The Controversy of Euthanasia Who has the right to say whether a person lives or dies? The person has the right to decide. You are in control of your body and hold your life in your hands, right or wrong you have the option to end your life, and in extreme cases your family has the right to act on your behalf. There is no one who should be able to take this option away from you. Everyone has certain inalienable rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution, and if a person has a right to life then they have a right to death. "In 1997, in its decisions in the Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill cases, the U.S. Supreme Court again affirmed the right of competent patients to refuse unwanted medical treatments and to receive adequate pain treatment at the end of life - even if it might hasten death"(www.choices.org). The definition of euthanasia is, according to Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary, "a painless peaceful death or the putting to death of a person suffering from a fatal disease or the like: also called mercy killing." Euthanasia can be both passive and active. Passive euthanasia is more accepted by society because it is seen more as letting nature take its course rather than killing a person. In passive euthanasia what most commonly happens is a person is taken off life support and allowed to die. It seems so much neater and easy to understand than active euthanasia. The vision of mad doctors with fuzzy white hair sticking out in all directions and laughing as they inject you some fatal drug is scary and a total misconception. After all, this isn't a B-movie. The truth of the matter is that a doctor that the person knows and trusts could give the injection. If it was legalized a person wouldn't need to search out someone like Dr. Jack Kevorkian and his self-execution machine to end their lives. They could have it done and feel confident in the doctor's ability. Death is a certainty in life. Why should those who are in great pain and/or are terminal have to wait to die? Why should a patient be forced to live if they think their present standard of life has degenerated to the point of meaningless? "A good death.
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).
“Life Unworthy of Life”: How the T4 Euthanasia Program Set the Stage for the Holocaust
The first definition of ethical in the dictionary is “pertaining to, or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.” The first definition Dilemma is defined as “a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives.” Using these two definitions, an ethical dilemma can be defined as when a person has to choose a decision that goes against one’s morals. One alternative may have a negative impact on one’s life or another person’s life. Another alternative may be an excellent choice for one person but may have negative impacts as well. Therefore, an ethical dilemma often puts ones morals and values into question. This paper will review a case study of euthanasia,
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.
Any discussion that pertains to the topic of euthanasia must first include a clear definition of the key terms and issues. With this in mind, it should be noted that euthanasia includes both what has been called physician-assisted "suicide" and voluntary active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide involves providing lethal medication(s) available to the patient to be used at a time of the patient’s own choosing (Boudreau, p.2, 2014). Indifferently, voluntary active euthanasia involves the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. Physician-assisted suicide is felt to be easier psychologically for the physician and patient than euthanasia because
Who owns your life? In the case of Canadians, the choice to die is not in your hands…unless you decide to break the law. Sue Rodriguez, 42, from British Columbia, fought the Supreme Court of Canada, challenging the prohibition against Euthanasia. She lost to a vote of five to four. Sue later took her life with the help of an anonymous doctor. Ironically, Canada was founded upon the principles of rights, freedoms, and dignity. Why do our rights end when faced with Euthanasia? Does freedom from suffering not apply? How does artificially prolonging life respect human dignity? The act of Euthanasia poses many questions because there is an element of control. The following paper will examine why the control should be in the hands of the individual: Fundamentally, controlling one’s life should be an independent choice; additionally, the majority of Canadians are in favour of euthanasia; moreover, many arguments against euthanasia are invalid.
Humans, like all animals, attempt to evade death. Though death is usually seen as an unwanted end, some see it as an alternative to suffering. Most people cringe at the thought of suicide, but is euthanasia the same thing? Do human beings have the right to choose death?
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 defined as the painless killing of a terminally ill patient by means of lethal injection by a doctor in a controlled medical environment. Similarly, physician assisted suicide (PAS) is when a patient requests a lethal prescription from a doctor or pharmacist to end their life before a fatal disease does. The two are akin to each other and are almost interchangeable in definitions. Being a highly controversial topic, there is a plethora of arguments surrounding PAS, all very emotionally driven and opinionated. There are those who firmly believe that euthanasia should be legal, pointing to morality and ethics to defend their position. On the other side, of course, are those who are inflexibly against the idea of assisted suicide and wish for it to be banned immediately. Right behind them are the individuals who find PAS completely unnecessary, questioning the position of a doctor the moment they participate in assisted suicide. Finally is the notion that people have the right to euthanasia, finding protection in the US Constitution. All sides pose very solid and cohesive arguments with plenty of understandable points and respectable views.
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?
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 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”.
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.
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.
In the following essay, I argue that euthanasia is not morally acceptable because it always involves killing, and undermines intrinsic value of human being. The moral basis on which euthanasia defends its position is contradictory and arbitrary in that its moral values represented in such terms as ‘mercy killing’, ‘dying with dignity’, ‘good death’ and ‘right for self-determination’ fail to justify taking one’s life.