental conditions. The author touches on the positive effects and argues that it relieves patients of prolonged pain and suffering and ends the burden of the patients to their caregivers. Part 2 The article is recent but explains both historical and present euthanasia issues. It is authoritative, credible, and reliable, written by a prominent and experienced author who has vast knowledge in health and social sciences. The article provides adequate information about the pros and cons of euthanasia and enlightens the public about the risks of euthanasia. The source is popular and accessible to the public. Ten Have, H., & Neves, M. D. C. P. (2021). Euthanasia, General. In Dictionary of Global Bioethics  (pp. 493-494). Springer, Cham. Part 1 Ten Have & Neves (2021) explain euthanasia in general. The authors define euthanasia as the practice of killing a patient to limit their suffering. It takes place in a medical facility in the presence of medical staff and slightly differs from physician-assisted suicide (PAS), which refers to the prescription of lethal medication be voluntarily self-administered by the patient. The authors explain that prolonged suffering from a disease without cure triggers patients to request euthanasia from physicians. The primary reason for euthanasia is to relieve the patient from continued suffering. The authors argue that the practice relieves caregivers from the burden of taking care of the worsening patients and focuses on other productive duties. Part 2 The article is recent (2021) and provides insights into the current global situation of euthanasia. The source is scholarly, thus reliable, and credible: it is published on the Dictionary of Global Bioethics website. The source provides evidence of the current situation by highlighting figures and databases about the world view of euthanasia. The source is so popular because it is published on a popular website and contains information about global health affairs. References Balynska, O. M., Blahuta, R. I., & Sereda, V. V. (2019). Euthanasia or palliative care: legal principles of the implementation in the context of the realization of human rights to life (Scopus). Hurn, S., & Badman‐King, A. (2019). Care as an alternative to euthanasia? Reconceptualizing veterinary palliative and end‐of‐life care. Medical anthropology quarterly, 33(1), 138-155. Kalal, N. (2018). Euthanasia: Right to live & right to Key Words: Euthanasia, Legitimate medical Euthanasia, Pros and cons of euthanasia. Simion, M. (2019). EUTHANASIA, PROS, AND CONS IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Fiat Iustitia, 2(2), 172-180. Ten Have, H., & Neves, M. D. C. P. (2021). Euthanasia, General. In Dictionary of Global Bioethics (pp. 493-494). Springer, Cham. Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity: · Textbook: Chapter 15 · Lesson · Completed Week 5 Source Evaluation Worksheet (included annotated bibliography) · Minimum of 5 scholarly sources Introduction This week, all the hard work you have done in researching your topic and issue will come to fruition in your argumentative paper. Once you feel you have got the final draft, try to put the paper aside, even for a few hours, and then read it again. · Did you address at least three aspects of the issue you chose? · Does each aspect have relevant and authoritative evidence in support of your point? · Have you included a view that is in opposition to your viewpoint, and have you answered that opposing view, pointing out its flaws in such a way as to refute it? Edit your paper – look for wordiness, repetition, vagueness, ambiguities. Check the organization of the paper as a whole; make sure each paragraph maintains focus. After you are satisfied that the content of your paper is good, carefully proofread it and correct mechanical errors. Here is a brief breakdown of the project so that you can plan your time in the course: Week Task Week 1 Topic Selection Week 3 Issue Review (both sides) Week 5 Thesis & Annotated Bibliography (both sides) Week 7 Argumentative Paper Instructions This week, you will complete your argumentative paper. Following the directions in assigned textbook reading on how write an argumentative essay on the issue you chose in Week 1. Be sure your essay contains the following: · An opening paragraph that states a clear thesis that is focused, plausible, and arguable and that gives direction and purpose to the paper · A fair-minded, balanced, and objective development of the pros and cons of the issue in a well-organized sequence of ideas, free of mechanical errors · Credible, reliable, and authoritative evidence in support of the points made · A strong conclusion that summarizes your views, reminds the audience of the issue and its importance, and shows in brief that you have successfully defended your thesis Note As you do your research, it is permissible to change your sources. Also, because of the recency and relevance of these issues, no sources older than 5 years should be used other than as historical information. Critical thinkers do the research first and then side with the preponderance of evidence. You might want to follow that principle. W7 Course Project Grading Rubric - 185 pts W7 Course Project Grading Rubric - 185 pts Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLength 5 pts Meets length requirement 0 pts Does not meet length requirement 5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePurpose & Focus 10 pts The writer has made insightful and mature decisions about focus, organization, and content to communicate clearly and effectively. The purpose and focus of the writing are clear to the reader and the organization and content are well chosen, sophisticated, and/or persuasive. Has a highly developed, defendable thesis that provides focus and direction to the essay. 8.5 pts The writer has made good decisions about focus, organization, and content to communicate clearly and effectively. The purpose and focus of the writing are clear to the reader and the organization and content achieve the purpose as well. Has a clear recognizable thesis that provides focus and direction to the essay. 