Should Euthanasia be legalized? Recently, a Texan family has discovered the heart break of losing a child due to a tragic accident. However, their sufferings as well as those of the child’s could have been reduced had euthanasia been legalized. Though many people have a different standpoint on the legalization of euthanasia (or as some say, “physician-assisted suicide”), you are most definitely going to have a much stronger opinion if you have experienced having a family member in this situation, such as the Newton family in Texas. In the following, we will discuss euthanasia from a structural functionalist perspective. Recently, a family decided to end treatment for their 21 month old baby girl in the only “humane way” possible: nutrition withdrawal (Bever, 2014). In September, 19-month old Natalie Newton wandered into the family’s pool unsupervised by her parents. When she was found, Natalie was blue in the face from lack of oxygen and immediately rushed to the hospital. Though they were able to revive her, doctors informed the family that Natalie would not live; she was deaf, blind, unable to move and ultimately brain dead from being withdrawn from oxygen for as long as she had been. While Natalie remained immobile and dead to the world, her parents begged the physicians to euthanize their child. However, currently in the state of Texas, euthanziation is illegal and the hospital’s ethics committee would not allow it. The only method they allowed that they considered humane, was to withhold both nutrition and hydration from Natalie. While it’s always traumatic for any parent to watch their child die, the Newton’s looked on as it took nine full days for Natalie to finally pass away from lack of nutrition. The parents argue ... ... middle of paper ... ... of murder. It would perhaps even lead healthy individuals to commit suicide which would even eventually be considered part of the norm. In all, a structural functionalist perspective would break down the concept of euthanasia and claim its importance for society. Euthanasia would be given a function, and a structural functionalist would show what this function does for the population. They would see euthanasia as having two functions, an obvious one (manifest) and one that has unintended consequences (latent). This sociological perspective could also see euthanasia as having negative impacts and would give it a latent dysfunction. Natalie Newton’s family are obviously in favor of legalizing euthanasia and a structural functionalist would be able to support their opinion. From this sociological perspective, it can be said that euthanasia is a necessity for society.
Euthanasia is one of the most complicated issues in the medical field due to the debate of whether or not it is morally right. Today, the lives of many patients can be saved with the latest discoveries in medicine and technology. But we are still unable to find cures to all illnesses, and patients have to go through extremely painful treatments only to live a little bit longer. These patients struggle with physical and psychological pain. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. discusses the topic of just and unjust laws in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” which brings into question whether it is just to kill a patient who is suffering or unjust to take that person’s life even if that person is suffering. In my opinion people should have the right, with certain restrictions, to end their lives in the way they see fit if they are suffering from endless pain.
Bibliography:.. Bernard, Neal, Ed. & Co. d. a. a. a. a. a. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone.
I have brought forward considerations that counter Callahan's reasoning against three types of arguments that support euthanasia: the right to self-determination, the insignificant difference between killing and letting a person die by removing their life-support, and euthanasia's good consequences outweighing the harmful consequences are all positive, relevant and valid factors in the moral evaluation of euthanasia. Callahan's objections against these reasons do not hold.
The case of Nancy Cruzan has become one of the landmark cases for withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration because of important ethical issues the case brings to light. At the time of the case, the United States Supreme Court had already established the right of an individual to refuse medical treatment. This issue therefore is not novel to the Cruzan case. Furthermore, there was not any controversy over who was the appropriate decision maker for Nancy Cruzan. The significant issue that the Cruzan case did bring to the table of medical ethics regarded whether or not a substituted decision make could choose to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition on behalf of another individual.
In today’s modern society the use of euthanasia and assisted suicide is a hot button topic. Due to the argumentative nature of this issue many philosophers have created their own ideas on how euthanasia and assisted suicide benefit or harm society. These philosophers such as Brock and Callahan differ in their arguments about euthanasia and assisted suicide. Like almost all the heavily opinionated topics in society there should be limits to the use thus my consensus regarding euthanasia and assisted suicide is that it should be legalized to a certain extent.
Opposing Viewpoints."Introduction to Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints." Euthanasia. Ed. Carrie Snyder. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. http://ic.galegroup.com.library.collin.edu/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010134107&userGroupName=txshracd2497&jsid=af2eacb374dfea6a89c0773d16c35a50
Euthanasia can be defined as the following: “the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.” The key word here, obviously, is “intentional.” If the death is not intentional, it is not an act of euthanasia. Euthanasia can be voluntary as well as non-voluntary. The most recent case we have heard of in the news dealing with euthanasia is the Terri Schiavo case. In Schiavo’s case, the fact that the doctors took out her feeding tube was a non-voluntary form of euthanasia. Rather than having her own consent, her husband made the decision, making it non-voluntary. Her husband believed it was the best choice for her because she was in a vegetated state for over fifteen years. (Hentoff) But many people do not agree with his decision. They argue against legalizing euthanasia in itself.
Emilio is terminally ill and is under the care of the Children’s Hospital in Texas. He is placed on life support by a respirator and is given pills causing the child to spend majority of his time in the pediatric intensive care unit unconscious. Showing no signs of improvement, the physician has requested the parents look for another hospital willing to continue aiding Emilio within a period of 10 days. Under the Texas “futile-care” law, the hospital’s ethics committee can, “declare the care of a terminally ill patient to be of no benefit,” allowing them to terminate care after a given time period. (Moreno, Sylvia. Case Puts Futile-Treatment Law Under a Microscope.
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
In Sullivan versus Rachel’s on euthanasia I will show that James Rachel’s argument is logically stronger than Sullivan’s argument. I will present examples given by both authors regarding their arguments and also on their conclusions about it. I will explain both of the author’s logical strengths and weaknesses in their arguments. I will give the examples given by both authors on how they prove their arguments to be true and later I will decide whose argument is stronger based on their strengths and weaknesses. I will give one of Rachel’s main strong arguments and one of Sullivan’s very weak arguments. I will also show if both of the author’s premises follow from the conclusion. And at the end I will give my opinion on my personal reasons on whose I think makes more sense in presenting their arguments.
Euthanasia is the medical practice of ending one’s life in order to preserve their dignity and relieve extreme pain when quality of life is low. There are several methods of euthanasia of which people choose from. These methods include active, passive, voluntary, involuntary, indirect and assisted euthanasia. As of now, only a few countries have legalized euthanasia. The countries most known for the legalization of it are Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. In a recent news article titled “Why I Support Assisted Dying”, a Canadian poll revealed that 26 % of physicians would be willing to actually participate in assisted dying and that if euthanasia were legalized, more and more medical professionals would agree with it (Morris, 2013). In this specific article, there is some light shed on the issue in comparison to others which often put a negative spin on the issue. In instances where palliative care is not enough, physician assisted euthanasia is proposed by the article. Due to many of the negative stigmas attached to the matter at hand, many see euthanasia as a social problem which should not be carried out. However, there are plenty of reasons to rectify such attitudes. From a sociological perspective, a functionalist would argue that euthanasia should not be a social issue and should be legalized. Euthanasia is an alternative anyone should have the right to exercise to end one’s own suffering, maintain dignity and pride until the very end, and to free up medical funds that could be used towards saving other lives.
In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die. I plan to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of both active and passive euthanasia.
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.
Larson, Edward J. “Legalizing Euthanasia Would Encourage Suicide” Euthanasia- Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wesseker. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1995. 78-83. Print.
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