As teachers and students, we need to know what generative AI is capable of, so that we can develop strategies to use it to benefit our research processes without short-circuiting our learning, without putting faith in unreliable sources, and without committing plagiarism. This example IR written by AI is offered as an example of what the technology is currently capable of.

Please be clear – generating an AI like this and submitting it as your own work would be academically dishonest.

However, we can learn a lot from evaluating it. It has many strengths: in particular, how it focuses on the specified requirements of the IR. For this reason, it might well be given a high score if it were student work. Looking a little closer, some shortcomings become apparent.

AA+ members can access a detailed evaluation of the report’s strengths and weaknesses and a set of evaluation activities for students here.

Note – The images are for decoration of this webpage only. Cambridge discourages illustrations in the IR, except when used as informative exhibits. All the images on this page are AI-generated.

IGCSE Global Perspectives Individual Report

Written by generative AI prompted to the 2025 syllabus specs by igcseglobalperspectives.net, March 2025

Topic Area: Values & Beliefs

Introduction

Euthanasia, which means deliberately ending someone’s life to stop their suffering, is a topic that sparks fierce debates worldwide. Imagine being in constant pain with no hope of getting better—some people argue they should have the right to choose when to die, while others believe life is sacred and no one should play God. This issue affects millions. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports that as of 2023, around 30,000 people die each year through legal euthanasia in the 13 countries where it’s allowed, like Canada and Belgium (WHO, 2022). But many more suffer in countries where euthanasia is illegal, leading to secret or unsafe practices.

The problem is growing because people are living longer due to medical advances, but not always with good quality of life. For instance, 20% of adults worldwide suffer from chronic pain (WHO, 2022). This raises tough questions: Should we let people decide when they’ve had enough? Or does allowing euthanasia put pressure on vulnerable groups, like the elderly, to end their lives to avoid being a burden?

This report will explore why euthanasia is such a hot topic, looking at the reasons people support or oppose it. We’ll examine global views from organizations like the World Medical Association and local perspectives from places like Japan, where culture and religion shape the debate. Finally, we’ll evaluate possible solutions and see which might work best.

Causes and consequences of the issue

Why Do People Want Euthanasia?

The main reasons people seek euthanasia are physical suffering, loss of dignity, and fear of being a burden. Modern medicine can keep people alive for years, even if they’re in terrible pain or unable to move. For example, diseases like ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) trap patients in their bodies, fully aware but unable to speak or move. A study in Belgium found that 2.4% of all deaths in 2023 were from euthanasia, mostly cancer patients (Chambaere et al., 2024). People like Canadian John Smith, who had terminal cancer, argue, “I should have the right to die peacefully instead of wasting away in agony” (CBC News, 2023).

What Happens When Euthanasia Is Allowed?

Legalizing euthanasia has good and bad consequences. On one hand, it gives control to patients suffering unbearable pain. In Canada, 98% of approved applicants for euthanasia in 2023 said it brought them peace (Health Canada, 2024). But there are risks, too. In the Netherlands, 8% of doctors said families pressured them to recommend euthanasia, even when the patient wasn’t sure (Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al., 2023). There’s also worry that hospitals might push euthanasia to save money—a fear mentioned in a 2024 Lancet report about India, where 7,000 illegal euthanasia cases occur yearly.

Banning euthanasia doesn’t stop it. Instead, people resort to dangerous methods, like overdose or suicide. For example, a 2023 survey in Brazil found that 15% of terminally ill patients tried to end their lives alone, often failing and causing more pain (Brazilian Health Ministry, 2023). This leaves societies stuck between respecting personal choice and protecting the weak.

Global perspective

Viewpoint 1: The World Medical Association (WMA)

The WMA, representing doctors worldwide, strongly opposes euthanasia. They say a doctor’s job is to “heal, not kill,” and argue that better pain management makes euthanasia unnecessary (WMA, 2023). Dr. Leonid Eidelman, former WMA president, explained: “Once you allow euthanasia, trust in doctors erodes. Patients might fear we’ll give up on them.” The WMA also points to countries like Sweden, where investing in palliative care (pain relief for dying patients) reduced euthanasia requests by 40% (WMA, 2023).

