Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues involved in euthanasia
Ethical issues involved in euthanasia
Euthanasia : mercy or murder
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues involved in euthanasia
An innumerable amount of individuals believe that life is a beautiful, extraordinary, and overall amazing gift. So, why would a human being choose to have this remarkable gift taken away from him or her? The answer to this question is quite simple. All over the world people are in such immense pain and suffering, that their last wish is for their lives to be taken away in a peaceful approach. The solution to a painless death is euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, commonly referred to as PAS. Active euthanasia is the process of inducing death upon a human being in a harmless, painless, and gentle way by an injection. Passive euthanasia is the removal of life-support or stopping treatments that may keep the patient alive for longer (Gale). Both forms of Euthanasia are done only with the consent of the patient who wishes to bring their life to an end. Death is the last chance of peace for many people, and euthanasia makes this possible.
As any controversial subject does, euthanasia has many non-supporters. Although euthanasia has supporters, the process is only legal in five states: California, Oregon,
…show more content…
Vermont, Washington, and Montana (Euthanasia). A multitude of people who are against PAS state that the procedure is not moral and that the patient themself should not be allowed to decide when his or her life comes to an end. However, these patients believe that the future that lies ahead of them is full of pain and suffering. For ages, people have felt that their futures were filled with despair. An example of this resides in Claude McKay's poem, ¨America.¨ In the poem, the speaker says, ¨Darkly I gaze into the days ahead, / And see her might and granite wonders there / Beneath the touch of Time's unerring hand, / Like priceless treasures sinking in the sand (Lines 11-14). Through this poem, the reader is able to see that the speaker feels like the future holds no hope. Likewise, many dying patients feel this exact same way. A grave number of patients have the idea that they are slowly dying, like a rose slowly wilting. An abundant number of non-supporters also argue that PAS could be ruled as legalized murder and would have many legal issues. Additionally, many state that PAS is used as a way for the government to save money, as drugs for assisted suicide cost around thirty-five to forty-five dollars, opposed to the millions used for healthy care annually. Lastly, non-supporters believe that euthanasia is going against God's will, and the choice to die is not the patient's choice (Euthanasia). As a result of the numerous amount of non-supporters, euthanasia is not legal in all locations. Opposingly, euthanasia has a great number of supporters, including the patients who wish to end their lives with the aid of a certified doctor. A numerous amount of patients feel like they are simply being looked over. For years, it seems like there has always been a minority group whose wishes are not considered. An example of this is in the poem ¨I, Too” written by Langston Hughes. The speaker states, ¨Besides, / They'll see how beautiful I am / And be ashamed- / I, too, am America” (lines 15-18). Hughes was talking about people being ashamed for the way they treated blacks, but this relates to the way dying patients are sometimes treated. These words represent the simple fact that dying patients represent America as well and should have the right to voice their opinions and make the choice to live or die. Many supporters state that the rights of patients are being taken away by being denied the right to death. People who are for euthanasia argue that everyone has control over their own lives, and whether they choose to live or die is a right they have as a citizen. Supporters argue that we will all die one day, so why fight against it? In ¨Shine, Perishing Republic¨ by Robinson Jeffers, the speaker voices ¨You making haste, haste on decay: not blameworthy; life is good, be it stubbornly long or suddenly / A mortal splendor: meteors are not needed less than mountains: shine, perishing republic (Lines 5-6). These words make it evident that whether life be extremely long or relatively short, life is still good. Many people believe that if a human is lying on his or her deathbed, being supported only by life-support, they should legally be given the choice to stop or continue life-support. Euthanasia is not and will never be a free for all, unorganized, or immoral process. As all medical procedures have standards, so will euthanasia. PAS will only be permitted on humans eighteen years of age or older, state residency is required, and the patient has to have six months or less until their expected death. Additionally, the patient is allowed to voice two oral requests and one written request to their physician (Euthanasia). Evidently, euthanasia has a vast number of pros. To sum up, euthanasia is the last chance for many human beings to end their lives in a peaceful way.
Humans who are in a profusion of pain and are lying on their deathbed should be granted the right to end their lives with the aid of a physician. Life is a beautiful gift that should not be taken for granted, but there are cases in which death is a more beautiful process to patients who are suffering, hurting, and miserable than life ever was or will be. Why should a human not get to decide the fate of his or her own life? Why should a human have to waste away in a hospital bed? Why should a human be forced to suffer and hurt when there is an alternative to their pain? A person does not need to be as smart as Einstein to realize the answer is extremely clear. Humans should not be forced to live in such a way and euthanasia makes it possible to end the
pain.
