ARTS 1007 Sample Draft Paragraph

Does democracy appropriately balance individual freedom with other concerns?

Topic: Euthanasia

Democracy is the champion of equality. Today, many nations of the world practice
democracy as a form of government. It is because, democracy dignifies individual right
to freedom in many ways. However, the role of democracy becomes less vibrant when it
comes to balancing individual right to euthanasia. It is not because democracy is
incapable; but because many other factors are involved which prevent democracy to
appropriately balance individual freedom with other concerns. This essay will discuss
how other factors that curtains democratic practices to allow an individual’s right to
Euthanasia.

Euthanasia implies an individual’s right to end his life to relieve pain and suffering.
Whether euthanasia is an individual’s right or not, this discourse has been a matter of
interest in political and legal dealings. Today countries like the Netherlands, Belgium,
Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the United States, have legalized Euthanasia. In Australia,
“In the early hours of 25 May 1995 the Northern Territory passed the Rights of the
Terminally Ill Act 1995 (NT) - becoming the first jurisdiction in the world to permit a
doctor to end the life of a terminally ill patient at their request” (Cica, n.d, para.01).
However, according to The World Federation of Right to die Societies (n.d, para.04) “the
first patient who wanted to use it, cancer sufferer Max Bell, could not get the signature of
a specialist in his disease.” Many states opposed the act; and in 1997, the Australian
Federal Parliament upper house overturned the law within a few years of its inaction.
Australia is a democratic country. However, when it comes to euthanasia, the democratic
role of Australia comes to a standstill.

In addition to this, in countries where euthanasia is legal, many legal requirements

prevent the easy practice of euthanasia. “There is clear evidence from Netherlands (where
euthanasia is free) that the strict guidelines requiring informed patient consent are
frequently ignored and many such patients are subject to what is effectively involuntary
euthanasia” (Harris, 2001, p.368). The pretext behind such lengthy legal artifacts is that
the mental capacity of a patient at such crucial time is questionable. Although this makes
a good pretext, but sometimes the motive of such rules roots back to practices of old
superstitions and religious practices.

Moreover, the legalization of euthanasia can also lead to the decrease in autonomy of
patients. No one wants to see their loved ones suffer because of them. It is our moral and
ethical obligation. Morality requires that we strive to contribute to maximum welfare of
others” Harris, 2001, p.367).

Nevertheless, almost all the developed countries are democratic; and, there is more
freedom for individuals in these countries. Additionally, “in the online survey of a
representative national sample of 1,001 American adults, 42 per cent of respondents are
in favor of legalizing euthanasia in the United States, while 36 per cent oppose this
notion” (Canseco, 2010, p.01). There are also financial advantages to the legalization of
euthanasia. For instance, in 2017 in terms of per capita GDP growth Luxemburg and
Switzerland were top two leading economies. Both these countries are democratic; and
both have legalized euthanasia.

To conclude, although democracy encourages individuals’ rights; but in terms euthanasia

many legal and moral complications stagnates democracy to appropriately balance
individual freedom. An extensive study is required to establish detailed understanding of
euthanasia in political and legal sittings.
 References

Canseco, M., 2010. AngusReid Public Opinion: Americans Split Over Euthanasia and
Assisted Suicide. [Online]
Available at: https://euthanasia.procon.org/sourcefiles/angus-reid-public-opinion-
2-2010.pdf
[Accessed 10 April 2019].

Cica, N., n.d. Euthanasia - the Australian Law in an International Context. [Online]
Available at:
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliame
ntary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9697/97rp3
[Accessed 8 April 2019].

Harris, N., 2001. The Euthanasia Debate. Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps,
147(3), pp. 367-370.

Societies, T. W. F. o. R. t. D., n.d. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Australia. [Online]

Available at: https://www.worldrtd.net/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide-australia
[Accessed 6 April 2019]