Grading Rubric: Research Paper Student’s name __________________________________________________________ Introduction that explains why the topic is controversial and contains a thesis statement that takes a position /30 Excellent: 27-30; Good: 24-26; Adequate: 21-23; Inadequate: below 21 ________________________________________________________________________ Well-organized body paragraphs. After your body paragraph that provides definitions and background information, each paragraph should start with a topic sentence that supports the position (argument) that you take with your thesis statement. Each paragraph must also provide supporting evidence, drawn from your sources. /100 Excellent: 90-100; Good: 80-89; Adequate: 70-79; Inadequate: below 70 Presentation and refutation of at least one counterargument /20 Excellent:18-20; Good: 16-17; Adequate: 14-15; Inadequate: below 14 Correct use of parenthetical documentation to give credit to your sources /30 Excellent: 27-30; Good 24-26; Adequate: 21-23; Inadequate: below 21 ________________________________________________________________________ Concluding paragraph that sums up or emphasizes your position /15 Excellent: 13-15; Good: 12; Adequate: 11; Inadequate: 10 and below ________________________________________________________________________ A list of references in correct APA style /30 Excellent: 27-30; Good 24-26; Adequate: 21-23; Inadequate: below 21 ________________________________________________________________________ Sentence structure and other grammar /45 Excellent: 40-45; Good: 36-39; Adequate: 31-35; Inadequate: 30 and below ________________________________________________________________________ Spelling, punctuation, and formatting /30 Excellent: 27-30; Good: 24-26; Adequate: 21-23; Inadequate: 20 or below Total /300 Running Head: EUTHANASIA EUTHANASIA 6 Euthanasia Name Institution Euthanasia One of the most controversial issues in the medical profession for decades in the practice of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide (PAS). Euthanasia is the practice of the deliberate killing of a patient, with or without their consent. PAS on the other hand is a patient-initiated and controlled form of dying upon the request of a patient. Although somehow different, these two practices are intertwined as they both involve the ending of a patient’s life. Euthanasia can be active, passive, voluntary, and involuntary. Even though euthanasia is illegal in most countries, some countries such as Netherlands and Belgium have made the practice legal in their medical institutions. Arguably, euthanasia is a moral, ethical, and a medical professional issue that should be critically scrutinized. Those in support of the euthanasia translate the practice to a good death that is merciful to patien ...

1. Grading Rubric: Research Paper
Student’s name
_____________________________________________________
_____
Introduction that explains why the topic is controversial and
contains a thesis statement that takes a position
/30
Excellent: 27-30; Good: 24-26; Adequate: 21-23; Inadequate:
below 21
_____________________________________________________
___________________
Well-organized body paragraphs. After your body paragraph
that provides definitions and background information, each
paragraph should start with a topic sentence that supports the
position (argument) that you take with your thesis statement.
Each paragraph must also provide supporting evidence, drawn
from your sources.
/100
Excellent: 90-100; Good: 80-89; Adequate: 70-79; Inadequate:
below 70
Presentation and refutation of at least one counterargument
/20
Excellent:18-20; Good: 16-17; Adequate: 14-15; Inadequate:
below 14
Correct use of parenthetical documentation to give credit to
your sources /30
Excellent: 27-30; Good 24-26; Adequate: 21-23; Inadequate:

2. below 21
_____________________________________________________
___________________
Concluding paragraph that sums up or emphasizes your position
/15
Excellent: 13-15; Good: 12; Adequate: 11; Inadequate: 10 and
below
_____________________________________________________
___________________
A list of references in correct APA style
/30
Excellent: 27-30; Good 24-26; Adequate: 21-23; Inadequate:
below 21
_____________________________________________________
___________________
Sentence structure and other grammar
/45
Excellent: 40-45; Good: 36-39; Adequate: 31-35; Inadequate: 30
and below
_____________________________________________________
___________________
Spelling, punctuation, and formatting
/30
Excellent: 27-30; Good: 24-26; Adequate: 21-23; Inadequate: 20
or below
Total /300

