Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
euthanasia legal and ethical issues
Euthanasia legal position
the debate about euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: euthanasia legal and ethical issues
In order to provide a framework for my thesis statement on the morality of euthanasia, it is first necessary to define what euthanasia is and the different types of euthanasia. The term Euthanasia originates from the Greek term “eu”, meaning happy or good and “thanatos”, which means death, so the literal definition of the word Euthanasia can be translated to mean “good or happy death”. The different types of Euthanasia are active or passive euthanasia and voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. Passive Euthanasia generally refers to the ending of a persons life by removing the person from a life-sustaining machine, such as a respirator. This form of euthanasia is endorsed by the American Medical Association and is less controversial than active euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to ending a persons life by a competent medical authority giving the person a lethal injection of a muscle relaxant or pain killer medication. The terms voluntary or involuntary refer to whether or not a patient requests euthanasia or whether the patient is not able to make such a request and euthanasia is carried out by a competent medical authority at the request of another family member, or by a competent medical authority’s decision. Involuntary euthanasia usually occurs when a patient is comatose. Because passive euthanasia is accepted by the American Medical Association in cases where it is clear the patient has no reasonable hope of living without the aid of a machine, passive euthanasia is not as controversial as active euthanasia. This paper will focus on the controversial morality issues regarding active voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the ending of a persons life by lethal injection with or without the patients consent. Unless oth... ... middle of paper ... ... greater pain and anguish for longer periods of time than my father did, I believe euthanasia is the only compassionate form of relief we can provide. I believe it is morally important to allow an individual to die with respect for his or her dignity, while respecting his or her autonomy. Because of these reasons, euthanasia is morally justified when administered under strict controls. Works Cited Kamm, F.L. (1998) Physician-Assisted Suicide, Euthanasia, and Intending Death. Physician-Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate Kass, L. (1989, Winter). Neither for Love nor Money: Why Doctors Must Not Kill Quaghebeur, T., Dierckx de Casterlé, B.,& Gastmans, C. (2009). Nursing and Euthanasia: a review of argument-based ethics literature, Nursing Ethics, 2009 16 (4). Shafer-Landau, R., (2010), The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford University Press.
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
The cultural connotations of euthanasia involve a speedy and merciful death done for the benefit of the person being euthanized. Many associate the term with phrases like “mercy killing” implying that it is for the benefit of the subject and not to their detriment, furthermore this phrase suggests that the act of euthanasia itself is an act of charity. In her paper Euthanasia Phillipa Foot sets out to discuss the major philosophical implications associated with the act of euthanasia and whether or not they can be morally justified in certain circumstances, and goes on to discuss the tremendous societal impact of a fully legalized and widely accepted practice of euthanasia. She first begins by addressing the commonly held definition of euthanasia,
Dying with dignity, mercy death, right to die, and assisted suicide are just a few of the common terms, which describe a person’s death by euthanasia. Euthanasia has and always will be a very sensitive and controversial topic. There are two common questions surrounding this dilemma. The first is when is it considered mercy? Is it when a person is facing a terminal illness? The second is when is considered murder? Is it when a person looking for an easy way out of suffering and pain? This paper will examine the ethical dilemma of euthanasia according to the Christian worldview and compare it to other options of resolving the dilemma.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
The controversy over euthanasia has recently become highly publicized. However, this issue is not a new debate. Society has voiced its opinions on the subject for hundreds of years. Euthanasia, which is Greek for "good death", refers to the act of ending another person’s life in order to end their suffering and pain.1 Two forms, passive and active euthanasia, categorize the actions taken to end the person’s life. Passive euthanasia involves removing a patient’s life support, withholding food and water, and discontinuing medical treatments. Active euthanasia includes any direct action taken to cause the death of the person, such as administrating a lethal drug.2 The debate over this issue stems from moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. All of these standpoints either side with the patient dying a natural death or from an accelerated death by euthanasia.
Euthanasia is a way that can help those who do not want to suffer or those who want it to be over quickly and with no pain. Does everyone have the right to die? “Many believe that killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die” (Rachels, 229). Many will say that God created us, and we should not take the easy way out, but rather was die slowly. Others believe that it is up to the person who is in pain whether they want to take an easy way out by an injection. In this paper I will discuss Passive Euthanasia and Active Euthanasia and James Rachels and Bonnie Steinbocks opinions on the subject. There will also be personal experiences as well as which between Passive and Active Euthanasia I believe has a stronger argument.
Principally euthanasia or physician assisted suicide has two types: active and passive. Active is where a person deliberately and directly causes the patient's death and in passive euthanasia death is brought about by an omission by withdrawing or withholding treatment in order to let the person die (Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide).
