Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues regarding Euthanasia
advantages and disadvantages of euthanasia
Ethical issues regarding Euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues regarding Euthanasia
Euthanasia, coming from the Greek words “Eu” meaning good and “Thanatos” meaning death, means the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing a person to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. Euthanasia may have a simple definition but it is much more complex and very controversial in the medical field where there is a clash in ethical point of views. With today’s advance medical technology we are able to save many people from infections, injuries, and treat many diseases. But there are still many illnesses without cures or with many of the cure being extremely painful and agonizing for both the patient and their family. Why should these people have to die in such a painful way if they do not want to? There are two forms of euthanasia; one is active euthanasia which is performing and action that directly causes someone to die, to many this is known as “mercy killing”. The second is passive euthanasia which is allowing a person to die by not doing something that would prolong life. This form of euthanasia is more widely accepted because there is nothing the doctor is giving the patient, the cause of death is the disease itself. But why not give a patient, who has stopped treatment and is having a painful death, a life ending drug if the patient requests it? A person has the right to die in a way they want that is what autonomy is all about, the right to self-determination. Why should we prolong an agonizing death if we can make it faster? In Diane’s case it is clear that she never wanted the treatment for leukemia which is okay as long as a doctor counsels her to see if it’s not just the fear that is making her not want ... ... middle of paper ... ...s no other option and that it isn’t some other disease. Dr. Quill did the right thing in giving Diane the sleeping pills, in a situation like hers, having control seems like such an important thing. And a sense of happiness in an otherwise very depressing stage of life is essential for the patient and the family members. A doctor stop treatment at the request of the patient because he knows that the treatment is not working so why prolong the suffering of the patient and the family members, why if it’s acceptable for a doctor to stop treatment knowing that the patient will die, it’s not acceptable for him to give the patient pills that will give the patient a sense of control and have a more peaceful death. No doctor wants to see a patient of theirs die, but no human being can stand seeing a person suffering knowing that they can easily stop the suffering and pain.
Diane was a patient of Dr. Timothy Quill, who was diagnosed with acute myelomonocytic leukemia. Diane overcame alcoholism and had vaginal cancer in her youth. She had been under his care for a period of 8 years, during which an intimate doctor-patient bond had been established. It was Dr. Quill’s observation that “she was an incredibly clear, at times brutally honest, thinker and communicator.” This observation became especially cogent after Diane heard of her diagnosis. Dr. Quill informed her of the diagnosis, and of the possible treatments. This series of treatments entailed multiple chemotherapy sessions, followed by a bone marrow transplant, accompanied by an array of ancillary treatments. At the end of this series of treatments, the survival rate was 25%, and it was further complicated in Diane’s case by the absence of a closely matched bone-marrow donor. Diane chose not to receive treatment, desiring to spend whatever time she had left outside of the hospital. Dr. Quill met with her several times to ensure that she didn’t change her mind, and he had Diane meet with a psychologist with whom she had met before. Then Diane complicated the case by informing Dr. Quill that she be able to control the time of her death, avoiding the loss of dignity and discomfort which would precede her death. Dr. Quinn informed her of the Hemlock Society, and shortly afterwards, Diane called Dr. Quinn with a request for barbiturates, complaining of insomnia. Dr. Quinn gave her the prescription and informed her how to use them to sleep, and the amount necessary to commit suicide. Diane called all of her friends to say goodbye, including Dr. Quinn, and took her life two days after they met.
Timothy E. Quill in “Case of Individualized Decision Making”, described his patient Diane who was a vaginal cancer survivor, overcome alcoholism and depression. Dr. Quill diagnose her with Leukemia. He explained to Diane that the chemotherapy has only a 25% chance of survival and there were some complications involves in this process. Diane refused to take the treatment and decided to live the remaining of her life in a most enjoyable way possible, by avoiding all the pain of the treatment. Furthermore, when Diane heath condition deteriorate, Dr. Quill gave her some prescription that was primarily used to sleep assistance. He gave her information of the dose necessary to commit suicide. Diane decided to commit suicide and Dr. Quill diagnosis of death was Leukemia. Therefore, Diane did not do what she should be consider moral actions under the Kantian perspective because her maxim cannot become a universal law. Likewise, Dr. Quill did and did not did his best decision by
This freedom of choice, Gawande states, ultimately places a burden on either the doctor or the patient as the patient ultimately choose a course of treatment that is ultimately detrimental as in the case of Lazaroff, a patient with only a few weeks to live, but rather insist on “the day he would go back to work.” Despite the terrible risks and the limited potential benefits the neurosurgeon described, Lazaroff continued to opt to surgery and eventually died painfully as a result of surgery. Gawande suggests that Lazaroff “chose badly because his choice ran against his deepest interests,” which was to live despite his briefing remaining time, ultimately distorting his judgement into choosing a course of treatment that ultimately ended his life in a much more painful manner. Another case of patient decisions that Gawande discusses is Mr. Howe, who aggressively refused to be put on a breathing machine, neglecting the fact that “with antibiotics and some high-tech support...he would recover fully.” As Gawande and K awaited for Mrs. Howe’s decision to save her husband’s life, Mrs. Howe emotionally breaks down
There are many ethical issues that arise in the Karen Ann Quinlan case. First, there is the ethical right that each person has to receive or refuse medical treatment. But this can ethically problematic because some would see death as an intrinsic evil; therefore choosing death would be unethical. This, however, can be categorized as part of the larger issue of patient autonomy, the patient's right to live and abide by their own personal choices (Garrett 29). Recent thought has affirmed the idea of patient autonomy in medicine, now making it a central dogma of the American medical practice. In this case, patient autonomy is threatened because the patient is not able to communicate their desires for treatment. The physician cannot ask, and therefore cannot know, if the patient would want to continue treatment or withdraw treatment. In this case, the Karen was deemed incompetent...
