Assisted suicide consists of a person helping another to end their life because they are suffering from a physical illness such as cancer. In this case it would be a doctor helping a patient to die by injecting them a lethal dose of medication. There are many concerns that come into place with euthanasia. I believe that people suffering from severe physical illnesses should have the opportunity to get assisted suicide. The way I view assisted suicide if done in proper circumstances is like an act of mercy. Humans are rational beings so they should have the option to get euthanasia if they desire. My paper will address the legal issues that come with legalizing assisted suicide, the reasoning behind the people against euthanasia, the benefits of assisted suicide and the concept of dying with dignity.
The
…show more content…
current legal section 241 (b) of the criminal code is going to have to be modified which is the section on aiding suicide, if euthanasia becomes legal. The law clearly says that anybody that helps another person commit suicide can go to jail up to 14 years.
The law against assisted suicide assumes that the intention of people helping others to die is done out of hatred which is rarely the case. The law against assisted suicide seems to target the people suffering from physical illnesses that desire to die with dignity. There are many concerns that come into place with euthanasia, but one that is related to the law is that specific legislation has to be put into place to determine the appropriate and inappropriate conditions for the use of assisted suicide.
People that are against assisted suicide have come up with many reasons why it should not be legal which can all be refuted. Many individuals that are against assisted suicide have brought up the religious factor of allowing people suffering from a physical illness such as cancer to end their life with the help of a doctor. The concept that God is the only one that can end a human life is only valuable if a person believes in God. People also have to remember that religion demands a lot out of people and that very few people can say that they have respected all of what their faith demands of them. So should we be able to pick and
chose the commandants that we want to follow? How does a person choose that they can lie when most religions see it as being a sin, but still say that only God can end a human life? One could say that a rational answer would be that there is an exception to every rule. A doctor executing assisted suicide in the right circumstances is a reasonable exception to the belief that only God should end a human life. There is also the concept that some values are shared by all cultures and human beings, not suffering is one of them, assisted suicide is a way to achieve that. People that are against or in favour of assisted suicide can in most instances, all agree on the fact that they do not want individuals to suffer, but they just don't agree with the practice to use to stop the suffering. Another reason why people are against assisted suicide is that they believe that it violates the fundamental medical ethics, they argue that the role of a doctor is to save lives, not end them. The fact of the matter is that it is true that doctors are here to save lives, but they also have the responsibility to make the best decision for their patients. When physically ill patients demand for assisted suicide the doctor have a moral and professional duty to take into consideration all the factors before agreeing to accomplish it or not. Doctors are also here to heal and relieve patients of their pain, but when they are not able to do so and a patient suffering from a physical illness, ask them to die they should be able to practice assisted suicide because that is what the patient wants. Keeping an individual alive who is suffering from a physical illness when they want to die could be seen as being harmful and a doctor job is not to harm people. If a human being is not forced into dying with the help of euthanasia, who are we as other human beings to tell them that their choice is irrational or wrong? Most people believe in the concept that each individual is equal and worth the same. If most people believe in that concept, it becomes extremely difficult to discredit someone want of euthanasia by stipulating that it is irrational or wrong because if you do so you are saying that your way of thinking is superior than theirs with no concrete proof. A major concern that people against euthanasia have is that it would encourage more people to choose death instead of living with a physical illness which would bring chaos to the entire society. The issue with the slippery slope concept is that is not legitimate. There is not assurance that if countries would legalize euthanasia that doctors and patients will abuse it. Doctors in most cases have the power to make death and life decision that will affect their patients all the time and we cannot have the certitude that they are not abusing their power. The same thing applies with assisted suicide we cannot be sure that family members or doctors are going to try to persuade patients to get euthanized. The slippery slope concept is a claim with no proof attached to it, only time can tell a society if a decision they took was the right one or not. There is always the probability that something awful can happen with legalizing euthanasia, which would disturb the balance of society, but that is true for each big moral progress or social change. There are many advantages that come with practicing euthanasia. It gives people the right to decide when and how they should die which is an important concept. Most people believe that individuals shouldn't be killed, but there are also moral issues that come to place when we keep people alive that do not have the desire to live especially if they are suffering. Each human being is responsible for their life so they should decide if they no longer have the desire to keep it because if they do not desire that responsibility and they are kept alive it could affect other people lives in a negative way as well. Assisted suicide allows people that are suffering from physical illnesses the dignity to die peacefully and end their torment. If looking at a utilitarian perspective assisted suicide should be legal because it’s beneficial for the entire society, not only for the individual that stops his suffering. There are a lot of sick people that have the desire to live, but cannot get treatment because of their lack of money. If a person suffering from a physical illness who desires to die get euthanized that can make more government money available for other sick patients who actually wants to live. There is also the no harm principle involved because assisted suicide does not harm individuals, but instead delivers them from their suffering. Assisted suicide reduces the amount of pain and unhappiness that not only the individuals suffering from physical illnesses feel, but also the pain of the other individuals affected by their love