Ethical Dilemmas
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,
…show more content…
She was left a quadriplegic and could no longer accomplish the activities she was used to doing, such as walking, swimming, and eating. Joni became severely depressed and sought to end her life. She requested to be euthanized.
The reason it is complicated to choose an ethical decision according to the Christian worldview is that Joni’s life is a gift from God and He would not want anyone to die in an unnatural way, such as euthanasia. Joni’s family might be grateful that she is still living and believe that is also a gift from God since she did not perish in the accident.
There are two options in this pronouncement, let Joni end her life or let her live. If the decision to end her life is made then her family will be sad and miss her. In euthanasia of human beings, a doctor would be giving Joni drugs that will stop her heart ultimately killing her. The doctor that would perform this euthanasia may then survive with guilt for the rest of his or her life. With the advancement of medicine, there could be a breakthrough in quadriplegic medicine and Joni might one day be able to walk again. If this was discovered after Joni’s death, the doctor performing the euthanasia and Joni’s family will likely have a sense of guilt and regret their
…show more content…
It does not matter what the circumstances are, life is life and should not be taken away from someone. In this example, even though Joni’s quality of life is not what it used to be she is still alive. It might have been easier for everyone if she had died in her accident, and then her family could accept that she was meant to die in the eyes of God and not at the hands of a doctor or herself. Christians also believe that the taking of life in an unnatural way is murder. Jesus did not give in to Satan’s temptation to kill himself in Mathew 4:6. Since Joni is contemplating suicide, she is not in the right relationship with God and is in danger of going to hell. Based on these beliefs Joni’s family will not grant Joni’s wish to be euthanized from the Christian worldview. Quality of life is not determined in life. To euthanize a person is going against God’s commandment of loving God and loving thy neighbor (House,
At this stage, Dot faced a real dilemma, as she was in fact, a strictly religious Christian, however in the end she disregarded her faith and relieved Ethel of the pain, by providing her with a number of tablets. Ethel, took all of them, and died of a drug overdose. This type of euthanasia is known as voluntary euthanasia as Ethel asked Dot to help her. This issue is both a religious and moral, initially, euthanasia is prohibited by Christians as it is seen as ending a sacred life given to you as a gift from God, in other words Christians believe in the sanctity of life. This viewpoint is also shared by most of the other religions, including Islam.
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue, including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns of both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this, and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
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
Shortly afterwards, with her quality of life severely diminished and her future goals and desires swept away, Joni went into severe depression and had serious thoughts of ending her own life. This scenario is difficult to make an ethical decision based solely on the facts provided. As readers we do not know her religious believes or what kind of help and counseling she has received after going through such a traumatic life altering event. The obvious decision is that it is Joni’s life to do as she pleases and if she desires to end it then she should be allowed to do so. As we see in 1 Samuel 31:4-5 that when faced with the option of being tortured and living in excruciating pain, eventually dying a slow and agonizing death, Saul and his armor bearer both end their lives. If Joni does this she is making her own ethical decision. When life becomes so burdensome, death becomes a sought-after refuge. Schopenhauer affirmed: "They tell us that suicide is the greatest act of cowardice... that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person." The other option is that Joni tough it out and hope that she can find a purpose and meaning to this new life she is forced to live. When looking at her ethical decisions for this she will need to
Euthanasia - Pro and Con & nbsp; Abstract & nbsp; This paper will define Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia is often confused with and associated with assisted suicide, definitions of the two are. required. Two perspectives shall be presented in this paper. The first perspective favor euthanasia or the "right to die," the second perspective. favor antieuthanasia, or the "right to live". Each perspective shall. endeavor to clarify the legal, moral and ethical ramifications or aspects of euthanasia. & nbsp; Thesis Statement & nbsp; Euthanasia, also mercy killing, is the practice of ending a life so as to.
The most argued issue with assisted suicide is grounded in morals and religion. The sanctity of life is the philosophy that human life is sacred and should be protected from any form of v...
...endent judgments about their own fate. In keeping with this trend there is now a growing drive to review the current laws on euthanasia and assisted suicide.” (McCormack, 1998) Nurses are faced with various ethical dilemmas every day. If theses ethical decisions are not treated in a professional manner there can be harsh consequences for both the patient and the nurse.
Suicide and assisted suicide is often viewed as the most logical choice when faced with these circumstances. As far back as the 16th Century, people have been arguing for the terminally ill to be aided in ending life by physicians who should not be held morally or legally to blame for assisting the individual. The beginning of the 21rst Century saw many bills supporting the use of euthanasia proposed in many Western legislatures with little to no success. The fact is that everyone is going to die, the only question that remains to be answered is when, how, and under what conditions. Supporters of euthanasia state that everyone should have the same degree of control in choosing the circumstances surrounding their death as they do in choosing the manner in which they live” (Economist.com, 1997) I agree with this assertion, everyone should be able to choose their own
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is known as a process in which an individual (sick or disabled) engages in an act that leads to his or her own death with the help of physicians or family members to end pain and suffering. There are several other terms used for this process, such as active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to what is being done to actively end life while passive euthanasia is referred as eliminating a treatment that will prolong a patient’s life, which will eventually lead to death (Levy et al., 2103, p. 402). Euthanasia and assisted suicide pose a significant ethical issue today, and understanding the issue requires examining the different principles, such as the ethical issue, professional code of conduct, strength and limitations, autonomy and informed consent, beneficence and nonmaleficence, distribution, and confidentiality and truthfulness.
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.
The "right to die" argument is building moral, ethical and legal issues. The proponents for physician aid in dying are arguing from the perspective of compassion and radical individual autonomy. However, we cannot take the life of another human being in our hands and play the role of God. The case against physician-assisted suicide, which is essentially a moral case ("thou shall not kill; thou shall not help others to kill themselves"), is straightforward and clear.
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
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
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.