Aspects Of Legalizing Euthanasia Essay Example


In a matter of life and death, people prefer life as the obvious answer. Death is a personal issue believed to go without other people’s interference on occasions where no one is harmed. There are circumstances where life is not the best option, a moment that leaves people wondering whether death could be an answer. Euthanasia should be considered an opportunity for patients to choose life or death. When given all the facts, mentally competent patients understand the quality of life they expect to lead if they choose to live in a stress-filled setting. Patients at wards and intensive care units often suffer from excruciating pain and find it hard to waste time while their bodies are withering away. Euthanasia should be defended because it is an honor to people’s explicit right to die with dignity, alleviates pain and suffering, and protects human autonomy in cases where death is inevitable.

Defensive Argument #1

Forcing patients to live with conditions that cause them unbearable pain and other extreme deformations is cruel. Throughout eternity, humans have had the opportunity to decide on what job they want to take, what religion to follow, and other life matters on their conceptions (Bulut, 2018). Similarly, they should be allowed to decide whether to live or die, especially when the conditions threaten their overall existence in a free society. Euthanasia is a medical procedure that approves its potential to abide by regulations and benefit more people. For instance, over 7 million people in America are diagnosed with terminal illnesses that guarantee death, yet they are not given a chance to choose death over life (Ward et al., 2019). Most patients understand that they are awaiting a slow death because they cannot care for themselves or acquire new treatments to reverse their conditions (Yildirim, 2020). It makes sense to allow patients with these life conditions to request euthanasia instead of bearing a torturous life. Legalizing euthanasia ensures that patients are afforded a death with dignity.

Defensive Argument #2

Living in pain is worse than death when patients are in pain or completely paralyzed. Half of the patients in intensive care units expect to die while bedridden and in pain. Despite the efforts to treat diseases that have been killing people for ages, there are cases where medication causes incredible suffering to untreatable illnesses. For example, cancer patients develop chronic pain from combining treatments to comfort them and improve their quality of life. Patients with the risk of experiencing memory loss become purely dependent with meager chances of regaining their personalities (Cipriani & Di Fiorino, 2019). Similarly, patients with locked-in syndrome cannot move or communicate verbally and rely on other caregivers to do everything for them. It is fair to say that these patients can use any means of suicide within their reach because they know they are about to die anyway. Legalizing euthanasia offers such patients the chance to end their life early with the aid of a physician to achieve a painless death because, to them, it is inevitable.

Defensive Argument #3

Assisted suicide is hoped for as a doctor-regulated method, direction, or action to help achieve a quick, painless death. Dying patients, especially those with widespread cancer, dislike living to be cared for by nurses or family members due to the uncertainty of their inevitable death (Yildirim, 2020). Doctors are obligated to respond to patient requests, sometimes withdrawing life support treatments from competent patients who do not want them (Yildirim, 2020). Many patients with difficult non-promising situations feel like a burden to their loved ones and need a chance to end their guilt. A good example is when patients are discharged from dialysis, feeding, and intravenous tubes at their will. Although most of these decisions are hard for the physicians, they relieve patients’ grief and deep contemplation of how much they cannot do for themselves. Therefore, under certain conditions, the only way to be kind to a patient is to allow them to choose death over an existence they find unworthy.

Opposing View #1

State government officials claim that the choice to live or die is morally other than personal and should be decided by physicians in ways that preserve a patient’s life and offer the best available care. Besides, there are cases where a deadly disease is cured, giving patients a better-quality life. As an illustration, smallpox, an extremely contagious and deadly virus with no known cure, was eradicated (Cohen, 2019). While legalizing euthanasia justifies killing struggling patients, it could be used as a ground to initiate deaths and close the gap for further research to treat such illnesses. Euthanasia cases have shortened a patient’s life to less than a week, limiting the chances of managing or even curing disease. However, most of the terminal illnesses witnessed today have existed for a long time, making it hard to determine when the cure could be invented. Despite the notion that recovery from some diseases could be possible, it is nearly impossible, and creating room for positive outcomes does not justify the cruelty of torturing patients.

