Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Why should we legalize euthanasia
Why euthanization should be legal
Why euthanization should be legal
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Euthanasia is an action that result in the death of a person. There are four types of euthanasia, such as voluntary active euthanasia, nonvoluntary active euthanasia, voluntary passive euthanasia, and nonvoluntary passive euthanasia. Among the four types of euthanasia, voluntary active euthanasia or VAE is the most controversial ethical issue in the United States. It is the killing of a competent patient who decided to end his/her suffering by ending his/her life with the help of the physician. VAE is illegal in the Unites States; however, it is morally just. Voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral on the basis of Immanuel Kant’s human dignity, the utilitarian’s Greatest Happiness Principle, and James Rachel’s view of active euthanasia. According to Immanuel Kant, a person has dignity that makes him autonomous. Thus, the decision of the autonomous patient to die has intrinsic value. Because patients are rational agent, they are able to make their own decision based on reason. A rational patient will reason that if continued existence is full of suffering and no-hope for better well-being, therefore, the best option is to discontinue his/her life to save him/herself from that future condition. It is the patient’s approach to manage his/her own life. Dan W. Brock is right in his article “Voluntary Active Euthanasia” when he said that, “self-determination [or autonomy] has fundamental value… [because]… individual [can] control the manner, circumstances, and timing of their dying and death” (75). The dignity of the patient lies in their “capacity to direct their lives” (Brock 75). According to Stephen G. Potts, a patient might seek euthanasia for the benefits of other people (79). In his argument against VAE, the p... ... middle of paper ... ...uffer. The voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral. It is morally right for a person to seek euthanasia because it is their freedom or autonomy to control their own lives. It ends the suffering of the patient without harming other people. Furthermore, it prevents the person to suffer by giving him/her lethal injection or medication that prevents a person to die slowly with pain. On the other hand, the arguments against euthanasia are not sound. A thorough assessment will protect patient who request euthanasia for the benefits of others. A patient who seek for euthanasia does not use him/herself as means, but as ends to respect his/her own humanity. Furthermore, God as a benevolent will not allow a person to suffer which endorse the purpose of euthanasia – to end suffering. Therefore, voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized in the United States.
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
Euthanasia is and will always be one of the leading ethical issues present in the world. There are strong arguments present on both sides of the issue including that of one of the most influential institutions on the planet; the Catholic Church. The Church has, and always will be against the killing of a human being. This applies to euthanasia: “An action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering.” (Pope John Paul II - Evangelium Vitae). The Church also refers to euthanasia as “assisted suicide” and the “mercy killing”. “Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church – 2277).
“When a patient says, ‘Help me doctor,’ he is assuming that his doctor is on the side of his life.” This quote by Dr.Margaret Cottle , who is a palliative care physician , shows the mentality that most patients have when it comes to patient care. Euthanasia is a very controversial topic that has been debated on throughout the years. Whether it may be active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia, indirect or physician assisted the morals and reasoning behind each are controversial. Though some people may believe euthanasia may be justified in a critical situation and critical punishment, euthanasia should be prohibited because euthanasia weakens societies respects for the sanctity of life, euthanasia might not be in the person’s best interest, and euthanasia affects other peoples rights, not just the patients.
I believe that euthanasia, as a drastic course of action, should not be legal. In my opinion, the only exception to this that should exist is euthanasia being used to carry out punishment for a crime. Euthanasia should only be used to punish criminals who have committed a crime that the punishment of their crime is the death penalty.
The debate on whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalized has been a controversial topic. Euthanasia is defined as ‘a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering’ [1]. Voluntary euthanasia refers to the patients who understand the terms in the consent and sign up under consciousness, while involuntary euthanasia is performed against patient's wishes and some people may regard it as a murder [1].
“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)
I would like to begin by defining the issue of the article by Patrick Nowell-Smith. The issue of his article is legalizing euthanasia and giving people a right to decide when and how to die.
“The active, intentional termination of a patient’s life by a doctor who thinks that death is a benefit to that patient. Euthanasia then is not simply a doctor doing something which he foresees will shorten the patient’s life, but doing something intending to shorten the patient’s life” (397). In his article he mentions different types of euthanasia; which include voluntary active euthanasia (VAE), non-voluntary euthanasia (NVAE), and involuntary active euthanasia IVAE). Voluntary active euthanasia can best be described as maneuvers carried out by another person to terminate life by the patient’s wishes. Non-voluntary euthanasia is reserved for instances where the person may not be able to make their own decision. This applies in cases of babies, young children, and those who do not have the...