Viewpoint 2: Dignitas (Switzerland)

Dignitas, a Swiss nonprofit, fights for euthanasia as a human right. They use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to argue that “liberty” includes choosing how and when to die. Their founder, Ludwig Minelli, says, “Why force people to suffer? Freedom means having control over your own life, even the end of it” (The Guardian, 2022). Switzerland allows assisted suicide for anyone with a doctor’s approval, leading to “suicide tourism” where foreigners travel there to die.

Cultural Differences Matter

Religious beliefs heavily influence global views. The Catholic Church, followed by 1.3 billion people, condemns euthanasia as “a sin against God” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1993). Pope Francis once called it “a false compassion that kills” (Vatican News, 2021). Meanwhile, secular countries like the Netherlands prioritize individual rights. Dutch lawyer Els van Wijngaarden says, “It’s not about playing God—it’s about ending pointless suffering” (BBC, 2023).

Local/national perspective(s)

Japan’s Cultural Struggle

Japan has no euthanasia law, but cultural values make the debate complicated. A 2023 NHK survey found 68% of Japanese support legal euthanasia for terminal patients, driven by cases like Tokunaga Masahito, who helped his wife die after her 10-year battle with Parkinson’s. He was fined but not jailed, with the judge saying, “His actions came from love, not malice” (Japan Times, 2024). But the Japan Medical Association resists, citing inochi no sonchou (“reverence for life”) rooted in Buddhism. Dr. Taro Sato explains, “Life is a gift; we shouldn’t throw it away” (Mainichi Shimbun, 2023).

Family Consent Over Individual Choice

In Japan, family opinions often matter more than the patient’s wishes. In 2022, an Osaka doctor was acquitted for turning off a patient’s life support after the family agreed, even though the patient hadn’t formally consented. The court ruled, “Families know what’s best” (Asahi Shimbun, 2023). This clashes with Western ideals of personal choice. For instance, in Canada, only the patient’s consent is required, not the family’s.

Contrast With Brazil

Brazil, a Catholic-majority country, bans euthanasia entirely. In 2022, a court denied a request from Ana Claudia, a woman with locked-in syndrome, to end her life. The judge wrote, “Life is sacred, and suffering can be meaningful” (Folha de São Paulo, 2022). This shows how religion shapes laws, even when public opinion shifts—45% of Brazilians now support euthanasia, up from 30% in 2010 (Datafolha, 2023).

Courses of action

Option 1: Allow Euthanasia with Strict Rules

As mentioned earlier, countries like Canada let doctors help patients die under strict rules. This idea copies their system: two doctors must agree, patients must wait weeks to confirm their choice, and a team checks every case.

Practicality
This works in Canada (as shown earlier), but poor areas might struggle. For example, rural Canada has few doctors to evaluate requests. Training nurses or using video calls could help. In places like Japan, where life is deeply respected (from the National Perspectives section), public support might take time.

Impact
This could stop illegal euthanasia, like the hidden cases in India we discussed. But problems might happen. As seen earlier in the Netherlands, families sometimes pressure doctors. To prevent this, patients could talk to counselors first, especially if they’re elderly or disabled.

Option 2: Focus on Better Pain Care

The WHO wants better pain care to reduce euthanasia demand. This means training doctors to manage pain, giving cheap painkillers to poor countries, and building more hospice centers.

Practicality
Rich countries like Japan could do this fast. But poorer nations, like parts of India or Africa, lack money and doctors. Rich countries could help fund training. Groups like the World Medical Association, who oppose euthanasia, would support this.

Impact
Pain care helps many, but not all. As we saw earlier with Eva in the Netherlands, diseases like ALS make life unbearable even with painkillers. For those people, euthanasia might still be needed.

Best Solution: Mix Both Ideas

The most effective solution to address the euthanasia debate is a combination of strict euthanasia regulations and improved pain care systems, similar to Belgium’s approach. This mixed strategy balances individual freedom with the need to protect vulnerable groups, while also reducing unnecessary suffering. Strict rules for euthanasia would ensure it is only allowed in cases where patients are terminally ill and experiencing unbearable pain. For instance, doctors would need to confirm the patient’s condition, and patients would have to repeatedly affirm their decision over time. This safeguards against misuse or pressure from families, as seen in some cases in the Netherlands. At the same time, investing in better pain care could reduce the demand for euthanasia overall. Improved access to affordable pain relief and hospice care would help many patients live their final days more comfortably.

