- Revised LNAT 2026 Edition: Fully updated material.
- 200 Full-Length Practice Tests.
- 8,400 Multiple-Choice Questions: Extensive question bank.
- 90 Essay Questions: Includes model answers for guidance.
- 100 Level 1 Tests : Build confidence and baseline scores.
- 100 Level 2 Tests : More verbose and challenging.
- Detailed Explanations for every answer.
- Enhanced Practice: Retake all tests up to two times.
- Answer Shuffling: Randomized for better practice.
- Access Duration: 6 months from the date of purchase.
- Value: Affordable, student-friendly pricing.
- Try two free full length practice tests before you buy.
In the LawMint LNAT Practice Test Series for 2025 and 2026, there are 30 full length tests, with 360 passages – 1260 MCQs and 90 essay prompts or essay questions.
The essay below is a sample that can be written for the prompt:
Should euthanasia be legalized for patients with terminal illnesses?
Introduction
Euthanasia, or the act of intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve suffering, has long been a topic of ethical debate. For patients with terminal illnesses, euthanasia is often seen as a way to provide relief from unbearable pain and suffering. However, legalizing euthanasia raises a variety of ethical, moral, and legal concerns. This essay will discuss the arguments for and against the legalization of euthanasia for patients with terminal illnesses, offering a balanced perspective on this controversial issue.
Arguments in Favor of Legalizing Euthanasia
One of the main arguments in favor of legalizing euthanasia is the principle of individual autonomy. Proponents argue that individuals with terminal illnesses should have the right to decide when and how they want to die, especially when facing a future of unbearable pain and suffering. Legalizing euthanasia would provide a means for patients to exercise their autonomy and make choices about their own lives and deaths.
Another argument for legalizing euthanasia is the potential to alleviate suffering. For patients with terminal illnesses, the pain and suffering associated with their conditions can be immense, and in some cases, may not be effectively managed by palliative care. Euthanasia can provide a compassionate and dignified end to their suffering, allowing them to pass away on their own terms.
Furthermore, proponents argue that legalizing euthanasia would not necessarily lead to a “slippery slope” of ethical abuses, as some opponents claim. With proper regulation and safeguards in place, euthanasia could be administered responsibly and ethically, ensuring that only those who genuinely wish to end their lives and meet strict eligibility criteria can access this option.
Arguments Against Legalizing Euthanasia
Opponents of euthanasia legalization raise several concerns, including the potential for abuse and the erosion of the sanctity of life. Critics argue that legalizing euthanasia could create a slippery slope, leading to an increased number of euthanasia cases and potentially extending the practice to individuals who are not terminally ill or who face temporary suffering. This could result in a devaluation of human life and undermine the moral and ethical foundations of medicine and society.
Another argument against legalizing euthanasia is the potential for coercion or undue influence. Critics argue that vulnerable patients, such as the elderly, disabled, or those with mental illnesses, may be pressured or coerced into choosing euthanasia by family members, caregivers, or healthcare providers. Legalizing euthanasia could, therefore, place these vulnerable individuals at risk.
Additionally, opponents contend that the focus should be on improving palliative care rather than legalizing euthanasia. By investing in better pain management, emotional support, and end-of-life care, patients with terminal illnesses could be provided with a high quality of life during their final days, negating the perceived need for euthanasia.
Striking a Balance
In considering whether euthanasia should be legalized for patients with terminal illnesses, it is essential to balance the potential benefits and risks associated with this practice. While euthanasia may provide relief and autonomy for some patients, there are legitimate concerns about potential abuses, coercion, and the erosion of the sanctity of life.
One potential solution is to explore alternative approaches to end-of-life care that respect individual autonomy while addressing concerns about abuse and coercion. This could include a focus on improving palliative care, ensuring that patients have access to comprehensive support and pain management, and exploring options for assisted dying with strict regulation and safeguards in place.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate surrounding the legalization of euthanasia for patients with terminal illnesses is complex and multifaceted, with strong arguments on both sides. While euthanasia may provide relief and autonomy for some patients, there are legitimate concerns about potential abuses, coercion, and the erosion of the sanctity of life.
By exploring alternative approaches to end-of-life care that balance individual autonomy with the need for safeguards and a focus on improving palliative care, society can work towards a more compassionate and ethical approach to managing the suffering of patients with terminal illnesses.
- Revised LNAT 2026 Edition: Fully updated material.
- 200 Full-Length Practice Tests.
- 8,400 Multiple-Choice Questions: Extensive question bank.
- 90 Essay Questions: Includes model answers for guidance.
- 100 Level 1 Tests : Build confidence and baseline scores.
- 100 Level 2 Tests : More verbose and challenging.
- Detailed Explanations for every answer.
- Enhanced Practice: Retake all tests up to two times.
- Answer Shuffling: Randomized for better practice.
- Access Duration: 6 months from the date of purchase.
- Value: Affordable, student-friendly pricing.
- Try two free full length practice tests before you buy.