The subject of Euthanasia is a heated battle, in which lines have been drawn between warring social, religious and political groups. Many people want this controversial institution erased from the volumes of lawful medicine, but others say that we should be able to choose our fates in extreme cases. Neither the lawmakers of the country nor the people have been able to find a solution to this debate without causing an intense opposition, and the possibility for an end to this war of ethics seems very far in the distance.
There are two main categories of euthanasia, voluntary (conducted with consent) and involuntary (conducted without consent). Also, we come upon two practical classifications of euthanasia: active (injecting lethal substance or forces used to end patient’s life) and passive (withholding of life-sustaining treatments) (Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, 2012). Therefore, I see four types of euthanasia: active voluntary euthanasia, where a patient makes a conscious decision to die; active involuntary euthanasia is when a lethal injection brings a patient to death without his or her consent; in passive voluntary euthanasia, the patient request the discontinuation of life-support measures; passive involuntary euthanasia encourages one person, such as family member, guardian, or a doctor, to take the decision on behalf of a terminal-ill patient who is unable to give their consent to suspend medical treatment that is necessary to maintain life (like turning off a life-support machine).
Much like the word itself, Active euthanasia is the involvement of killing an individual by Active means, for instance, using lethal injections. This is also identified as mercy killing. According to the American Bar Association, “proponents of Active euthanasia often point to the fact that pain control through the administration of narcotics may in fact hasten a patient's death” (American Bar Association, 1992 p. 1). There are also different forms of Active euthanasia named voluntary Active euthanasia and involuntary Active euthanasia. Voluntary Active euthanasia is known as physician assisted suicide. In this case, patients chose their death due to their medical state. Involuntary Active euthanasia occurs when a medical patient does not give the consent of wanting to die. On the contrary, Passive euthanasia, is the act of withdrawing or withholding treatment that is given to an ill patient. For example, a patient is taken off of life support by having the “plug”...
Is it right to intentionally bring about the death of a person? The vast majority of people would instinctively answer this question “no,” unless it related to an act of war or perhaps self-defense. What if taking the life of the person would benefit that person by ending their suffering? Would it be morally acceptable to end their suffering? Questions like these are debated by those considering the morality of euthanasia, which is a very controversial topics in America. Euthanasia can be defined as “bringing about the death of another person to somehow benefit that person” (Pojman). The term implies that the death is intentional. Because there are several different types of euthanasia, it is difficult to make a blanket statement concerning the morality of euthanasia. This paper will discuss the particular morality of the passive and active forms of involuntary, nonvoluntary, and voluntary euthanasia. I believe that voluntary passive euthanasia is morally acceptable, while all other forms of euthanasia are ultimately immoral.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.
In examining the different forms of euthanasia, it ultimately becomes clear that both voluntary and non-voluntary passive, or negative, euthanasia do not violate ethical principles as they act in such a way that they basically restore man’s right to death. This form of euthanasia “means discontinuing or desisting from the use of extraordinary life-sustaining measures or heroic efforts to prolong life in hopeless cases when such prolongation seems an unwarranted extension of either suffering or unconsciousness” (Russell 20). That is, it is an action that has the purpose of allowing death to occur naturally, whereby it becomes very difficult to criticize passive or negative euthanasia according to ethical and religious arguments. This form of euthanasia, although it can occur without ...
This essay will discuss the arguments both for and against euthanasia, with careful consideration given to all aspects related to the debate. Perhaps the most well known arguments in the euthanasia debate are that of the sanctity of life, of which holds palpable religious connotations which will be further discussed; the ending of suffering or 'low quality of life'; and the respect for patient autonomy (Huxtable & Campbell, 2003). In terms of extremities of the euthanasia debate spectrum, the Church of England (2000) have published a document greatly opposing euthanasia, whilst on the other hand, Otlowski (1997) has thoroughly researched and published an analysis of the law with the ultimate aim of ensuring euthanasia as a legal option.
Euthanasia is intended to end the persons life. There are different types of euthanasia,they all are however intended to kill. Passive euthanasia is the act of withdrawing a patient from their medication or with holding it. Assisted suicide although it may seem similar is not. Assisted suicide is the act of an ill patient allowing a physician control over the persons existence(Smith, 623). Euthanasia is only used if the person is a situation where they no longer see any possibility of improvement. Euthanasia is a decision some people take to end their life,since euthanasia is meant to end the persons life. Nargis Ebrahimi author of the article titled The Ethics of Euthanasia is a medical student in the University of Australia. Euthanasia is the persons ability to decision which measures they will take in regards to their existence. Euthanasia is also known as mercy killing because terminally patients are relieve from the enduring pain they face. Euthanasia has many branches active euthanasia ,for example, is the direct ingestion of a substance to end the persons life. Passive euthanasia is not considered euthanasia in many countries,because countries give the right to the patient to deny