Active Euthanasia: Physician Assisted Suicide is Wrong
The issue at hand is whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized for patients who are terminally ill and/or enduring prolonged suffering. In this debate, the choice of terms is central. The most common term, euthanasia, comes from the Greek words meaning "good death." Sidney Hook calls it "voluntary euthanasia," and Daniel C. Maguire calls it "death by choice," but John Leo calls it "cozy little homicides." Eileen Doyle points out the dangers of a popular term, "quality-of-life." The choice of terms may serve to conceal, or to enhance, the basic fact that euthanasia ends a human life. Different authors choose different terms, depending on which side of the issue they are defending.
Maguire argues by defining his terms. After explaining on page 447 how difficult it is to decide "to impose death," he says on page 448 that it is a moral argument, not a legal argument. In the final sentence of the fifth paragraph, he contends that "morality and legality are not identical." His transition, the first sentence of the sixth paragraph, invites the reader to "face up to the objection." The objection, according to the fourth paragraph, is "that there is no moral way in which death could be imposed on a person who is incapable of consent because of youth or irreversible loss of consciousness." The fifth paragraph begins by admitting the truth of this objection. These transitions tie together an argument that seems to agree with the objection, while defining the terms of the argument. When all the terms have been defined, however, the objection is rejected. He argues that, in some cases, it would be "morally good . . . to terminate a life" (p. 448). The ter...
... middle of paper ...
...ing, however, is that somebody is killing somebody else, and that is wrong. Therefore, the definition always means that somebody is doing something that is wrong.
Bibliography:
Bernards, Neal, Ed. (1989). Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
Doyle, Eileen. "Consequences of Imposing the Quality-of-Life Ethic." Bernards pp. 463-466.
Johnson, Dana E. "Euthanasia Should Not Be Based Based on Economic Factors." Bernards, pp. 132-137.
Leo, John. "Cozy Little homicides." Bernards pp. 461-463.
Maguire, Daniel C. "Death by Choice." Bernards pp. 447-452.
Neff, David. "Dial 119 for Murder." (1991). Commonweal, Aug. 9, pp. 452-453.
Neuhaus, Richard John. (1991). "All Too Human." National Review, Dec. 2, p. 45.
of Notre Dame Press, 1979.
killing and letting die. Some argue that letting die, which is the action considered to take
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
Gay-Williams, J. 1992, ‘The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia’ in Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics, ed Munson, R., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
This essay leaves no rock unturned in its analysis of the debate involving euthanasia and assisted suicide. Very thorough definitions are given for both concepts - with examples that clarify rather than obscure the reader's understanding.
I have brought forward considerations that counter Callahan's reasoning against three types of arguments that support euthanasia: the right to self-determination, the insignificant difference between killing and letting a person die by removing their life-support, and euthanasia's good consequences outweighing the harmful consequences are all positive, relevant and valid factors in the moral evaluation of euthanasia. Callahan's objections against these reasons do not hold.
Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.
Smith, Cheryl. "Should Active Euthanasia Be Legalized: Yes." American Bar Association Journal April 1993. Rpt. in CQ Researcher 5.1 (1995): 409.
The author realizes the wrongfulness in killing someone who’s living a healthy life, we see this when the author states, “I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide.” Even though he does not object to these actions he does not agree with them.
The purpose of this essay is to inform readers clearly and coherently enoughof the terms and issues in the euthanasia debate that they can make sense of the euthanasia question. Descriptions are in relatively simple, non-technical language to facilitate learning.
This essay will present in detail and with documentation the formation and growth and stated goals of the euthanasia movement in our country.
If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent? Why do we need to ask for consent? " He is just explaining that if we are allowed to kill someone legally through rationalization of the law, eventually we will find a way to rationalize murder too.
Opposing Viewpoints."Introduction to Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints." Euthanasia. Ed. Carrie Snyder. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. http://ic.galegroup.com.library.collin.edu/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010134107&userGroupName=txshracd2497&jsid=af2eacb374dfea6a89c0773d16c35a50
Ward, PR. 1997. “Health Care Rationing: Can We Afford to Ignore Euthanasia?” Health Services Management Research: 10 (32-41)
Robert Matz; Daniel P. Sudmasy; Edward D. Pallegrino. "Euthanasia: Morals and Ethics." Archives of Internal Medicine 1999: p1815 Aug. 9, 1999 .
Yip,J. (2009). Euthanasia : An Overview. Canadian Point of View: Euthanasia, 1. Retrieved from Canadian Points of View Reference Centre database.