Language and Learning in Your Discipline

Question: Critically evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of social media marketing. Critically evaluate the benefits and impacts of wildlife tourism. Critically evaluate the arguments for and against legalising voluntary euthanasia. Is climate change a myth or a fact? Critically evaluate the arguments for and against climate change. Critically evaluate the positive and negative impacts of playing video games. Answer: Euthanasia emphasizes on gentle, good and easy death. It is ending the life of the patient in order to provide relief and suffering to him with an intention which is illegal in most of the countries. This was first invented in the Roman history. Various terms like the mercy killing, capital punishment and slippery slope have been assigned to euthanasia. This practice became legalized in the early twentieth century because before that Hippocratic Oath did not permit it to continue. There are basically four types of euthanasia- voluntary euthanasia, active euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia and passive euthanasia. They all are same but only differ in their mode of action with respect to the patient. Not all countries have given a green flag to this act but only a few countries like Australia, China, Hong-Kong has given permission to do so (Steck et al., 2013). Michael Manning, is an ethicist gave a very good example of euthanasia by giving the case of Mrs. Jean, who was suffering from incurable breast and lung cancer and her husband helped her to die by giving her the coffee mixed with some lethal drugs prescribed by the doctor. So this case very clearly demonstrates the voluntary euthanasia where Mrs. Jean by her will was ready to give up her life as she was not able to bear the pain. The right to life or the right to die is the basis of the arguments in the voluntary euthanasia. The moral fact is that the people generally want to live but what should the doctors or the family should do when the patient themselves no longer want to live so here the humanists think that in many of the situations they think voluntary euthanasia is morally right and it should be allowed. The people who favor voluntary euthanasia has given evidence based on the patients autonomy, the patient's right to live, showing mercy and emotional support to the patient. Autonomy which favors euthanasia is regarded as the self-determination which gives the right to a person to have control over his or her body and decision of life. So euthanasia is rooted with autonomy because it is justified in the way that a person who has suffered a lot and no medication could relieve them, and then in that case the patient makes an autonomous decision where he wants to put an end to his suffering by the act of voluntary euthanasia. Even if the people think that this act is foolishness then also the patient autonomy should be respected. So the persons decision morally justifies the act of euthanasia by the principle of autonomy (Sjstrand et al., 2013). Autonomy against euthanasia states that intentional killing is like a murder which is a rejection act against the sovereignty of God. It is like a refusal of love for oneself, deny for the feeling to live. So many authorities including the religious one is against this concept because they think living and death is in the hands of God and he has only control over it. This issue is ethically wrong because of the reposed reason and faith. So it is not morally acceptable that euthanasia should be practiced by the people (Cohen-Almagor, 2015). The right to die for euthanasia is an extension to autonomy. Here the euthanasia takes a stand for the person to choose his right to die. They put the proposal that the right to die adopted by the patient is not a selfish or egoistic decision because in this case there is no hope for the patient to recover or any responsibility for the others but instead they become the reason of burden for the others, especially for their family ones. So by opting for the right to die option they can provide end to their sufferings as well as make situations easier for their loved ones too (Math Chaturved 2012). In the context of no right to die, the opponent says that it is the duty of the society and the government to protect the life of the individual by not legalizing the act of euthanasia. Further, they say that by euthanasia, a relationship between the patient and the doctors get destroyed because a lot of ambiguity comes in to it. They believe that practicing euthanasia would bring many undesired consequences as the patient would lose trust in the doctors (Brennan, 2014). Mercy favors euthanasia where promoters of the euthanasia have put forward an argument in favor of mercy by saying that helping the patients to die in required conditions is like providing a good medicine and also contributes towards the caring nature of the society as an act of love (Mohammadi, 2014). In No mercy for euthanasia The counter argument put forward is that compassion which is true never allows killings. It means of sharing one another pain instead of murdering them. The ethicists say that when a patient is asking for euthanasia then indirectly they are pleading for love and care. It means that along with the medications the patients need supernatural warmth and humanity (Jack et al., 2014). Regarding euthanasia, the laws and views and ideas vary greatly with the countries and within the individual. This has been a debatable moral topic for over a long period. Those who favor euthanasia have put forward their views in terms of autonomy, a right to die, and mercy and love for the individual for the legalization. The opponents have also put forward certain arguments which they believe that the legalization of this fact would cause many fatal consequences. After seeing the arguments of both the opponents, it can be said that euthanasia may be regarded as unethical at the certain level of reason. It is the responsibility of the society to protect the life of the people but t the same time it should be kept in mind that if the person is willing to end his life because he could not bear the pain, then it should be allowed to do so (Levy et al., 2013). References: Brennan, F. (2014). Do we have a right to assisted suicide?.Eureka Street,24(21), 16. Cohen-Almagor, R. (2015). An argument for physician-assisted suicide and against euthanasia.Ethics, Medicine and Public Health,1(4), 431-441. Jack, A. I., Robbins, P. A., Friedman, J. P., Meyers, C. D. (2014). More than a feeling: counterintuitive effects of compassion on moral judgment.Advances in experimental philosophy of mind,125. Levy, T. B., Azar, S., Huberfeld, R., Siegel, A. M., Strous, R. D. (2013). Attitudes towards euthanasia and assisted suicide: a comparison between psychiatrists and other physicians.Bioethics,27(7), 402-408. Math, S. B., Chaturvedi, S. K. (2012). Euthanasia: Right to life vs right to die.The Indian journal of medical research,136(6), 899. Mohammadi, D. (2014). European euthanasia laws: questions of compassion.The Lancet Oncology,15(12), 1294-1295. Sjstrand, M., Helgesson, G., Eriksson, S., Juth, N. (2013). Autonomy-based arguments against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: a critique.Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy,16(2), 225-230. Steck, N., Egger, M., Maessen, M., Reisch, T., Zwahlen, M. (2013). Euthanasia and assisted suicide in selected European countries and US states: systematic literature review.Medical care,51(10), 938-944.