ones illnesses. Assisted suicide is an act of mercy if done in proper circumstances. When living with a physical illness one can stay alive several months or years knowing that their health is going to disintegrate. Death can be painful and long, especially when you don’t have the desire to live. Assisted suicide is a medical principle to end a person suffering in a more humane way. keeping someone alive that does not want to live and that is suffering increases their pain and causes more harm than it does good. The pain is physical and psychological as well. The person that wants to be euthanized, but that cannot get, it has to live with the physical pain of their illness and in most cases that causes depression. People that have physical illnesses can feel like they are not living, but surviving for no positive end game. Depression is serious and causes unhappiness to not only the person living it, but with their family and close friends. If a person wants to be euthanized and they are denied they can go to extremes such as starving themselves just to end their life or do other things to end their lives that could harm other people in the process. When someone is hurting the people that are close to them are hurting as well. Knowing that someone you loved died with dignity and in peace brings happiness to most people. It is true that you are going to be sad knowing that a person you love is going to be euthanized, but you wont have to live with the constant stress of knowing that your love one is in pain and is miserable because they do not want to live. Euthanasia allows people that are suffering to go in peace and their families to be at peace with the death. It’s true, we are all selfish at times and that it’s hard to let go of someone we love even if they are suffering and they want to die but it is not right to use someone as a mean. You should not keep someone alive for your own happiness if it makes that person unhappy. Human beings have the capacity of thinking rationally about complex subjects, we are all different, so our views on things differ so what is right for one could be wrong for another. The concept of consequentialism is very useful when looking at assisted suicide because it believes that something is right or wrong based on the outcomes of the act. In the case of assisted suicide there are more good consequences than negative ones. This theory concentrates on the fact that people should make a decision that brings more positive consequences which is what assisted suicide does. Death is something extremely scary for the average person and we would all like to forget that it is eventually going to happen to us and our love ones. The unknown makes people nervous, so when we talk about euthanizing somebody that has physical illness and who wants to die people are still hesitant. Death is described by a majority of people as being a morbid and lonely experience, but if a person chooses to die we should respect their choice. It is hard to understand that one would choose death because of the agony they are going through because as most beings our survival instinct is stronger than anything. A person that desires to die in the society that we live in is seen as a deviant person because we are thought to preserve and protect life. But is life truly worth living if it is full of sadness and misery? If one has the capacity of thinking clearly and does not have a mental condition and fit the criteria they should be able to decide if they want to get euthanized. Assisted suicide is a taboo subject because it is related to many ethical and legal issues. Generally, assisted suicide is beneficial to the individuals that decide to end their life and to the society. Euthanasia is a humane practice that ends individuals suffering. Assisted suicide is a practice that scares many individuals because of the concept of the slippery slope. However, It allows people to practice their human rights to make national decisions that will not only affect them but the entire population. Assisted suicide allows a person to die with dignity. If a person you knew had a physical illness and was demanding euthanasia would you deny it to them, if the answer is yes would it be for your own selfish needs? Bibliography Tamayo-Velazquez, M.-I., P. Simon-Lorda, and M. Cruz-Piqueras. "Euthanasia and Physician- assisted Suicide: Knowledge, Attitudes and Experiences of Nurses in Andalusia (Spain)." Nursing Ethics 19.5 (2012): 677-91. Academic Search Premier. Web. Duffy, Olivia Anne. "The Supreme Court of Canada Ruling on Physician-Assisted Death: Implications for Psychiatry in Canada." Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 60.12 (2015): 591-96. Academic Search Premier. Web. Huxtable, Richard. "Splitting the Difference? Principled Compromise and Assisted Dying." Bioethics 28.9 (2013): 472-80. Academic Search Premier. Web. Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1986. Print.
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
Velasquez, Manuel, Andre, Claire “Assisted Suicide A Right or Wrong.” Santa Clara university n.d. web 24 March 2012
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.
distant cousin of euthanasia, in which a person wishes to commit suicide. feels unable to perform the act alone because of a physical disability or lack of knowledge about the most effective means. An individual who assists a suicide victim in accomplishing that goal may or may not be held responsible for. the death, depending on local laws. There is a distinct difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide. This paper targets euthanasia; pros and cons. not to be assisted in suicide. & nbsp; Thesis Argument That Euthanasia Should Be Accepted & nbsp;
My article, “Assisted Suicide: A Right or Wrong” by Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez, discusses the importance of making assisted suicide something to consider when the patient is in pain and does not want to deal with the pain anymore. This article tells the very personal, detailed story of Matthew Donnelly and his time spent before he died. This article was written to open the eyes of people who are against assisted suicide to show them a case where the writers believe it would be acceptable to grant Donnelly’s wish and assisted him in ending his life. The purpose of this text is to be able to persuade the readers to see their point of view and hopefully get them to be for assisted suicide. The authors hope to achieve the well-assisted
In the end, morals are the only argument surrounding the subject of assisted suicide. There is no real way of determining what is right and what is wrong. It all comes down to your own morals and beliefs regarding human life. Each of us is given our own life and throughout it, we all make our own decisions regarding our wellbeing. We can choose to smoke cigarettes, consume alcohol, speed in cars, and put our lives in danger every day. This is our right as human beings. We chose to live our lives the way we want to live them, why should we not be able to choose how we die?