Dax Cowart was hospitalized after a gas explosion engulfed his car because he suffered stern burns. He was “burned so severely and [was] in so much pain that [he] did not want to live even the early moments following the explosion.” He repeatedly asked his doctors and family to end his agony. Dianne Pretty had a motor neuron disease that instigates a painful death. She wanted to have “a quick death without suffering, at home surrounded by [her] family.” 85-year old Mary Ormerod was starved of nutrients after she went into a coma. Her doctor and daughter made the decision to end her torment, however the doctor got suspended in doing so (BBC).
When doctors treat their patients they give their patients full autonomy about all the treatment options available and also the side effects related to the treatment, so that the patient can make a decision which would be most beneficial for them. In “The Death Treatment”, Aviv interviews Thienpont and writes that “Before approving for euthanasia, she doesn’t require patients to try procedures that they think are invasive” (62). Instead of informing and giving her patients all the treatment they need, Thienpont lets her patients proceed with euthanasia. A therapy called electroconvulsive therapy, which Godelieva never received, is effective for half of the patients with depression. One of the questions this raises is that why was she not given this treatment that had a fifty percent chance to cure her before getting euthanized? And also, did she even know that this treatment was available? And if she would have known about it then, how this would have shaped her decision to file for euthanasia. Aviv also writes that in her defense Thienpont says that “Sometimes its really too late. If the patient’s energy is gone, then it is not humane to say, ‘Well, maybe if you go to a hospital that specializes in your problem for two or more years, it will help.’ I
Though there are several patients featured, the story centers around Cody Curtis, a woman who was diagnosed with liver cancer. At 56, she is a beautiful woman who doesn’t appear to be sick. She seems healthy and happy. However she is in constant pain and is suffering greatly. She is given a diagnosis of only six months left to live and sets a date to choose to die. She has complete control over when she will die. She can make peace with those around her and complete her life before she dies. She says that death with dignity won’t be easy, but it would be easier than the alternatives. However, she outlives her diagnosis and her quality of life continues to improve. When things take a turn for the worst, she decides to end her
Euthanasia despite having its general un-appeal is supported by many people in society, because it allows us to have freedom of choice in life. The individuals are spared the misery of a disease that is incurable. The people can overcome the pain and torture leading to an inevitable death. Euthanasia might seem like running away from the problem at hand. However, we must realize that many people face outcomes where they suffer and are literally tortured until they die. Cases such as various forms of cancer come to mind. In these cases the people know the end is coming, all this pain, and suffering will lead only to death 's door. The human body on its own is unable to fight and stop cancer. People
In conclusion, Euthanasia is “good death” and should result in that. Having a patient like Diane’s death should end in a non suffering way. Without having any pressure or being mislead and being pushed to dying and going completely against they’re autonomy. After you go against they’re autonomy that’s when other issues and conflicts are presented. They’re the voice of their own body and if one wishes, in good reasons and rational ones should be entitled to make a huge decision for their life.
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
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
The world is full of people, some of which are suffering every day from pain. Even with the advancements that have been made with medicine, it’s not enough to cure many diseases or to heal a person’s pain. Euthanasia is commonly referred to as a “mercy killing”. It is the intentional act of putting a person to death quietly and painlessly who has an incurable or painful disease, it is intended to be an act of mercy. According to (ANA, 2013), Euthanasia is the act of putting to death someone suffering from a painful and prolonged illness or injury.
In order to provide a framework for my thesis statement on the morality of euthanasia, it is first necessary to define what euthanasia is and the different types of euthanasia. The term Euthanasia originates from the Greek term “eu”, meaning happy or good and “thanatos”, which means death, so the literal definition of the word Euthanasia can be translated to mean “good or happy death”.
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 is the painless killing of a person who is suffering from a fatal illness. The meaning of the word Euthanasia comes from the Greek word Eu (good) and Thabatosis (death), which means “good death” Throughout history euthanasia has been practiced. The Jewish society however followed the Bible and the sixth command stated, “Thou shall not kill” Judaism considered their life to be sacred and considered Euthanasia to be murder. The Netherlands is the first country to legalize euthanasia, and since then it has become legal in five US states, but on February 5, 2016 euthanasia will be legal in Canada. Euthanasia can be a controversial topic if you legalize it then there is always a chance of doctors misusing it but it also lets people chose their own life. By legalizing euthanasia it allows people who are suffering away out.