Euthanasia, The Debate
Introduction:
Since the early stages of recorded history, the use of the word euthanasia has been used to describe the death of someone either through the use of legal drugs or the withholding of medical treatments. The word euthanasia, stems from the greek words “eu” meaning good, and “thanatosis” meaning death, which roughly translates to good death []. The first recorded use of euthanasia was through scriptures describing the death of the Roman Empire emperor Augustus Caesar. While Augustus ' death was termed "a euthanasia”, it was not caused by the actions of any other person, the term euthanasia was used to describe the swift and painless death that incurred. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines euthanasia to
…show more content…
Certainly, one can see that the issue has been at the centre of very heated debates for many years and is surrounded by religious, ethical and practical considerations. Those who push towards the allowance of euthanasia strongly believe that having such an option allows terminally ill patients to die when they still have a high quality of life and that allowing them to choose to die is much kinder than forcing them to live out the rest of their life in sufferance. Yet, those who oppose euthanasia believe that it is morally and religiously incorrect to kill, it is fairly hard to control and adding the responsibility of death to physicians. Certainly, terminally ill patients must be able to make end-of-life decisions whether it be euthanasia or palliative care, the government of Canada should be moving forward and making laws allowing for such choices to be made.
Overview of Euthanasia
The Movement - Right to Die With Dignity:
In most cases, people believe that unbearable pain is the main reason people seek euthanasia. Unbearable pain and psychological factors can have quite a controlling
…show more content…
However, end-of-life debates tend to occur more in North America, Europe, and Australia than they do in Asia, Africa, South America, and the Middle East, although there are exceptions to this trend []. Throughout the world today, there are only a handful of countries who allow euthanasia including: Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Moreover, medically assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, Albania, Colombia, Japan and in the US states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico and Montana []. In Canada, a draft euthanasia bill is to be proposed in the Quebec parliament, following the publication of a provincial government report stating more should be done to create laws allowing euthanasia for terminally ill patients [7]. The controversial Bill 52 that Quebec would likely pass would be the first ever step forward in the right-to-die movement since the history of Canada and the Commonwealth for that matter. The only time the Commonwealth has seen any legislature being passed about euthanasia was in 1995 in Australia, a law was passed in the Northern Territory of Australia allowing for medically-assisted suicide. Though the law allowed for more freedom in choices for terminally ill patients, the law was overturned in 1997 due to societal, religious and monarchy pressure [7]. Unfortunately, in today’s society, the pros of the usage of euthanasia is outweighed by the
Euthanasia is one of the most complicated issues in the medical field due to the debate of whether or not it is morally right. Today, the lives of many patients can be saved with the latest discoveries in medicine and technology. But we are still unable to find cures to all illnesses, and patients have to go through extremely painful treatments only to live a little bit longer. These patients struggle with physical and psychological pain. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. discusses the topic of just and unjust laws in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” which brings into question whether it is just to kill a patient who is suffering or unjust to take that person’s life even if that person is suffering. In my opinion people should have the right, with certain restrictions, to end their lives in the way they see fit if they are suffering from endless pain.
Euthanasia comes from the Greek word that means “good death” (“Euthanasia” Literary). In general, euthanasia refers to causing the death of someone to end their pain and suffering oftentimes in cases of terminal illness. Some people call this “mercy killings.”
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
In her paper entitled "Euthanasia," Phillipa Foot notes that euthanasia should be thought of as "inducing or otherwise opting for death for the sake of the one who is to die" (MI, 8). In Moral Matters, Jan Narveson argues, successfully I think, that given moral grounds for suicide, voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable (at least, in principle). Daniel Callahan, on the other hand, in his "When Self-Determination Runs Amok," counters that the traditional pro-(active) euthanasia arguments concerning self-determination, the distinction between killing and allowing to die, and the skepticism about harmful consequences for society, are flawed. I do not think Callahan's reasoning establishes that euthanasia is indeed morally wrong and legally impossible, and I will attempt to show that.
The American Medical Association (AMA) has long been known for its strong views. As the issue of euthanasia, particularly doctor-assisted suicide, has come to the forefront, the AMA has taken a strong position on this controversial subject also. This time the AMA has taken a firm stand for preserving, not terminating, the life of the elderly/handicapped/depressed/mentally ill, etc. patient. This essay will explain in detail the stand of this influential group of doctors.
Euthanasia is a private decision that has to be made in unbearable times. It also is a controversial topic in which people on both sides seem to want their will put on the rest of society. One thing we have to keep in mind here is unless you are facing the decision yourself than it is very difficult to say what should happen.
Euthanasia is generally referred to as a conscious choice of death, caused by various factors. In a narrow sense, euthanasia is when a person wishing to death, and the person inflicting death, assess the situation positively, as their welfare. We also distinguish active euthanasia, which involves the administration of suitable substances that lead to the death of the human body, and passive euthanasia, in which a person is deprived of resources and life-sustaining substances. Euthanasia is usually succumb to those terminally ill or suffering from very serious
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.
Euthanasia has been an ongoing debate for many years. Everyone has an opinion on why euthanasia should or should not be allowed but, it is as simple as having the choice to die with dignity. If a patient wishes to end his or her life before a disease takes away their quality of life, then the patient should have the option of euthanasia. Although, American society considers euthanasia to be morally wrong euthanasia should be considered respecting a loved one’s wishes. To understand euthanasia, it is important to know the rights humans have at the end of life, that there are acts of passive euthanasia already in practice, and the beneficial aspects.
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines euthanasia as the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering. That sounds a little harsh, does it not? Here is the definition, restated with some different words, the intentional action of a licensed medical professional, to kill someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering. While the first definition may not seem so bad, the second one is distinctly harsher.
Thus, despite the arguments against euthanasia, patients’ lives should not be deprived of well-being, comfort or dignity. “In the last stage of life, every person is entitled to a high standard of care and a stable environment in which his or her privacy is respected” (Policy Options, 2013). A lot of the time, patients with terminal illnesses are thought of as ‘better off dead’ or ‘not the person they used to be’. This is all the more the reason why euthanasia should be legalized in Canada. The government should relax current laws and allow doctors to participate in assisted suicide if need be and are willing. If people suffering with terminal illnesses want to die peacefully and not endure painful procedures or live off machines whilst also helping society out money wise, the option should be available.
Euthanasia is one of the most recent and controversial debates today (Brogden, 2001). As per the Canadian Medical Association, euthanasia refers to the process of purposely and intentionally performing an act that is overtly anticipated to end the person’s life (CMA, 1998)
One of the strongest arguments against euthanasia comes from Stephen Potts who states “I object to the institutionalization of euthanasia. Because the risks of such institutionalization are so grave as to outweigh the very real suffering of those who might benefit from it” (Potts, p. 587; emphasis mine). Potts’s main point of this statement is that the risks that come with legalizing euthanasia to the society as whole outweigh the suffering of an individual. Potts gives nine reasons for his argument that he calls the “Risks of Institutionalization”. I will debate two of the nine arguments Potts gives. The first argument I will debate is the “Reduced pressure to improve curative or symptomatic treatment”. In this argument Potts states “Some
"The term is derived from the Greek word euthanatos which means easy death"( Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide). Human Euthanasia can do just that, grant an easy death for someone who is suffering either mentally or physically. It is an alternative for someone who is in pain and discomfort. Human Euthanasia should be legalized since people should be able to dictate what happens to them, they should be able to die with their dignity, and it is a very good alternative for people who live unbearable existences.
Euthanasia is ending the life of a person deliberately to relieve their pain. It usually happens when a person is terminally ill or is suffering from a lot of pain and there is no other option to relieve the pain.