Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why should we legalize euthanasia
Why euthanization should be legal
Why euthanization should be legal
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Euthanasia is an action that result in the death of a person. There are four types of euthanasia, such as voluntary active euthanasia, nonvoluntary active euthanasia, voluntary passive euthanasia, and nonvoluntary passive euthanasia. Among the four types of euthanasia, voluntary active euthanasia or VAE is the most controversial ethical issue in the United States. It is the killing of a competent patient who decided to end his/her suffering by ending his/her life with the help of the physician. VAE is illegal in the Unites States; however, it is morally just. Voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral on the basis of Immanuel Kant’s human dignity, the utilitarian’s Greatest Happiness Principle, and James Rachel’s view of active euthanasia. According to Immanuel Kant, a person has dignity that makes him autonomous. Thus, the decision of the autonomous patient to die has intrinsic value. Because patients are rational agent, they are able to make their own decision based on reason. A rational patient will reason that if continued existence is full of suffering and no-hope for better well-being, therefore, the best option is to discontinue his/her life to save him/herself from that future condition. It is the patient’s approach to manage his/her own life. Dan W. Brock is right in his article “Voluntary Active Euthanasia” when he said that, “self-determination [or autonomy] has fundamental value… [because]… individual [can] control the manner, circumstances, and timing of their dying and death” (75). The dignity of the patient lies in their “capacity to direct their lives” (Brock 75). According to Stephen G. Potts, a patient might seek euthanasia for the benefits of other people (79). In his argument against VAE, the p... ... middle of paper ... ...uffer. The voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral. It is morally right for a person to seek euthanasia because it is their freedom or autonomy to control their own lives. It ends the suffering of the patient without harming other people. Furthermore, it prevents the person to suffer by giving him/her lethal injection or medication that prevents a person to die slowly with pain. On the other hand, the arguments against euthanasia are not sound. A thorough assessment will protect patient who request euthanasia for the benefits of others. A patient who seek for euthanasia does not use him/herself as means, but as ends to respect his/her own humanity. Furthermore, God as a benevolent will not allow a person to suffer which endorse the purpose of euthanasia – to end suffering. Therefore, voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized in the United States.
There are two types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive or voluntary euthanasia refers to withholding life saving treatments or medical technology to prolong life. For example, a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment. They also have the right to refuse resuscitation if they are in need to be placed on life support. Active or involuntary euthanasia refers to providing the means for someone to take their life or assisting with taking their life (“Euthanasia” Discovering).
Euthanasia is the act of ending a person’s life through lethal injection or through the removement of treatment. Euthanasia comes from the Greek word meaning “good death.” When a death ends peacefully, it is recognized as a good death. In modern society, euthanasia has come to mean a death free of any pain and anxiety brought on through the use of medication; this can also be called mercy killing, deliberately ending someone’s life in order to end an individual’s suffering. Anything that would ease human suffering is good. Euthanasia eases human suffering. Therefore, euthanasia is good. Because active euthanasia is considered as suicide or murder, it is a very controversial issue and therefore, illegal in most places. Although there are always
...hat patients should be allowed to make the decision of the right time to end their life’s and to always have the right to die with dignity. Without physician assistance people who are terminal ill may commit suicide in a messy, horrifying and traumatic way. Terminal ill patients sometimes suffer discomfort and pains so terrible that is beyond the comprehension of those who have not actually experienced it. The options given to those individuals to end their own life can saved them from their misery, therefore such policies are morally right. Also with allowing this policies we can spare a lot of suffering to the family, without a doubt it can be traumatic for a family member see their loved ones slowly die. Sometimes terminal ill patients remain connected to artificial respirators devices, taking strong doses of painkillers and in general living an unworthy life.
“When a patient says, ‘Help me doctor,’ he is assuming that his doctor is on the side of his life.” This quote by Dr.Margaret Cottle , who is a palliative care physician , shows the mentality that most patients have when it comes to patient care. Euthanasia is a very controversial topic that has been debated on throughout the years. Whether it may be active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia, indirect or physician assisted the morals and reasoning behind each are controversial. Though some people may believe euthanasia may be justified in a critical situation and critical punishment, euthanasia should be prohibited because euthanasia weakens societies respects for the sanctity of life, euthanasia might not be in the person’s best interest, and euthanasia affects other peoples rights, not just the patients.
