Active euthanasia should not be allowed in the United States of America. In order to reject euthanasia, a few distinctions must be made. Passive euthanasia refers to the cessation of medical care, whereas active euthanasia refers to a physician administering a drug or procedure to end the life of a patient, both ultimately leading to the death of the patient (Hemsen & ten Have, 2002, p. 521). Essentially, passive euthanasia leads to death by omission and active euthanasia leads to death through an act. Active euthanasia is also commonly referred to as physician assisted suicide. Although attempted suicide is currently illegal in the United States, those who are terminally ill or those with life-threatening injuries can choose to die by refusing …show more content…
For the most part, laws are the same for everyone in the United States. Laws do not discriminate on who performs the act. Seldom are laws that only pertain to certain individuals and not others. The same laws apply to all of the people in the United States, regardless of their socioeconomic status, occupations, or sex. I realize that currently there are discrepancies amongst the application of the law for certain people of particular races, but I am talking about how the laws should be applied and how the people of the U. S. expect them to be enforced. The ending of a life should be viewed in a similar manner to the legal laws and their applications. If it is not acceptable for people to kill other human beings in other situations, then it should not be permissible for people to kill other human beings when they are very ill and want to die (Nunes & Rego, 2016, pp. …show more content…
For example, if dying is a less costly choice, patients would feel pressured to choose euthanasia over palliative care, as it would put less burden on their families or caretakers. Proponents of euthanasia say that people have the “right to die” (Math & Chaturvedi, 2012, pp. 899-901). However, they do not realize that the option of euthanasia might give people a “duty to die.” As previously discussed, attempted suicide is illegal. Why should people be allowed to decide to end their lives if they have a great disease or illness when we do not allow them to do so in any other circumstance, even if they are suffering from a mental disorder or some other circumstances that make life seem unbearable? I am sure the people who desire euthanasia are in a difficult situation, which is why they want a way out of it. However, I would also argue that life is tough in general. There are a lot of situations people experience that make life extremely difficult, such as being in extreme poverty or having major depressive disorder, but in those other situations, we expect those suffering individuals to push through. They are not given the option to kill themselves because of their adversity. The government, to be fair and just, should remain consistent. Therefore, euthanasia should be illegal, just like attempted suicide and murder, because it is the active killing of an innocent life.
Meaning, "good death". But the word “euthanasia” today means taking action to achieve a good death. Euthanasia is often used by doctors; the doctor would prepare the patient a lethal dose of drugs and administer the drugs to them or the doctor injects the patient with lethal injections. There are two different forms of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is the hastening of a persons’ death by injections or a different form of assisted suicide while passive euthanasia is the withholding of treatment or medications that are currently keeping the patient alive (Barbuzzi, p.1, 2014). Informed consent from the patient is required for both passive and active euthanasia. . According to the Barbuzzi, informed consent is, “A patient’s expression of knowledge and acceptance of the risks, benefits, and alternative treatment options of a medical procedure and subsequent permission to a physician to perform the procedure” (Barbuzzi, p.1 2014).Suicide, self-deliverance, auto-euthanasia, aid-in-dying, assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, physician-assisted dying can all be justified by the supporters of the right to die movement for the following
killing and letting die. Some argue that letting die, which is the action considered to take
For example, a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment. They also have the right to refuse resuscitation if they are in need of life support. Active or involuntary euthanasia refers to providing the means for someone to take their life or assisting with taking their life (“Euthanasia”). There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death.
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been a hot topic of debate for quite some time now. Some believe it to be immoral, while others see nothing wrong with it what so ever. Regardless what anyone believes, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal for physicians and patients. Death is a personal situation in life. By government not allowing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights! Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the power to save the lives of family members and other ill patients. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal however, there should be strict rules and guidelines to follow and carry out by both the patient and physician. If suicide isn’t a crime why should euthanasia and assisted suicide? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal and the government should not be permitted to interfere with death.