3. Running Head: EUTHANASIA
EUTHANASIA
6
Euthanasia
Name
Institution
Euthanasia
One of the most controversial issues in the medical profession
for decades in the practice of euthanasia and physician assisted
suicide (PAS). Euthanasia is the practice of the deliberate
killing of a patient, with or without their consent. PAS on the
other hand is a patient-initiated and controlled form of dying
upon the request of a patient. Although somehow different,
these two practices are intertwined as they both involve the
ending of a patient’s life. Euthanasia can be active, passive,
voluntary, and involuntary. Even though euthanasia is illegal in
most countries, some countries such as Netherlands and
Belgium have made the practice legal in their medical
institutions. Arguably, euthanasia is a moral, ethical, and a
medical professional issue that should be critically scrutinized.
Those in support of the euthanasia translate the practice to a
good death that is merciful to patients. Unfortunately, many
governments are still abated on the notion of making euthanasia
legal because of the ethical and morality surrounding this
practice. All patients, notwithstanding the nature of their illness
deserve adequate care until their death. The sanctity of human

4. life should be honored by medical professionals and the society
at large. Because of this all interventions that aim to make the
quality of life of dying patient meaningful should be put to use.
That said, it is worthy to postulate that, the euthanasia and PAS
are unethical acts that should not be condoned in society.
Instead, adequate care should be provided to patients to make
them confortable until their deaths.
The Harms of Euthanasia
Euthanasia and PAS are practices that do more harm than good
to the welfare of patients. First, euthanasia undermines the
medical profession. Notably, the primary role of the medical
profession is to honor and preserve life. However, euthanasia
undermines this role such that medical professionals play the
role of executioners instead of preserving life. Psychological
anxiety is another harm associated with euthanasia. In this
regard, euthanasia disrupts the trust between a physician and
patients leading to the development of psychological anxiety. In
other cases, patients are coerced to accept euthanasia or PAS
from family because of various reasons such as financial or
caregiving burdens (Emanuel, 1999, 636). Conversely, some
healthcare institutions abuse the use of euthanasia whereby
other palliative care interventions are not properly exhausted on
a patient before resorting to euthanasia. The possibility of the
abuse of this practice can only lead to more unwarranted deaths
of patients who could have been saved using other medical
interventions. In relation to the abuse of euthanasia is the use of
this practice on incompetent patients. The notion that mentally
unstable patient should be introduced to euthanasia without
their consent is unethical and unjustifiable (Hampton, 1993,
430).
If euthanasia was that humane as the proponents claim, then the
culture of deception should not have encompassed this practice.
According to Magnusson (2004, 487), there have been deceit in
healthcare institutions in regards to the planning of the death,
disposal of the body, and in the process of procuring drugs for
euthanasia. Doctors have in so many cases, fabricated the

5. underlying reasons surrounding the death of their patients in the
bid to conceal their actions. Lying on death certificates is
another case of the culture of deceit surrounding the practice of
euthanasia.
Benefits of Euthanasia
Proponents of euthanasia argue that there are many benefits
associated with this practice to warrant the legalization of
euthanasia. First is the benefit of realizing autonomy whereby
individual autonomy should be upheld as an American value.
Another neither noteworthy element to consider is the view that
euthanasia is nor harmful if it is voluntary. Second is the role of
euthanasia in reliving the pain and suffering of patients. In this
claim, euthanasia relieves the pain of terminally ill patients who
have lost hope for recovery (Emanuel, 1999, 630). Thirdly, the
incapacitated nature of one’s body is another reason in support
of euthanasia. Patients who have lost control of their bodily
functions are considered to be in pain and a persistent state of
suffering. For this reason, euthanasia is considered to be more
humane for such patients (Ho & Chantagul, 2015, 255).
However, it is my belief that the reasons provided above are not
justifiable to warrant the practice of euthanasia and PAS.
Notably, the argument on the significance of realizing
individual autonomy can be refuted because euthanasia involves
another person’s participation. In some cases, such as patients
suffering from dementia are not in a mentally stable condition
to make concrete decisions concerning their lives (de Beaufort
& van de Vathorst, 2016, 1464). Medical practitioners therefore
have the duty to safeguard the lives of such patients until their
deaths. On the other hand, the notion that euthanasia plays the
role of relieving pain and suffering of patients cannot be
supported. Arguably, there are other medical interventions that
serve the purpose of relieving pain. Additionally there are no
clinical methods to measure the standard of pain and suffering
that justify euthanasia (Emanuel, 1999, 632).
People with Dementia and the Decision of Euthanasia
There are rising cases of patients with dementia requesting for