Opposing View #2

Religious experts believe that human life has immeasurable value and should be left sacred. One of the main arguments is that euthanasia is murder, making it morally unacceptable. From a religious view, classifying the life of dying patients as not worth protecting is unfair as disabled people and the elderly can be independent (Bulut, 2018). Nevertheless, terminally ill patients suffer extended states of immobility or pain endurance, which could traumatize them, and they need to be given justice by allowing them to end their pain. Under such conditions, keeping euthanasia as a viable healthcare option allows patients a chance to die peacefully and is an act of mercy, a value highly withheld by religion. In extreme cases, patients risk losing their memories and cannot rely on therapies or palliative care to manage pain. Euthanasia is still the best healthcare option for terminally ill patients because it maintains the ability of the patient to control the situation and the expenses of fruitless life support treatments.

Emotional Appeal

Sustaining terminally ill patients’ lives allows them to interact more with caregivers and loved ones. To some extent, the interaction proves to patients how much of a bother they are. In these situations, spending life lying down inspires death and triggers the feeling of guilt. Forcing people to live in a death-inspiring environment feels selfish as the patient feel unconsidered to end their lives in the only humane way (Somerville, 2019). While physicians subscribe to the vow of compassionately caring for patients, denying them the chance to choose a dignified death is hypocritical.

Patients refuse treatments when they cannot enjoy living anymore and believe their doctors would allow them these options. When a patient’s system fails to an extent they cannot move, talk, see, or taste, doctors may not consider them terminally ill. However, these patients cannot enjoy everything that makes life meaningful (Somerville, 2019). Competent patients understand the cost of life-sustaining treatment for a long-term illness and want to relieve their families of the burden. In the final days, patients who have lost their ability to work incur the most significant expenses to acquire futile care while death’s candidature seems so natural (Green et al., 2022). Instead of forcing patients to be subjective tenants at the hospital, the healthcare department should revolve around elevating suffering. Consequently, euthanasia should be made available when no possible treatments are left.

Farmers often euthanize suffering animals to end their struggle, but humanity believes in forcing an individual to live, hoping they would solve an illness. Similarly, physicians should consider euthanizing patients to preserve their autonomy and prevent them from finding unenjoyable life activities (Somerville, 2019). The challenges associated with hopeless diseases create bodily complications and, at times, cause deformations that no one would appreciate having for the rest of their lives.

The worry that legalizing euthanasia could cause harm is valid as the sanctity of life is considered unique for humans compared to when applied to terribly sick animals. The immeasurable value of human life does not mean it should be preserved while depriving the owner of all benefits of enjoying it. Honestly, the sanctity of life is narrow-minded as it limits a person’s right to die (Green et al., 2022). Under these conditions, the patient feels devalued and overly controlled. These thoughts create unending guilt when patients cannot enjoy food, fund their treatment, or thank those supporting them. It is hard for a patient to believe that preserving their life to feel guilty has any value, especially when the quality of this life is so poor.


Incurable illnesses are often accompanied by unbearable pain and other forms of suffering. In most cases, there are no favorable odds that a patient would get through the disease or that a cure would happen soon. The healthcare system can choose to keep the patients alive and watch them endure the torture. It is worth noting that the assurances and promises that a patient would get a cure or practical help do not override the fact that the patient is being left to suffer for a long time. Moreover, euthanasia is a medical practice that can be regulated by the law, ensuring that all eligible patients are well scrutinized. Precisely, eligibility for euthanasia could be centered on terminally ill adults with mentally competent reasoning to discuss the issue with more than one physician and in severe pain.

