Wim Distelmans, a professor and an oncologist of palliative medicine at the Free University of Brussels. He was one of the leading proposers of a 2002 Belgium Law that permit euthanasia for patients with a terminal illness that causes them a lot of pain physical and mental. Since then, he has euthanized more than a hundred patients. Distelmans has become well known in Belgium for advocating dignified deaths as a human right, and tremendous liberation from torture. He is a well-known speaker at cultural centers, hospitals, and schools around the country. (Aviv 1)
Explanation of Main Argument
In Belgium, euthanasia is embraced as a form of progress a sign that the country has separated itself from its patriarchal roots Catholicism. Distelmans,
…show more content…
According to them, "They are using our Christian vocabulary in a wrong way. They say they are ‘saving ' people from their bad lives, through ‘mercy ' and ‘compassion. ' that is not acceptable. He sees assisted suicide as a failure of both medical education and psychiatry. They are not learning to reflect morally on what they are doing"(Aviv, …show more content…
During his twenties, he enrolled in graduate school, in chemistry, but instead of studying, he researched his father 's suicide. He took the train to Ghent, where his father had worked, and interviewed all his colleagues and friends. Until Godelieva 's death, his mother, Tom had never given much thought to euthanasia, though he was vaguely in favor of it. "Distelmans was just a voice he heard on the radio from time to time. When the euthanasia law passed, he and his wife assumed that the law was for senior citizens who were already dying (Aviv,
Both Brittany Maynard and Craig Ewert ultimately did not want to die, but they were aware they were dying. They both suffered from a terminal illness that would eventually take their life. Their worst fear was to spend their last days, in a state of stress and pain. At the same time, they would inflict suffering on their loved ones as their family witnessed their painful death. Brittany and Craig believed in the notion of dying with dignity. The states where they both resided did not allow “active voluntary euthanasia or mercy killing at the patient’s request” (Vaughn 269). As a result, they both had to leave their homes to a place that allowed them to get aid in dying. Brittany and Craig were able to die with dignity and peace. Both avoiding
Everybody at one time or another will inevitably have death knocking at the door. And no it will not be Brad Pitt. Coping with death is a very difficult concept to deal with. Dying comes in one of three ways: homicide, suicide and natural causes. There is no debate with regards to homicide, a person takes the life of another person. Suicide is the taking of one's own life, similarly a paper cannot be written for or against it. Last but not least is death by natural causes. I would not want to write a paper on why a one hundred-fifty year old person passes away; could it have been that the person was really really old? Euthanasia consequently does not fall into one of the three causes of death, we consider it between homicide and suicide. Here is where the fireworks really start showing colors. True we could debate various subjects such as gun control, legalization of marijuana, three strikes and so on and so forth. On the other hand euthanasia deals with death totally, once it's done there is no reversal of previous court cases. It is permanent and oops is not mentioned in a sarcastic way.
Euthanasia has been a very polemic subject in American society. Its objective is to conclude the life of a person at their own request, a family member, or by the determination of a health care professional to avoid unnecessary suffering. There is a lot of moral and ethics involved in euthanasia, exist a big difference between provoke death and allow death. The first one rejects life, the second one accepts its natural end. Every single intentional act of provoke the death of a person without consent is opposed to ethics and is punishable by law. One of the biggest moral controversies in the XXI century is the fact that some people agree in the autonomy humans have to determine the moment of death. The moral and legal implications are huge and the practical benefits are also enormous. This is a touchy and controversial issue and my goal on writing this paper is to remain on favor of euthanasia. I will elaborate later on my reasons to believe and support euthanasia, but first let’s examine the historical perspective of this moral issue.
He describes how the doctors can change the patient’s views and how they can shape them according to what they believe is right and that is what happened in Godelieva’s case. In “The Death Treatment”, Aviv writes about a doctor named Distelmans, who was the proponent for making euthanasia legal for people who have incurable diseases. She also mentions that Distelmans has euthanized hundreds of people and he gives talks at schools and hospitals and other events. Distelmans is influencing people to do euthanasia, even though there are other solutions and treatments available for these people to resolve their problems. Godelieva visited Distelmans and a few months later, she decided to file for euthanasia. Before meeting him, Godelieva was depressed; however, she didn’t have thoughts about ending her life as Aviv mentions that in her diary Godelieva wrote that, “She couldn’t comprehend why her husband would kill
Assisted- physician suicide also goes by many names such as euthanasia. 'Euthanasia' rings an enormous bell as the same structure used during the holocaust in the 1940s. The difference between now and then is the innocent lives lost because of their inc...
The famous dystopian novel, Brave New World by well recognized author Aldous Huxley is a very accurate description of society today. This novel was banned in many Countries, including Ireland and Australia in 1932 for good reason. This novel has many debatable motifs, one of the most underlying motifs is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, or euthanasia. In this dystopian novel, Aldous Huxley creates a world called the World State.In the World State, people use Euthanasia for anyone who is no longer useful to the society. At 60 years old, people are no longer of use to society. In Brave New World, everyone undergoes “mental euthanasia,” because they are constantly fed
Looking at a Christian standpoint, physician assisted suicide is morally impermissible due to the sanctity of human life.
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
In the essay “The Morality of Euthanasia”, James Rachels uses what he calls the argument from mercy. Rachels states, “If one could end the suffering of another being—the kind from which we ourselves would recoil, about which we would refuse to read or imagine—wouldn’t one?” He cites a Stewart Alsop’s story in which he shares a room with a terminally ill cancer patient who he named Jack. At the end of the recounting, Alsop basically asks, “were this another animal, would not we see to it that it doesn’t suffer more than it should?” Which opens up the question of, “Why do humans receive special treatment when we too are animals?” We would not let animals suffer when there is a low chance of survival, so why is it different for us humans?
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
When people think of the words “assisted suicide” many believe it is the action of helping a person commit suicide without the aid of a licensed doctor, making it seem unlawful and inhumane. The importance of assisted suicide is that is directed by a physician that serves to make dying as painless and dignified as possible. Even with this understanding, people still oppose this action because it goes against their religious and moral beliefs. Others support the legislation because of their compassion and respect for those who suffer.
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
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.
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.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their lifetime. 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 suffering from euthanasia.