It is the authors’ intention to argue that some forms of euthanasia, to be exact, passive nonvoluntary and in exceptionally rare cases indirect euthanasia are morally permissible. However it must be noted that due to the limit of words and more importantly the authors’ lack of experience surrounding euthanasia, the claim of permissibility reflects that of the authors’ recent course readings and my emergent experience thereof. In addition to this it must also be noted that euthanasia cannot be evaluated exclusively. That euthanasia unquestionably is connected with the very questions that endeavor to understand life and death. My arguments descend from articles written by authors such as; Rachel’s, Steinbock, Beauchamp and Foot.
It is essential that one defines euthanasia in terms of the ‘good of the subject’ or that ‘death is no evil to him’ . For if euthanasia was to mean simply ‘a quite and easy death’ or ‘the means of procuring this’ as the ancient Greeks supposed an ambiguity with awkward consequences results. Foot uses the example of a murderer, careful to drug his victim, claiming on apprehension, that his act was merely euthanasia. Euthanasia therefore must be a benefit to the subject. This point is imperative in understanding the permissibly of the two forms of euthanasia which I regard moral . Therefore euthanasia, in this essay, will be defined as bringing about the death (foreseeable or unforeseeable) of another with the intention of preventing needless suffering. Where suffering is unbearable physical pain associated with a terminally ill patient or a comatose person unable to regain consciousness.
The first form of euthanasia that I deem permissible is ‘passive nonvoluntary euthanasia’. Passive nonvoluntary euthanasia (henceforth simplified as passive euthanasia) occurs when a patient dies due to either, a medical profession not performing a certain action that would keep the patient alive, or abstaining from an action that is keeping the patient alive. An example of the earlier would be switching off life-support machines or disconnecting a feeding tube. And examples of the latter would include not carrying out life-extending operations or withholding life-extending drugs.
There are two reasons why I suppose this permissible. The first is beneficence due to the loss of autonomy. Autonomy is defined as the \"the right of self government or personal freedom� . Here personal freedom is defined as the means to consciously and rationally attain a desired end. Personal freedom then is a prerequisite of the right of self government.
Euthanasia is a word derived from Greek that has the etymological meaning of an easy death through the alleviation of pain (Moreno, 1995). Through the course of history, the signification of the term has changed and evolved in many different definitions. A useful definition of euthanasia on which we will base this essay, is named ‘mercy killing’, which signifies deliberately putting an end to someone’s life to avoid further suffering, as stated by Michael Manning in 1998. The euthanasia debate possesses a strong significance in our modern society. A discussion conducted by both scholars and politicians is going on whether physicians have the right to hasten the death of an individual by the administration of poison. In this essay
Homelessness in the United States has been an important subject that the government needs to turn its attention to. There has been announced in the news that the number of the homeless people in many major cities in the United States has been increasing enormously. According to United States Interagency Council on Homelessness reported that there was an estimation of 83,170 individuals have experienced chronic homelessness on the streets of the United States’ streets and shelters on only a single night of January 2015, which is a small decrease of only 1% from the previous year (People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness, n.d.). The United States must consider this subject that most of the people underestimate it and not pay attention
Euthanasia is a word whose roots can be traced back to Greece where it meant good death. It encompasses various dimensions, from active where something is introduced to cause death, to passive where treatment or supportive actions are withheld. It also varies from voluntary euthanasia where one consents to it, to involuntary where a guardian can give consent and doctor assisted in which the doctors prescribes the medication and a third party or patient administers the prescription to cause death. Wishes for premature death have significantly contributed to the long debate regarding the role of this practice in the current health care. The debate however cuts across dynamic and complex aspects like ethical, legal, health, human rights, economic, religious, social, spiritual and cultural aspects of the enlightened society (Math & Chaturvedi, p. 889). Here, this intricate issue is argued from both sides of the ongoing debate and also the plight of the caregivers and the victims.