7.5 pts The writer’s decisions about focus, organization, or content sometimes interfere with clear, effective communication. The purpose of the writing is not fully achieved. Thesis is unclear OR is not focused 6 pts The writer’s decisions about focus, organization, or content interfere with communication. The purpose of the writing is not achieved. Lacks a clear thesis 0 pts Completely unfocused and/or disorganized. Purpose of writing is not achieved. No recognizable thesis 10 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuality of Research/Evidence 40 pts Sources are scholarly or of very high substantive quality where subject matter requires and no scholarly reference will serve the purpose, but all are current, authoritative, and relevant to topic. 34 pts Most sources are scholarly or of very high substantive quality where subject matter requires; but all are current, authoritative and relevant to topic. 30 pts Sources are mostly substantive, even where subject matter does not require. All are relevant to the topic. One source outside of current range. 24 pts Sources are substantive, even though scholarly sources are available and relevaant. Only one scholarly source. All are relevant to the topic. More than one source outside of current range. 0 pts Popular sources only and are not, therefore, authoritative, OR sources are not current, OR sources are not relevant 40 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReasoning 45 pts Substantial and well-reasoned development of ideas. All key assumptions are made explicit. Credible evidence is germane, and accurately analyzed and fair- mindedly interpreted. Displays strong critical thinking skills and habits of mind. 38.25 pts Offers solid reasoning. Most key assumptions are recognized or made explicit. Most inferences are accurate, most examples are on point. 33.75 pts Offers some supporting evidence. The case includes some examples that are too general, not interpreted, or not clearly relevant to thesis. 27 pts Offers simplistic, underdeveloped, circular, or irrelevant arguments. 0 pts Includes fallacies, exaggerations, faulty reasoning, factual errors, biased statements, etc. 45 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization 30 pts Sequencing of ideas within paragraphs and transitions between paragraphs flow smoothly and coherently throughout the paper. The writer shows clear effort to assist the reader in following the logic of the ideas expressed. Develops a complete reasoning pathway that contains logical follow through, considers multiple points of view,and examines assumptions. 25.5 pts Sequencing of ideas within paragraphs and transitions between paragraphs make the writer’s points coherent and easy to follow. Develops a logical reasoning pathway with minor gaps or leaps while addressing other points of view. 22.5 pts Sentence structure and/ or word choice sometimes interfere with clarity and coherence. Needs to improve sequencing of ideas within paragraphs and transitions between paragraphs to make the writing easy to follow May contain some gaps in reasoning pathway; deals minimally with other points of view. 18 pts Ineffective sentence structure, word choice, transitions, and/ or sequencing of ideas make reading and understanding difficult. Contains gaps and/or leaps in development and does not examine other points of view. 0 pts Disorganized; little or no sequencing of ideas; awkward and ineffective sentence structure; reading and understanding extremely difficult Undeveloped and/or does not examine other points of view. 30 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAcademic Tone 20 pts Maintains objective and professional tone; uses professional vocabulary. The use of words, sentences, and punctuation creates a distinct and engaging voice, tone, and level of formality appropriate to audience, purpose, and genre. 17 pts Uses objective and professional vocabulary. The use of words, sentences, and punctuation creates a consistent voice, tone, and level of formality appropriate to audience, purpose, and genre. 15 pts Some informality in vocabulary. The use of words, sentences, and punctuation creates an inconsistent voice, tone, or formality level that is occasionally inappropriate to the situation. 12 pts The use of words, sentences, and punctuation shows a lack of awareness of the voice, tone, and formality level expected in academic writing. 0 pts Informal; uses slang or colloquialisms; fails to achieve tone and level of formality expected in academic writing. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting: Punctuation, Spelling, Capitalization 5 pts Virtually free of punctuation, spelling, or capitalization errors. 4 pts Occasional punctuation, spelling, or capitalization errors. 3 pts Many punctuation, spelling, or capitalization errors. Interfere with meaning in some places. 2 pts Punctuation, spelling, or capitalization errors that hinder communication. 0 pts Severe punctuation, spelling and capitalization errors. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting: Sentence Structure 10 pts Sentence structure is complex and powerful. The writer has used vivid, purposefully crafted, and varied sentence styles and lengths. 8.5 pts Sentences are effective and varied in style and length. 7.5 pts Sentences show limited variety in sentence style and length. 6 pts Sentence structure is simple, without variety in sentence style and length. 0 pts Sentence structures are awkward and/or unclear, impeding the clarity and flow of ideas. 10 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting: Word Choice 10 pts The writer displays a broad range of vocabulary, with effective, accurate, and contextually appropriate word usage. 8.5 pts The writer displays a satisfactory range of vocabulary and accurate and appropriate word usage. 7.5 pts The writer displays some varied word choice but language is mostly vague and needs more accuracy to properly convey ideas. Some errors of diction and usage are evident but do not interfere significantly with readability. 6 pts The writer displays a limited range of vocabulary. Errors of diction and usage are evident and begin to interfere significantly with readability. 0 pts Limited vocabulary. Diction and syntax errors are evident and impede a clear reading of the text. 10 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Format 10 pts Intext and reference citations in correct APA format with no errors. 8.5 pts Intext and reference citations in correct APA format with only occasional minor error. 7.5 pts Interfere with meaning in some places. Some major errors in APA format for intext, reference citations. 6 pts The writer does not use APA format, presentation, or style (citations) for the assignment or APA formatting has many major errors. 0 pts No intext citations to sources and/or no list of references in APA format 10 pts Total Points: 185