More handpicked essays just for you.
Euthanasia moral and ethical issues
Ethical, moral and legal implications of euthanasia
Ethical issues surrounding euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Introduction:
Medical advances over the past hundred years have extend the life expectancy astronomically. Medicine provides hope that in the event of an “accident” we can be sure everything will be done to preserve our life, and that the healthcare community will exhaust all possibilities and resources in trying to accomplish this goal. Healthcare also give the reassurance of palliative care to ensure the remaining time on Earth is a painless as possible. However, there are those moments when medicine cannot achieve the goals it sets out to. There are times when the pain is still too much handle. It is during these times in which an individual should be able to decide if they wish to continue on. Physician assisted suicide, while ensuring all safeguards and last resort options such as palliative care are met, gives patients an important additional option to their end of life care.
Background / Presentation of Ethical Theory:
Webster’s defines euthanasia as, “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.”
According to the principalism theory, principalism uses key ethical principles of beneficence (do good), nonmaleficence (do no harm), autonomy (respect for the person’s ability to act in his or her own best interests), and justice in the resolution of ethical conflicts or dilemmas. Fidelity (faithfulness) and veracity (truth telling) are also important ethical principles that may be at work in managing ethical dilemmas. (Chitty & Black, 2011) This theory can be applied when discussing euthanasia. The first part of this theory is to do “good”. When a patient is experiencing unrelenting pain a...
... middle of paper ...
...ol is important, who anticipate the negative aspects of dying, and who believe that the impeding loss of self, abilities, and quality of life will be intolerable.” (Linda Ganzini, MD, MPH, Elizabeth R. Goy, PhD & Steven K. Dobscha, MD, 2008) For these patients euthanasia was a way to provide them with control—control of the last remaining aspect of their life, to die with dignity.
Works Cited
Chitty, K., & Black, B. (2011). Professional nursing concepts and challenges. (6 ed., pp. 107-108). Chapel Hill: Elsevier.
Euthanasia. ProCon.Org. (2013). Euthanasia. Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000132
Linda Ganzini, MD, MPH.,Elizabeth R. Goy, PhD, & Steven K. Dobscha, MD, (2008). Why oregon patients request assisted death: Family members’ views. Society of General Internal Medicine, 23(2), 154-157. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0476-x
As a result, life-sustaining procedures such as ventilators, feeding tubes, and treatments for infectious and terminal diseases are developing. While these life-sustaining methods have positively influenced modern medicine, they also inadvertently cause terminal patients extensive pain and suffering. Previous to the development of life-sustaining procedures, many people died in the care of their own home, however, today the majority of Americans take their last breath lying in a hospital bed. As the advancement of modern medicine continues, physicians and patients are going to encounter life-altering trials and tribulations. Arguably, the most controversial debate in modern medicine is the discussion of the ethical choice for physician-assisted suicide.
Euthanasia comes from the Greek word that means “good death” (“Euthanasia” Literary). In general, euthanasia refers to causing the death of someone to end their pain and suffering oftentimes in cases of terminal illness. Some people call this “mercy killings.”
Imagine being diagnosed with a disease that is going to kill you, but then you learn that you cannot do anything to avoid the pain it will cause you. The palliative care you will receive will only be able to provide slight comfort. You look at the options and consult with your physician, and decide physician-assisted suicide, or PAS, is what you want. Within the last two decades, the argument regarding physician-assisted suicide has grown. While some believe that death should be "natural", physician-assisted suicide helps the terminally ill maintain their dignity while dying. Physician assisted suicide should be a viable option for those diagnosed with a terminal illness. It provides a permanent relief to the pain and suffering that is involved
Waiting, suffering, pain, and death. These words constantly flow through the minds of people lying on their death beds. Some have cancer or life threatening diseases while others just wish they were not alive and want their lives to end. In today’s world, too many people encounter these life or death situations. Because of this, a controversy over assisted suicide has grown all over the United States. Assisted suicide, the “termination of one’s own life by the administration of a lethal substance” with the help of a physician, has been passed and made legal in a few states such as California and Oregon; however, other states are weary and unsure about passing such a disputed issue. While some people
Controversy around physician assisted suicide partially comes from the lack of knowledge surrounding it. Euthanasia, also known as voluntary active euthanasia is where the physician intentionally ends the patient’s life at the patient’s request and with their full informed consent (Emanuel, 2015). Nowhere in the United States is this legal. Passive euthanasia is when life-sustaining treatments are terminated such as respirators and artificial nutrition (Emanuel, 2015). Palliative sedation is considered ethical and involves administering drugs that pose a risk of death (Emanuel, 2015). There are numerous terms used to describe death and physician’s involvement so it is important to distinguish between the different terms to better educate patients.