* Passive, indirect or negative euthanasia: ambiguous. Can be the decision by patient, parent or guardian and physician to withhold or withdraw extraordinary means of sustaining or prolonging life, such as deciding against high-risk surgery for a patient dying of cancer or kidney failure. When the intent is not to cause death but rather to reject extraordinary treatment, this results in the acceptance of death or continued life, whichever occurs, but it is not true euthanasia. The terms "passive," "indirect" or "negative euthanasia" should not be used since they play into the hands of euthanasia advocates by confusing legitimate actions with euthanasia, thereby desensitizing people to the fact that euthanasia is killing. More importantly, passive euthanasia is sometimes defined by others as the withholding of lifesaving treatment with the intention and result of causing the patient's death. This is the equivalent to active, direct euthanasia.
There are two types of homelessness, chronic and situational. A chronically homeless person is someone who has been homeless for over a long period of time. Stereotypically speaking, chronically homeless people usually are drug addicts or they have some type of mental health issue. The actual case in that theory is that: a vast majority of the chronically homeless suffer from serious mental illnesses (like schizophrenia), severe substance addiction, or a physical disability. People with mental health illnesses cannot help being homeless. Most lose their jobs due to their illness, causing them to not be able to work or to get a job, eventually leading them to not be financially capable to take care of themselves. This contributes to their
Mental illness is a condition that interrupts a person’s thought process, mood, emotion and ability to relate to others as well as daily functioning (Halter, 2014). Approximately 20-25% of adult homeless population suffers from some form of mental illness. Mental disorders prevent people from carrying out activities of daily living, such as self-care, household management, interpersonal relationships and maintaining a job.
Assisted suicide, passive and active euthanasia are illegal in most countries and states and has been a controversy for decades. There are three forms of euthanasia, active, passive and assisted suicide, they all have the same outcome, but they are different ways of acquiring it. The act of passive euthanasia, is withdrawing the patient from his or her treatment and letting nature take its course, active euthanasia, is the act of a
Mental health disorders and substance use disorders are apparent within the population of individuals who are homeless. Mental health disorders and substance use disorders have varying factors that can cause a person to develop each disorder separately. People can often suffer immensely from each one individually. Mental health and substance use disorders can cause significant distress in the lives of those diagnosed. The opposite can also be said that significant distress can cause mental health and substance use disorders. The difference depends on a number of factors such as genetics, environment, resiliency, gender, and age. However, recovery from homelessness, mental health, and substance use disorders is possible if the right resources are available.
The right of someone to take their own life has been a topic of debate since the time of Romans. In this paper euthanasia will be discussed including the history, current legislation, reasons for, reasons against, and the authors opinion on the topic. With an aging population, increasing lifespan, and an increasing rate of cancers euthanasia will become a larger topic of discussion in the years to come.
Over the years it has become a national common characteristic of the entire nation. Not only does homelessness effect an individual’s health and well- being, but it effects society as a whole. Due to the fact that many people who are without shelter or everyday necessities tend to be looked upon as thieves, and criminals who are labeled as sick and mentally ill. Many states who claim majority to be men. It is documented that 1/3rd of the homeless population has been issued to suffer from some sort of mental illness. According to Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration mental illness was ruled as the third largest root to homelessness for many single adults. The hypothesis was conclude after a survey was collected in 2008, it showed that in 25 cities around 1/8th of cities claim that mental illness is ranked to be the peak to homelessness and 38 % suffer from alcohol and numbers increase when it comes to alcohol abuse. In most case these single adults who suffer from mental illness are not able to maintain house hold management. Those who are of urban landscape show a greater number of homeless who reside in that current state. That means that there are roughly around 62.9 % of people who suffer from mental health are documented for treatment and out of that percentage around 26 % mental individual make of the individuals staying in shelters and the rest of the individuals find themselves partaking in the street life. And then there are those who go
Homelessness can be defined as the lack of a fixed regular and adequate nighttime residence. Furthermore, homelessness also entails people who are people who are at risks of being evicted from their residential houses or people who are discharged from institution such as hospital or prison and they have nowhere to go. Families that experience homelessness usually have limited education since lack of adequate educatio...
Contrary to the popular belief that many people are homeless due to the fact that they abused alcohol or had a drug addiction, it seems those problems are more commonly derived from homelessness rather than the cause of it. This has been proven thanks to a new study from Northumbria University in the United Kingdom. Alcohol abuse and drug addiction are just some of the antisocial behaviors that are introduced with homelessness. Some of the aforementioned antisocial behaviors include drug addiction, violent behavior, alcoholism, and many different types of mental illnesses.
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,
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.
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because