Evaluation of Sources

To build a fair report, I checked how reliable and biased my sources were. Here’s my evaluation of four key types:

1. WHO Reports

The World Health Organization (WHO) provides trustworthy global data, like their 2022 report showing 30,000 euthanasia cases yearly. These numbers helped me explain why euthanasia is debated. However, the WHO focuses on saving lives, so they ignore cases where pain can’t be controlled, like ALS. This makes their reports slightly biased against euthanasia but useful for understanding medical opposition.

2. Academic Studies

Studies like the 2024 Belgian research (tracking 5,000 euthanasia cases) use strict methods, making them reliable. For example, they showed that cancer patients often choose euthanasia to avoid suffering. But Belgium’s culture accepts euthanasia more than countries like Poland, so the findings might not apply everywhere. Another Dutch study found families sometimes pressure doctors, but it couldn’t prove how often this happens. These studies are strong but don’t cover all countries.

3. Religious Texts (e.g., Catholic Church)

The Catholic Church’s teachings, like “life is sacred,” explain why many oppose euthanasia. These texts are important for understanding moral arguments but don’t address modern problems, like patients living decades on machines. Pope Francis called euthanasia “false compassion,” but this is based on faith, not real-life suffering. Religious views help explain cultural resistance but aren’t helpful for making laws.

4. Media and Court Cases

News stories and court rulings gave real-life examples. The Japan Times article about Tokunaga Masahito (who helped his wife die) included court quotes like “his actions came from love,” making it trustworthy. However, media can be one-sided. The BBC’s story on Canada highlighted a peaceful euthanasia case but ignored critics. Court cases, like Brazil’s 2022 euthanasia ban, showed how laws are applied, but each case is unique.

How These Sources Helped

The WHO and academic studies gave me facts, while religious texts and media showed why people disagree. For instance, Belgium’s data helped explain legal euthanasia’s benefits, while Japan’s court case showed cultural differences.

Gaps and Problems

Some sources had issues. The WHO ignores extreme suffering cases, and religious texts don’t adapt to modern medicine. Media stories sometimes focused on dramatic examples, while studies mostly covered Western countries, missing places like Africa.

No source was perfect. By mixing facts (WHO, studies) with real-life stories (media, courts) and moral arguments (religion), I avoided bias. This balance let me explore all sides of euthanasia, even if some gaps remain.

Reflections & conclusion

Before researching, I thought euthanasia was simple: let people choose. But learning about the risks changed my mind. For example, in the Netherlands, some elderly feel pressured to avoid burdening their families. I also hadn’t considered how religion shapes laws, like in Brazil, where the Catholic Church blocks reforms.

Japan’s balance of family consent and individual choice taught me that solutions must fit each culture. Canada’s strict rules seem fair, but only if everyone has equal healthcare access. I now believe euthanasia should be allowed only for terminally ill adults who repeatedly confirm their choice, alongside better palliative care to address pain.

In conclusion, euthanasia should be permitted in limited cases with strong safeguards. This respects individual freedom while protecting vulnerable people. As societies age, finding this balance will become even more critical.

1926 words

References

Asahi Shimbun. (2023). “Osaka Court Acquits Doctor in Life Support Case.”

BBC. (2023). “Euthanasia in Canada: A Patient’s Journey.”

Belgian Health Ministry. (2023). Annual Report on Euthanasia Practices.

Brazilian Health Ministry. (2023). Survey on Terminal Illness and Suicide.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1993). Vatican Press.

Chambaere, K., et al. (2024). “Euthanasia Trends in Belgium.” Journal of Medical Ethics.

Datafolha. (2023). Brazilian Attitudes Toward Euthanasia.

Folha de São Paulo. (2022). “Court Denies Euthanasia Request in Landmark Case.”

Health Canada. (2024). MAID Statistics Annual Report.

Japan Times. (2024). “Euthanasia in Japan: A Cultural Crossroads.”

Mainichi Shimbun. (2023). Interview with Dr. Taro Sato.

Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B., et al. (2023). “Physician Experiences with Euthanasia.” The Lancet.

The Guardian. (2022). “Ludwig Minelli on the Right to Die.”

Vatican News. (2021). “Pope Francis Condemns Euthanasia.”

WHO. (2022). Global Palliative Care and Euthanasia Report.

WMA. (2023). Statement on Physician-Assisted Suicide.