Jack Kevorkian, a former pathologist said, “ Everyone has a right for suicide, because a person has a right to determine what will or will not be done to his body” (“Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?”). That's true, everybody should be able to determine what happens to their body. Geoffrey N. Fieger, a attorney for Dr. Kevorkian, said, “a law which does not make anybody do anything, that gives people the right to decide, and prevents the state from prosecuting you for exercising your freedom not to suffer, violates somebody else’s constitutional rights is insane” (“The Right to Assisted Suicide). Then Ronald Dworkin, a person that witnessed a woman in pain, ask for assisted suicide, said “whatever view we take about, we want the right to decide for ourselves” (“The Right to Assisted Suicide”). This is showing that people want to be able to make their own decisions with their body. If they or somebody they know wants to make the decision to go with assisted suicide, they want to be able to do that. Therefore assisted suicide should become legal because people want to, and should be able to make their own decisions with their
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
People knowing that their health will not improve and will arrive at their death should be given the right to an assisted suicide. Harmful or attempted suicides that result in severe damage can also be prevented by letting those with physical suffering end their life by the help of a physician. Even though assisted suicide is illegal in most states, it is generally ethical. Assisted suicide needs to only be administered and considered moral for someone who has a terminal diagnosis and wishes to die gracefully in order to relieve their pain. Suicide is not normally something that should be deemed acceptable, but since suicide with assistance can help the terminally ill, it needs to be seen as ethical for the sake of the less fortunate with a deadly
To sanction the taking of innocent human life is to contradict a primary purpose of law in an ordered society. A law or court decision allowing assisted suicide would demean the lives of vulnerable patients and expose them to exploitation by those who feel they are better off dead. Such a policy would corrupt the medical profession, whose ethical code calls on physicians to serve life and never to kill. The voiceless or marginalized in our society -- the poor, the frail elderly, racial minorities, millions of people who lack health insurance -- would be the first to feel pressure to die.
Death is one of the many controversial topics to discuss in ethics. When deciding whether it is permissible to die naturally or by assisted suicide, it is indeed difficult to decipher. In this case, Norma Jones plans to end her life if she develops an incurable disease. If that ever happens, she wants her friends to help in killing her via injection or smothering her with a pillow. Is assisted suicide morally justified in this case? If so, are there any circumstances that would override the justification of assisted suicide? Even though it is unnatural to assist in suicide because human life is intrinsically good, it is morally permissible it respects the law of autonomy and minimizes suffering. I am in favor for Kantians and utilitarian moral
Throughout the course of history, death and suffering have been a prominent topic of discussion among people everywhere. Scientists are constantly looking for ways to alleviate and/or cure the pain that comes with the process of dying. Treatments typically focus on pain management and quality of life, and include medication and various types of therapy. When traditional treatments are not able to eliminate pain and suffering or the promise of healing, patients will often consider euthanasia or assisted suicide. Assisted suicide occurs when a person is terminally ill and believes that their life is not worth living anymore. As a result of these thoughts and feelings, a physician or other person is enlisted to “assist” the patient in committing suicide. Typically this is done by administering a lethal overdose of a narcotic, antidepressant or sedative, or by combining drugs to create an adverse reaction and hasten the death of the sick patient. Though many people believe that assisted suicide is a quick and honorable way to end the sufferings of a person with a severe illness, it is, in fact, morally wrong. Assisted suicide is unethical because it takes away the value of a human life, it is murder, and it opens the door for coercion of the elderly and terminally ill to seek an untimely and premature death. Despite the common people’s beliefs, assisted suicide is wrong and shouldn’t be legalized.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
Assisted suicide brings up one of the biggest moral debates currently circulating in America. Physician assisted suicide allows a patient to be informed, including counseling about and prescribing lethal doses of drugs, and allowed to decide, with the help of a doctor, to commit suicide. There are so many questions about assisted suicide and no clear answers. Should assisted suicide be allowed only for the terminally ill, or for everyone? What does it actually mean to assist in a suicide? What will the consequences of legalizing assisted suicide be? What protection will there be to protect innocent people? Is it (morally) right or wrong? Those who are considered “pro-death”, believe that being able to choose how one dies is one’s own right.
Euthanasia is a medical procedure which speeds up the process of dying for people with incurable, painful, or distressing diseases. The patient’s doctor can stop treatment and instead let them die from their illness. It come from the Greek words for 'good' and 'death', and is also called mercy killing. Euthanasia is illegal in most countries including the UK . If you suffer from an incurable disease, you cannot legally terminate your life. However, in a number of European countries it is possible to go to a clinic which will assist you to die gracefully under some very strict circumstances.