6. euthanasia especially in the Netherlands. Dementia is a disease
that consists of a number of diseases with severe symptoms.
Because of this, dementia is associated with a short life-
expectancy thus the fear of natural decline on the part of
patients. There have been several cases of people with dementia
undergoing euthanasia in the Netherlands. In view of the above,
it should be considered ethically wrong to end the lives of
dementia patients upon their request. Just like any other
patients, patients that suffer from dementia have a right to
proper care in the course of their disease. In this fashion,
healthcare institutions and the society at large have a duty to
provide meaningful care to dementia patients. According to de
Beaufort & van de Vathorst (2016, 1466), doctors have a
professional duty to ensure that all patients regardless of
whether they are dying or not are adequately cared for. In any
cases of the administration of euthanasia irrespective of the
underlying reasons, a doctor should be held accountable for
hastening the loss of life.
Responsibilities of Respiratory Therapy Professionals in
Regards to Euthanasia
Respiratory therapy professionals have significant role play in
regards to the issue of euthanasia. According to the code of
ethics of the nursing profession, respiratory therapy
professionals should show respect to others. The dignity and
value of patients should be upheld as well as respect patients
right to medical care. Commitment to patients is another role of
respiratory therapy professions that entails providing care that
maximally advocates for the safety and rights of patients.
Honesty and self-integrity is another ethical role of nurses
towards being honest with patients. In the same fashion is the
role of nurses to maintain professional competence by providing
the best possible care to patients. In view of the above, the
claim by most nurses on administering euthanasia out of pity of
patients is uncalled for and unprofessional (Hampton, 1993,
429).
Overall, there has been an ongoing debate on the practice of

7. euthanasia. While some countries such as Netherlands and
Belgium have made the practice legal, other nations are still
abated on their stance against this practice. Proponents of
euthanasia argue that this practice is beneficial and humane
because it alleviates the pain and suffering of terminally ill
patients. Secondly, is the notion that euthanasia can be
instrumental especially when no other medical interventions can
guarantee recovery. In such as case, euthanasia eases the
financial and caretaking burden from families. Notwithstanding
the reasons provided by those in support of this practice,
euthanasia is ethically, morally, and professionally wrong.
Euthanasia undermines the medical profession and the sanctity
of life. Death is part of the cycle of life and should occur
naturally as purposed. Legalizing euthanasia only gives rise to
the problem of distinguishing the thin line between continuing
diagnosis and terminating life. Notably, underground euthanasia
is an explicit example of the loss of lives of many patients
because of culture of deceit that surrounds euthanasia in many
health institutions. In particular, patients suffering from
dementia deserve quality care and interventions that minimize
their pain. Lastly, respiratory therapy professionals have the
role to maintain professional competence, respect the dignity
and rights of patients to receive medical care, and to advocate
for the safety of patients.
Reference
de Beaufort, I. D., & van de Vathorst, S. (2016). Dementia and
assisted suicide and euthanasia. Journal of neurology, 263(7),
1463-1467.
Emanuel, E. J. (1999). What Is the Great Benefit of Legalizing
Euthanasia or Physican-Assisted Suicide?. Ethics, 109(3), 629-
642.
Hampton, S. (1993). Should euthanasia be legalized?. British
Journal of Nursing, 2(8), 429-431.
Ho, R., & Chantagul, N. (2015). Support for voluntary and
nonvoluntary euthanasia: what roles do conditions of suffering

8. and the identity of the terminally ill play?. OMEGA-Journal of
Death and Dying, 70(3), 251-277.
Magnusson, R. S. (2004). “Underground Euthanasia” and the
Harm Minimization Debate. The Journal of Law, Medicine &
Ethics, 32(3), 486-495.