Is it right to intentionally bring about the death of a person? The vast majority of people would instinctively answer this question “no,” unless it related to an act of war or perhaps self-defense. What if taking the life of the person would benefit that person by ending their suffering? Would it be morally acceptable to end their suffering? Questions like these are debated by those considering the morality of euthanasia, which is a very controversial topics in America. Euthanasia can be defined as “bringing about the death of another person to somehow benefit that person” (Pojman). The term implies that the death is intentional. Because there are several different types of euthanasia, it is difficult to make a blanket statement concerning the morality of euthanasia. This paper will discuss the particular morality of the passive and active forms of involuntary, nonvoluntary, and voluntary euthanasia. I believe that voluntary passive euthanasia is morally acceptable, while all other forms of euthanasia are ultimately immoral.
Euthanasia, according to the dictionary, means the killing of a person who is suffering from an incurable disease. Lately, it had been a huge debate over whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. Personally, I believe that euthanasia should be legalized if it is voluntary. I have three reasons for my argument.
The definition of Euthanasia is: “the practice of ending a life prematurely in order to end pain and suffering”. Sometimes euthanasia is referred to as “Mercy Killing”. Euthanasia can be divided into a few groups. One form of Euthanasia is called Voluntary Euthanasia. Voluntary Euthanasia is having the permission from the individual who wants to be euthanized. There is also involuntary euthanasia which would be more like a death penalty example. Passive Euthanasia is another form of euthanasia. This is when you terminate a medication or by not performing a lifesaving procedure on an individual. The most common form of Euthanasia, which is also the form that is most argued about is Active Euthanasia. Active Euthanasia is the act of using a lethal drug which would ultimately end one’s life.
According to Zyl, “Perhaps the most frequently heard argument in favor of legalizing active voluntary euthanasia is based upon the notion of patient autonomy and the right to self-determination” (11). The author argues that people have the right to make their own decisions and are capable of maki...
When considering whether the piece of legislation titled “The Death with Dignity Act” is morally and philosophically justifiable, the moral and philosophical viability of what is referred to as active voluntary euthanasia must first be evaluated. Because active voluntary euthanasia seeks to reduce the amount of suffering of the patients as well as offer individuals greater control over their lives, it can be justified, and the “Death with Dignity Act” outlines a responsible method for enacting active voluntary euthanasia. One of the most contentious issues when considering active voluntary euthanasia is the first part of the term—active. According to opponents of active voluntary euthanasia, it is morally worse to actively cause the death of an individual as opposed to simply letting die naturally by withholding treatment.
Euthanasia is a term used to describe what we refer to as a “mercy-killing.” This type of death is common among patients who are in dealing with a great deal of suffering. Active, voluntary euthanasia is a form of euthanasia that requires someone, such as a doctor, performing the actual act of killing a person, such as a patient; however, the patient has given full consent to the doctor to allow this act to happen because it is in the patient’s best interest to no longer suffer. Although this act can appear as immoral in the eyes of some people, health care professionals consider the four major ethical principles, nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy and justice, when making these tough decisions centering around morality.
There are two cases of euthanasia, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is conducted with consent from the patient while involuntary euthanasia is conducted without consent, but the decision is made by a close relation to the patient because of incapability on the patient part. Also euthanasia has two procedural classifications, passive and active. Passive euthanasia involves withdrawal of life-prolonging treatments, whereas active euthanasia as well-known as mercy killing involves the use of force or lethal substance are used to end a patient’s life. Active euthanasia include life-ending actions conducted by the patient or somebody else. In short: euthanasia involves killing the patient to eliminate the pain while end-of-life care involves eliminating the pain so that the patient can die painlessly, from natural causes. Euthanasia is very controversial in the sense, many argued that it is assisted suicide and could be a cover for outright murder. Others have also argue that, in hastening the dying process of a patient is not apparently the way to relieve suffering. In contrast, regardless of a patient’s medical condition, euthanasia is against medical ethics, is against most religions, and it is not the ultimate answer to end suffering patients. Physicians and doctors have a code of ethics that’s guide their practices. Euthanasia is a direct violation of the medical oath which states that Physician-assisted suicide, like eu...