The approach of physician-assisted suicide respects an individual’s need for personal dignity. It does not force the terminally ill patient to linger hopelessly, and helplessly, often at great cost to their psyche. It drive’s people mad knowing they are going to die in a short period of time, suffering while they wait in a hospital bed.
Physician Assisted Suicide is a freedom of choice. According to ecologist John Barlow “Exercising choice over the time and place of one’s death, once death is a certainty and there is no hope, is the ultimate personal dignity” (McCuen153). Considering Physician Assisted Suicide offers people a choice when end of life care fails to provide adequate relief of suffering. Having that freedom can be a peaceful and freeing experience. Dr. Charles McKhann believed “The decision to die, with or without the help, is exceedingly difficult, with many questions to examine and conflicts to resolve” (McKhann 234). This decision is ultimately made by the patient after a deliberation with doctors abou...
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
The legalization of assisted suicide has been a controversial topic that has created a divide within the medical community, as well as the general public, for many years. Assisted suicide occurs when a patient decides to take their own life, with help from their doctor. The doctor can end the patient’s life without causing any additional pain or suffering. While some believe that assisted suicide should be legal for patients who are suffering from a terminal and painful condition, others argue that it is unethical and going against the doctor’s oath to help and not harm their patients. As the average life expectancy age increases, people are living longer while also having to live with more serious illnesses. As a result, lives are ending with a great amount of suffering and pain, rather then dying peacefully. Since death is ultimately inevitable, I will therefore argue in favor of the proposition that assisted suicide should be legal for those capable of making a rationale end of life decision.
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
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 recent years the media has shifted more focus on the hot topic of physician assisted suicide. This expanded coverage has caused an ever widening gap on both sides of the debate because of the ethical concerns that come along with this act. Due in part to the advancements in modern medicine, assisted suicide should be viewed as a morally correct decision for individuals to make for themselves when there is no overcoming a life impairing mental or physical ailment. This form of medicine should only be used when the individuals have exhausted all possible procedures and options and the have a bleak chance on being healthy once again. The results of assisted suicide can be viewed as morally correct in regards to consequentialism, social contract theory, as well as deontological ethics. The act of assisted suicide can be viewed as selfless if one does not ultimately want to be a physical or monetary burden on other individuals. A patient can also help to save others in regards of organ donations. We as a country need to learn to observe the choices of the terminally ill patients and understand when they want to concede in their battle. If a person chooses to end their life, it should not be viewed as a sign of weakness, but rather as a statement that this individual does not want to suffer anymore.
Euthanasia is growing towards legal acceptance in the United States where four states have already passed legalization laws in an attempt to relieve the pain of suffering patients. Even if euthanasia becomes a legal practice in the United States, lingering moral issues will continue to cause more lawsuits in the future. It is morally right for patients suffering from persistent, severe pain to choose euthanasia as a medical treatment option. In the following pages, I will, first, explain what euthanasia refers to and some details about what it entails. Second, I will describe all the necessary features about what it means to be suffering from constant and severe pain. Next, I will explore the philosophical attitudes toward the euthanasia of Dax Cowart and Jack Kevorkian who have strong philosophical attitudes toward euthanasia. Finally, I will tie all these points together to prove why euthanasia is a morally acceptable choice for a patient suffering from constant, severe pain.
Hood, J. (2010). Conceptual bases of professional nursing. (7th ed. ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
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