is my persuasive speech on euthanasia any good?

Mrs Chanandler Bong

2013-05-10 23:23:39 UTC

Magic, it doesn’t exist. At least that is what all the evidence points to. There are surgeons, nurses, medical professionals who sacrifice the better half of their twenties studying and uncovering the secret that is the human body, and all the complex and interweaving systems of cells, nerves, tissue and organs that so flawlessly constitute it. But when the body starts to break down and fall apart, when cells start to become cancerous, when muscle begins to weaken there are only so many tricks up a surgeon’s sleeve to try and heal it. It’s not as it they can just wave a wand or cast a spell to make it all better. And when the body is left irreparable it remains in a constant state of pain. And pain varies from the slight tingle to pain we can’t ignore, and when it is the latter it causes the whole universe to fade out, until there is nothing left but pain. And sometimes the only way to end that pain, is to the end the force that sustains it, life.
Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow classmates, euthanasia is fundamentally an avenue that allows a patient to make a choice to end their life peacefully and with dignity by consuming a lethal dose of a chemical concoction. And people, all people of Australia should be allowed to make that decision. We are all safeguarded by the right to privacy and what is more private than the manner in which we choose to live our lives, and finally exit this world? A previous Victorian premiere, Jeff Kennett, once said, “Life is about choice, death should be about choice.” However, our current society and legal code prohibits this option from being available to us, it inhibits our decision making power. And I realise this is because euthanasia is such a controversial topic, that there are a group of people that are discomforted by euthanasia and contend it is murder, and another group that contend it is the most sincere form of human compassion. So the real question is, ‘Should one man’s views be imposed on the rest?’ to which the answer is categorically, ‘no’. However, once again our society fails us, for we have to live under the foot of policy makers who believe euthanasia should not be legalised. Is this fair? Would it not be better if our legal code was reformed to include euthanasia? With this logical approach individuals who want to take control of their fate would have the means to do so, and others that don’t share the same view can simply choose not to exhaust the avenue that euthanasia provides. A common counterargument from strict opposes of euthanasia is that ‘the majority of people don’t want euthanasia.’ And while there is no statistics to nor prove or deny this assertion, it wouldn’t make prohibiting euthanasia any more valid. Once upon a time in US history the majority of people wanted blacks to drink out of separate water fountains. Just because the majority has a louder voice it doesn’t mean it is any more right.
People with a strong stance against euthanasia also denounce it for its potential legal and ethical ramifications. But, when I look around me I could choose from a number of different objects that also have the potential for and have already existing legal and ethical ramifications. Take for example alcohol. A report by the Australian Institute of Criminology finds that 47 percent of homicides were alcohol related in the period lasting from 2000 to 2006. It also reports that the total cost of alcohol related crimes in the period lasting 2004 to 2005 amounted to $1.7B. Is alcohol not a legal and ethical issue? Doesn’t alcohol have a detrimental effect on society? Yet it is not banned. Because policy makers have found a way to work within the law to minimise the ethical and legal impact of alcohol. Why can’t we apply the same principles to euthanasia? Why must we have a blanket ban on euthanasia? An approach that has worked in other localities is to only have euthanasia an option for terminally ill patients who request it out of their own free will and autonomy. The patient who requests euthanasia must pass a psychiatric exam to attest to his or her mental health and abilities, and to also have two physicians to evaluate and sign off on the request. And if we are so fearful for the potential of foul play or abuse of power the courts could evaluate the requests on a case by case basis. Would this not be an adequate measure to minimise and possibly even eliminate the “risk” that is attached to legalising euthanasia?