Keeping terminally ill patients alive violates several clauses of human rights. Legally, morally, and scientifically, some cases of illnesses justify the use of euthanasia. Patients spend time thinking about their inabilities, pain, and the bothering memories they leave with their loved ones. Euthanasia should be offered as an option each time physicians have no natural cure for presented conditions. Generally, euthanizing patients is not murdering them because it is most likely considered the art of bringing an inevitable death closer. Statistically, patients ask for euthanasia because they cannot withstand the pain and suffering, and giving it to them is better than watching them tortured by a health condition.


Bulut, A. (2018). The opinions about euthanasia among students in elderly care department of vocational school of health services at Bingol University. Medicine Science, 7(2), 277-282.

Cipriani, G., & Di Fiorino, M. (2019). Euthanasia and other end of life in patients suffering from dementia. Legal Medicine, 40, 54-59.

Cohen, J. M. (2019). “Remarkable solutions to impossible problems”: Lessons for malaria from the eradication of smallpox. Malaria Journal, 18(1), 1-16.

Green, G., Reicher, S., Herman, M., Raspaolo, A., Spero, T., & Blau, A. (2022). Attitudes toward euthanasia—dual view: Nursing students and nurses. Death Studies, 46(1), 124-131.

Somerville, M. (2019). Does it matter how we die? Ethical and legal issues raised by combining euthanasia and organ transplantation. The Linacre Quarterly, 86(4), 359-365.

Yildirim, J. G. (2020). Knowledge, opinions and behaviors of senior nursing students in Turkey regarding euthanasia and factors in Islam affecting these. Journal of Religion and Health, 59(1), 399-415.

Ward, Z. J., Yeh, J. M., Bhakta, N., Frazier, A. L., & Atun, R. (2019). Estimating the total incidence of global childhood cancer: A simulation-based analysis. The Lancet Oncology, 20(4), 483-493.

Bullying Behavior And Its Negative Effects On Children

Bullying behavior is a severe issue among school-age children and teenagers. It has an impact on individuals who bully others, those who bully themselves, those who bully others, as well as onlookers who watch the bullying incident in both the short and long term. Bullying is a problem that is crucial to the field of public health based on the impact it has on abused children. Therefore, this essay addresses the negative effects of bullying on children and the ways of overcoming the problem.

Bullied children frequently have emotional and social problems. They struggle not only to make friends but also to keep strong friendships going. Low self-esteem is closely tied to some aspects of this battle. The cruel and hateful things other children say about them have a direct impact on their lack of self-esteem. For example, kids who hear the labels “fat” or “losers” frequently start to believe these things to be true. Additionally, a spectrum of emotions is frequently experienced by bully victims. They could feel hostile, resentful, exposed, defenseless, frustrated, lonely, and cut off from their peers. As a result, individuals could skip class and turn to drink and narcotics to dull their suffering. Moreover, if bullying persists, victims may experience melancholy and even consider suicide.

Children who are the objects of bullying may eventually experience what is known as “learned helplessness,” which is the belief that they are unable to alter the circumstance, and as such, they give up trying (Jadambaa et al.,2019). The downward spiral towards depression then gets worse. This causes a sense of helplessness and the conviction that there is no escape. Bullied children may struggle with self-esteem issues, have trouble forming and sustaining relationships, and avoid social situations as they get older. They might also find it difficult to trust others, which could have an effect on both their interpersonal and professional connections. Even worse, kids might start telling themselves lies about bullying, including that it was not as horrible as they thought it was. Additionally, they might blame themselves for not fighting back.

Bullied children frequently struggle academically as well. Children who are bullied find it difficult to concentrate on their studies. In fact, one of the initial indicators that a youngster is being bullied is declining grades. Bullying may also keep kids up at night, keeping them from remembering homework or keeping them from paying attention in class. Children who are bullied may also skip class or school in an effort to stop the bullying. Falling grades may potentially be a consequence of this behavior. Additionally, if grades start to slip, the bullied child will already be under a lot of stress. For instance, students in schools with high levels of bullying performed worse on standardized examinations than students in schools with strong anti-bullying initiatives. The fact that kids frequently show less interest in their studies because they are too preoccupied with or concerned about the bullying is one potential explanation for the lower test results at schools where bullying is widespread.