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 debate on whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalized has been a controversial topic. Euthanasia is defined as ‘a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering’ [1]. Voluntary euthanasia refers to the patients who understand the terms in the consent and sign up under consciousness, while involuntary euthanasia is performed against patient's wishes and some people may regard it as a murder [1].
“Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.”(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life. These patients are incompetent to decide because they are either minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted when it is against the will of the patient (Gupta, Bhatnagar, Mishra). Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia means life-sustaining treatments are withheld and nothing is done to keep the patient alive. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician do something by giving drugs or substances that ends a patient’s life. (Medical News Today)
I would like to begin by defining the issue of the article by Patrick Nowell-Smith. The issue of his article is legalizing euthanasia and giving people a right to decide when and how to die.
“The active, intentional termination of a patient’s life by a doctor who thinks that death is a benefit to that patient. Euthanasia then is not simply a doctor doing something which he foresees will shorten the patient’s life, but doing something intending to shorten the patient’s life” (397). In his article he mentions different types of euthanasia; which include voluntary active euthanasia (VAE), non-voluntary euthanasia (NVAE), and involuntary active euthanasia IVAE). Voluntary active euthanasia can best be described as maneuvers carried out by another person to terminate life by the patient’s wishes. Non-voluntary euthanasia is reserved for instances where the person may not be able to make their own decision. This applies in cases of babies, young children, and those who do not have the...
There are two cases of euthanasia, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is conducted with consent from the patient while involuntary euthanasia is conducted without consent, but the decision is made by a close relation to the patient because of incapability on the patient part. Also euthanasia has two procedural classifications, passive and active. Passive euthanasia involves withdrawal of life-prolonging treatments, whereas active euthanasia as well-known as mercy killing involves the use of force or lethal substance are used to end a patient’s life. Active euthanasia include life-ending actions conducted by the patient or somebody else. In short: euthanasia involves killing the patient to eliminate the pain while end-of-life care involves eliminating the pain so that the patient can die painlessly, from natural causes. Euthanasia is very controversial in the sense, many argued that it is assisted suicide and could be a cover for outright murder. Others have also argue that, in hastening the dying process of a patient is not apparently the way to relieve suffering. In contrast, regardless of a patient’s medical condition, euthanasia is against medical ethics, is against most religions, and it is not the ultimate answer to end suffering patients. Physicians and doctors have a code of ethics that’s guide their practices. Euthanasia is a direct violation of the medical oath which states that Physician-assisted suicide, like eu...
Euthanasia, according to the dictionary, means the killing of a person who is suffering from an incurable disease. Lately, it had been a huge debate over whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. Personally, I believe that euthanasia should be legalized if it is voluntary. I have three reasons for my argument.
Euthanasia brings up a lot of social and moral issues in today’s society. There is a lot of controversy when this subject is being debated. Should it be legal or illegal? Some of the people who are against Euthanasia have argued that due to religious reasoning’s, taking a life, no matter the circumstance is not in god’s plan. They believe that killing someone through euthanasia is in fact comparable to murder. This is also referred to as “assisted suici...
According to Zyl, “Perhaps the most frequently heard argument in favor of legalizing active voluntary euthanasia is based upon the notion of patient autonomy and the right to self-determination” (11). The author argues that people have the right to make their own decisions and are capable of maki...
When considering whether the piece of legislation titled “The Death with Dignity Act” is morally and philosophically justifiable, the moral and philosophical viability of what is referred to as active voluntary euthanasia must first be evaluated. Because active voluntary euthanasia seeks to reduce the amount of suffering of the patients as well as offer individuals greater control over their lives, it can be justified, and the “Death with Dignity Act” outlines a responsible method for enacting active voluntary euthanasia. One of the most contentious issues when considering active voluntary euthanasia is the first part of the term—active. According to opponents of active voluntary euthanasia, it is morally worse to actively cause the death of an individual as opposed to simply letting die naturally by withholding treatment.
Euthanasia is a term used to describe what we refer to as a “mercy-killing.” This type of death is common among patients who are in dealing with a great deal of suffering. Active, voluntary euthanasia is a form of euthanasia that requires someone, such as a doctor, performing the actual act of killing a person, such as a patient; however, the patient has given full consent to the doctor to allow this act to happen because it is in the patient’s best interest to no longer suffer. Although this act can appear as immoral in the eyes of some people, health care professionals consider the four major ethical principles, nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy and justice, when making these tough decisions centering around morality.