When considering whether the piece of legislation titled “The Death with Dignity Act” is morally and philosophically justifiable, the moral and philosophic 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 life 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. This is a belief held by the American Medical Association as they only support “the cessation of the employment of extraordinary measures to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent.”1 However, in the instances where a decision does need to be made between active and inactive voluntary euthanasia there is no moral difference. Imagine there is a cancer patient who is beyond any reasonable hope to survive, and is currently experiencing unbearable pain. It would not come as a huge shock if this person told a doctor that he wished to die. According to the American Medical Association the only acceptable way this individual can pass is by the cessation of extraordinary treatments to cure the individual while essentially waiting for them to die. The issue with this decision is that it's intent and result is exactly the same as if this individual were given a presc...
... middle of paper ...
...not negatively interfere with the ability of others to live their lives freely as well. However, in the instances where a severely ill person is unable to carry out such an act upon themselves due to a devastating terminal illness they should have the right to ask a doctor to prescribe a medication that will end the patient's life. In order that the request not infringe on the freedoms of the doctor he or she may also reserve the right to refuse this request, and in turn recommend the patient to another doctor. This second part is key because while the doctor should have the right to refuse this medication he or she can impede the ability of an individual to fulfill their desires, and thus has a responsibility to make sure he or she is not preventing the patient from being able to carry out their desires even if the initial doctor is not the one carrying out the act.
Another instance of how someone’s right to bodily autonomy can surpass the right to life can be understood when thinking about end of life scenarios. Marquis’s argument suggests it would be immoral for a doctor to take a comatose patient off life support, even if the patient previously arranged to be taken off life support. Following Marquis’s logic because a person in a vegetative state could theoretically wake up in the future, a doctor would be obligated to keep them on life support against their wishes. Additionally, as Marquis briefly mentions in his paper, people suffering from terminal illness must also be denied euthanasia (197). In find it troubling that Marquis seems to have arbitrarily decided that even adult human beings do not have the right to make medical decisions that would greatly lessen their suffering. Additionally, Marquis’s argument also suggests that committing suicide would not only be immoral,
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is known as a process in which an individual (sick or disabled) engages in an act that leads to his or her own death with the help of physicians or family members to end pain and suffering. There are several other terms used for this process, such as active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to what is being done to actively end life while passive euthanasia is referred as eliminating a treatment that will prolong a patient’s life, which will eventually lead to death (Levy et al., 2103, p. 402). Euthanasia and assisted suicide pose a significant ethical issue today, and understanding the issue requires examining the different principles, such as the ethical issue, professional code of conduct, strength and limitations, autonomy and informed consent, beneficence and nonmaleficence, distribution, and confidentiality and truthfulness.
...t’s family should be able decide for the patient whether or not prolonging their life is moral.
Euthanasia has been a long debated subject consisting of many opinions and believes. For this paper I will be providing my rationale on why I am for legalization of active voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill clients in Canada. Active voluntary euthanasia should be legalized because it respects the individual’s choice, it allows individuals to flourish in their passing, and reduces the individual from further suffering. These are all important components of bioethics, and are all good reasons why euthanasia is not a negative thing. Active voluntary euthanasia is “the active killing of a dying person” requested by the client themselves (Collier & Haliburton, 2011, p. 226). In the paper I will also be discussing about virtue ethics, the principle of autonomy, and care ethics.
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.
“Michael Manning, MD, in his 1998 book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring?, traced the history of the word euthanasia: ‘The term euthanasia.originally meant only 'good death,'but in modern society it has come to mean a death free of any anxiety and pain, often brought about through the use of medication.” It seems there has always been some confusion and questions from our society about the legal and moral questions regarding the new science of euthanasia. “Most recently, it has come to mean'mercy killing' — deliberately putting an end to someone’s life in order to spare the individual’s suffering.’” I would like to emphasize the words “to spare the individual’s suffering”.
Critics to the idea of providing dying patients with lethal doses, fear that people will use this type those and kill others, “lack of supervision over the use of lethal drugs…risk that the drugs might be used for some other purpose”(Young 45). Young explains that another debate that has been going on within this issue is the distinction between killings patients and allowing them die. What people don’t understand is that it is not considered killing a patient if it’s the option they wished for. “If a dying patient requests help with dying because… he is … in intolerable burden, he should be benefited by a physician assisting him to die”(Young 119). Patients who are suffering from diseases that have no cure should be given the option to decide the timing and manner of their own death. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for
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
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
...e terminally ill. This right would allow them to leave this earth with dignity, save their families from financial ruin, and relieve them of insufferable pain. To give competent, terminally-ill adults this necessary right is to give them the autonomy to close the book on a life well-lived.
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
There are two methods of carrying out euthanasia, the first one is active and the second one is passive. Active euthanasia means the physicians deliberately take actions which cause the death of the patients, for example, the injection of sedatives in excess amount. Passive euthanasia is that the doctors do not take any further therapies to keep the ill patients alive such as switching off the life supporting machines [1]. This essay argues that the legalization of the euthanasia should not be proposed nowadays. It begins by analyzing the problem that may cause in relation to the following aspects: ‘slippery slope’ argument, religious view, vulnerable people and a rebuttal against the fair distribution of medical resources. This essay concludes that the legalization of the voluntary euthanasia brings more harm than good.
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 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.
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