The Complex Issue of Euthanasia Euthanasia is complex issue within today’s modern society. Active euthanasia is currently illegal in this country, but in many countries it is not. Is this a good idea or are we greatly exceeding our position as human beings? It is questionable whether we are in total control of our lives and have the final say in our own existence, or whether each individual life is important to the running of our society, tainting our free will to live or to die. Euthanasia comes from the Greek for ‘mercy killing’. It is the act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. Euthanasia falls into three different classes, voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia, or active euthanasia as it is sometimes known, is the act of consenting your own death to end physical or mental suffering. In this country this is classed as suicide and can lead to a prison sentence if attempted, or even aided. Non-voluntary, or passive euthanasia, is to take the life of a person who cannot make the decision for themselves, usually due to a coma where the sufferer exists in a persistent vegetative state. For instance, if a person was being kept alive by a life support machine, to remove it would be to let them die as chances of a healthy revival are often low. This is an acceptable form of euthanasia in this country. Still many people believe this should not be the case, as a person should be kept alive at all costs. Involuntary euthanasia is to take another persons life against their wish. This is classed as murder and is illegal worldwide. It was used during world war 2 as an excuse to kill off Jews without necessarily breaking the law. I do not believe this type of euthanasia should be categorised as euthanasia, as it is clear to
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
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.
A recent poll founded by the Canadian Medical Association found that “only one in five doctors surveyed. . . said they would be willing to perform euthanasia if the practice were legalized. . . Twice as many – 42 percent – said they would refuse to do so” (Kirkey 1). Euthanasia is defined as giving a patient the right to die early with a physician’s assistance, and the legalization of this practice is being considered by lawmakers in many countries, including the United States. Accordingly, 42 percent of doctors in Canada are on the right side of this debate. Euthanasia should not be legalized because it violates society’s views that life is sacred, creates economic pressure for doctors, and for those countries that have legalized it, their laws are not specific enough to fully protect patients.
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.
In high school, I distinctly remember the week or so that my AP Biology class spend discussing ethics in science. The liveliest debate that grew out of these classes was about a topic that is so controversial it seemed to cause even the quietest students to take a strong stance on one side or the other. This topic was euthanasia. Whether we were talking about taking a patient off life support or about physician assisted suicide, it was clear that each member of the class had very distinct views on this topic. Throughout the nation and around the world, people continue to have very distinct views on euthanasia. When making decisions on this topic, religious officials rely on long standing Christian beliefs and moral values. The Roman Catholic Church’s stance on euthanasia can be traced far back to the teachings of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and has continued to develop throughout history. In this essay I will argue that the Roman Catholic Church’s strong opposition to euthanasia is based on the ideas of many influential historical figures and has had an impact throughout the world.
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.
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.
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.