The word Euthanasia comes from the Greek and means “good death” (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp) and in the range of this paper, it is called physician assisted suicide or “active” euthanasia. The definition of “active” euthanasia is ending one’s life yourself or with the aid of a doctor. It can be done in various different ways; however, the most common form is with a combination of drugs, usually given by a physician. ( http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp) The reason Physician Assisted Suicide (or PAS) is an important issue in this country and around the world is that there are many people out there suffering from debilitating, incurable and intensely painful diseases that would like to end their lives with dignity and without suffering.
Euthanasia comes from the Greek word that means “good death” (“Euthanasia” literally). 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 these “mercy killings”. There are two types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive or voluntary euthanasia refers to withholding life-saving treatments or medical technology to prolong life.
In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die. I plan to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of both active and passive euthanasia.
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.
Euthanasia is defined as “the act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable and distressing disease as an act of mercy” (Paola). The goal of this action is therefore not maleficent, such is murder, but instead compassionate. However, euthanasia in the terms of physician assisted suicide (PAS) is still illegal in United States as it is deemed a form of wrongful homicide. One of the most likely reasons PAS is illegal in the United States, with the exception of in Oregon and Washington, is because it is both morally and ethically controversial.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal in the state of Oregon and in the country of the Netherlands; these are the only two jurisdictions in the world where laws specifically permit euthanasia or assisted suicide. Oregon permits assisted suicide.(Oregon) The Netherlands permits both euthanasia and assisted suicide.(Review) In 1995 Australia's Northern Territory approved a euthanasia bill.(Rights) It went into effect in 1996 but was overturned by the Australian Parliament in 1997. Also, in 1997, Colombia's Supreme Court ruled that penalties for mercy killing should be removed.(Republic) However the ruling does not go into effect until guidelines, still to be drafted, are approved by the Colombian Congress.
The term Euthanasia is derived from Greek, meaning good death. Taken in its common usage however, euthanasia refers to the termination of a person’s life, to end their suffering, usually from an incurable or terminal condition. It is for this reason that euthanasia was also coined the name “mercy killing”. Another type of euthanasia is Active Euthanasia refers to the deliberate act, usually through the intentional administration of lethal drugs, to end an incurably or terminally ill patient’s life. ("The Ethics of Euthanasia.") The earliest recorded date of euthanasia is dated back to 5th century B.C.-1st Century B.C. In ancient Greece and Rome, before the coming of Christianity, attitudes towards active euthanasia and suicide tended to be
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.
Merriam-Webster defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” As a globally issues, euthanasia is always in controversial. Swanton,D argued that euthanasia protects the rights of individuals and the freedom of religious expression. Additionally, Sydeny,D outlines europe’s increasing acceptance of euthanasia which may mean that euthanasia is a preferable choice for people. Conversely, Fagerlin, A PhD from University of Michigan Medical School and Carl E. Schneider, JD from University of Michigan Law School suggest the great distortion of living wills if euthanasia is allowed. What is
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
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
Meaning, "good death". But the word “euthanasia” today means taking action to achieve a good death. Euthanasia is often used by doctors; the doctor would prepare the patient a lethal dose of drugs and administer the drugs to them or the doctor injects the patient with lethal injections. There are two different forms of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is the hastening of a persons’ death by injections or a different form of assisted suicide while passive euthanasia is the withholding of treatment or medications that are currently keeping the patient alive (Barbuzzi, p.1, 2014). Informed consent from the patient is required for both passive and active euthanasia. . According to the Barbuzzi, informed consent is, “A patient’s expression of knowledge and acceptance of the risks, benefits, and alternative treatment options of a medical procedure and subsequent permission to a physician to perform the procedure” (Barbuzzi, p.1 2014).Suicide, self-deliverance, auto-euthanasia, aid-in-dying, assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, physician-assisted dying can all be justified by the supporters of the right to die movement for the following
“Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.”(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life. These patients are incompetent to decide because they are either minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted when it is against the will of the patient (Gupta, Bhatnagar, Mishra). Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia means life-sustaining treatments are withheld and nothing is done to keep the patient alive. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician do something by giving drugs or substances that ends a patient’s life. (Medical News Today)
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.
First of all, euthanasia saves money and resources. The amount of money for health care in each country, and the number of beds and doctors in each hospital are limited. It is a huge waste if we use those money and resources to lengthen the lives of those who have an incurable disease and want to die themselves rather than saving the lives of the ones with a curable ailment. When we put those patients who ask for euthanasia to death, then the waiting list for each hospital will shorten. Then, the health care money of each country, the hospital beds, and the energy of the doctors can be used on the ones who can be cured, and can get back to normal and able to continue contributing to the society. Isn’t this a better way of using money and resources rather than unnaturally extend those incurable people’s lives?