It is crucial to create rules that thoroughly address the issue, given the consequences bullying has on kids and their parents. All settings where children are bullied should establish and execute anti-bullying policies, but schools in particular. The health department should arrange for activities to be held in schools. Here, the goal is to provide support and therapy to students who have been bullied. Such children need to be talked to in order to help them regain their self-esteem because they are psychologically affected. It is crucial to remember that bullying is a systemic issue that requires a systemic solution. Time must pass for the solution to take effect.

Even if they have the best of intentions, zero-tolerance policies regarding bullies frequently fail because it is impossible to totally eradicate bullying in schools. According to research, 20% of students admit to bullying another student at some point during their time in school, yet excluding 20% of them from class is definitely not the solution (Jadambaa et al.,2019). A bully requires positive role models; therefore, surrounding them with good students can help to overcome the issue of bullying.

To conclude, bullying may have detrimental short- and long-term effects on children’s social, emotional, physical, and psychological growth. Although many people may not believe it, the bully also suffers as a result of the victim’s bullying actions. It is now recognized as a complex web of predatory actions and attitudes that appear in many parts of the child’s life rather than just a straightforward act of physical or emotional hostility. It is clear that bullying has turned into a major public health issue, and it is the duty of every member of the school community to do all possible to lessen and ultimately eradicate bullying in our schools. Schools need to address this rising issue, and many are doing so by putting in place initiatives to prevent bullying. Every kid has a right to a secure learning environment, and it is the duty of educational leaders to put policies in place that will lessen bullying in schools.


Jadambaa, A., Thomas, H. J., Scott, J. G., Graves, N., Brain, D., & Pacella, R. (2019). Prevalence of traditional bullying and cyberbullying among children and adolescents in Australia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 53(9), 878-888.

Computer And Digital Literacy Differences


Nowadays, literacy has a double meaning – initially, it was the ability to read, write and communicate. Moreover, a more specific meaning implies the ability of a person to perform those actions without making mistakes. Computer literacy has a similar definition and results from the development of technology and modern society. A person who is computer literate has abilities to deal with modern computers. Understanding the information received, the meaning of actions when interacting with computers, and the ability to handle peripheral devices are integral to computer literacy.


Digital literacy is a more recent and profound concept in the same context. It implies a person’s ability to navigate the digital space, understand the meaning and consequences of all actions, and avoid cyber threats. The primary skills that are signs of digital literacy are:

  • An adaptation to new technologies and their rapid adoption;
  • The ability to explain own actions in the digital space;
  • The ability to teach others by interacting with them;
  • The ability to identify trustworthy sources based on independent analysis;
  • Knowledge of the most common digital resources and terminology.

In terms of mindset, an ordinary person pays attention to information content, whereas the mindset of a digitally literate person first analyzes its origin, possible purpose, and authorship. Such a person understands the necessity of safety in the local and global network, keeps track of the privacy settings and passwords, and observes information hygiene: does not distribute or consume incorrect or harmful information on the Internet. While computer and digital literacy used to be synonymous, the gap between the two is growing as technology advances. Just as basic literacy now is about using language and writing correctly, digital literacy requires more than computer skills – it requires using mind and safety rules.


Barry University makes several substantial commitments, all related to intellectual, social, and spiritual development. Like the physical world, the digital world is subject to certain problems but constantly evolving. It is only natural that everyone these days should have digital literacy, just as ordinary literacy has long been the norm. Today the Internet became an integral part of our lives. By following digital literacy’s logical rules and actions, society can become more humane and unbiased, which is also part of the university’s mission. In addition, it is not easy to imagine the modern person without digital skills – learning, personal growth, and development are priorities for our university.

error: Content is protected !!