For example, if a person is in a coma and the family believes that they will not revive, then the family should allow the patient to die because the patient is basically dead already. Furthermore, if someone is in really bad pain, then they should be able to choose euthanasia because they are suffering a lot. They might not want to die because they acknowledge it would make their family member sad, but on the other hand they are hurting and can only think about is the pain. That is when I strongly agree with Hooker that people should be able to choose euthanasia and that being euthanised is for the best. In my opinion, having a law permitting euthanasia is good because it means that the person can take control of their own life. It would be up to them whether they want to be euthanised or not, in both good and bad conditions. Just having the option can be beneficial to some because it is like having the freedom to choose to live or die. Therefore, If I was sick, I would like to have a law that permits me to choose euthanasia, because I could decide whether it is the best decision for me or
All humans will die. Approximately 2,155,000 people from the United States will die in one year. In the United States, during the year of 1989, 34% of all deaths were caused by heart disease, 23% caused by cancer, 6% by strokes, and 2.2% by accidents involving motor vehicles. In that same year, 5.5% of the deaths were caused by medical negligence and suicide (Leading causes). This does not take into consideration the number of people who were killed by assisted suicide and euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is described as the intentional discontinuation, by the patient's physician, of vital treatment that could prolong the person's life. Assisted suicide occurs when a health care worker provides a patient with tools and/or medication that will help the patient kill him or herself, without the direct intervention of the care provider. Active euthanasia takes place when the doctor is responsible for the killing of the patient; for example, when the doctor administers a lethal injection (Schofield, 25). Active euthanasia is illegal in the United States. Only three states have legalized assisted suicide and only Oregon permits physician-assisted suicide. Thirty-five states, including Colorado, have statutes criminalizing assisted suicide and nine states criminalize assisted suicide through common law (Assisted suicide laws). In addition to active and passive euthanasia there are three other categories of euthanasia: voluntary, nonvoluntary, and involuntary. Voluntary, there is written or spoken consent from the patient; nonvoluntary, the patient can not voice his or her opinion because of unconsciousness or comatose; and involuntary, which goes against the wishes of the patient, and constitutes murder (Schofield, 26). Assisted suicide and euthanasia, in any form, are murder.
Some people refuse treatment could be motivated to live and attempt to enjoy whatever is left of their life. If active euthanasia became legal, then people would give up their life easily without trying to live longer. This objection does not undermine my position against euthanasia. Everyone should be grateful for every second of his or her life. Life often comes with endless privileges. Breathing is a privilege to live. Death should not be easy as our breaths and heartbeats will come to a stop. Death would only be pleasant if we are content with our overall life. Euthanasia would make death an easy way out. We should always try to live as long as possible because there is always a chance. If medical science cannot help us, then we should try to make the best of whatever is left. Requesting active euthanasia would mean quitting, and no one should ever quit because once you quit, you can never come
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
A recent survey by the Canadian Medical Association discovered that “ . . . 44 per cent of doctors would refuse a request for physician-assisted dying . . . ” (Kirkey 2). Euthanasia is defined as assisting a terminally ill patient with dying early. In many countries the legalization of this practice is being debated in many countries. All doctors against assisted suicide, including the 44 percent in Canada, are on the right side of the argument. Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is unnatural, it violates the Hippocratic Oath, and laws are to extensive.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
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.
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.
First of all, euthanasia saves money and resources. The amount of money for health care in each country, and the number of beds and doctors in each hospital are limited. It is a huge waste if we use those money and resources to lengthen the lives of those who have an incurable disease and want to die themselves rather than saving the lives of the ones with a curable ailment. When we put those patients who ask for euthanasia to death, then the waiting list for each hospital will shorten. Then, the health care money of each country, the hospital beds, and the energy of the doctors can be used on the ones who can be cured, and can get back to normal and able to continue contributing to the society. Isn’t this a better way of using money and resources rather than unnaturally extend those incurable people’s lives?
Euthanasia is a medical procedure which speeds up the process of dying for people with incurable, painful, or distressing diseases. The patient’s doctor can stop treatment and instead let them die from their illness. It come from the Greek words for 'good' and 'death', and is also called mercy killing. Euthanasia is illegal in most countries including the UK . If you suffer from an incurable disease, you cannot legally terminate your life. However, in a number of European countries it is possible to go to a clinic which will assist you to die gracefully under some very strict circumstances.