The applied ethical issue of euthanasia, or mercy killing, concerns whether it is morally permissible for a third party, such as a physician, to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in intense pain. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words eu (‘well’) and thanatos (‘death’). It means a painless and gentle death. But in modern usage, it has come to imply that someone’s life is ended for compassionate reasons by some passive or active steps taken by another person. The euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die. Staunch defenders of personal liberty argue that all of us are morally entitled to end our lives when we see fit. Thus, according to these people, euthanasia is in principle morally permissible. Two additional concepts are relevant to the discussion of euthanasia. First, voluntary euthanasia refers to mercy killing that takes place with the explicit and voluntary consent of the patient, either verbally or in a written document such as a living will. Second, non-voluntary euthanasia refers to the mercy killing of a patient who is unconscious, comatose, or otherwise unable to explicitly make his intentions known. (Downing 1969) In these cases it is often family members who make the request. It is important not to confuse non-voluntary mercy killing with involuntary mercy killing. The latter would be done against the wishes of the patient and would clearly count as murder.
Like the moral issues surrounding suicide, the problem of euthanasia has a long history of philosophical discussion. On the whole, ancient Greek thinkers seem to have favored euthanasia, even though they opposed suicide. An exception is Hippocrates (460-370 BCE), the ancient Greek physician, who in his famous oath states, "I will not prescribe a deadly drug to please someone, nor give advice that may cause his death." (Baird 1989) In medieval times, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim philosophers opposed active euthanasia, although the Christian Church has always accepted passive euthanasia.
Conflicting opinion is seen to be found when people talk about euthanasia. Some say it is good because people should have the right to choose what they want to happen to themselves. If they choose to end their suffering they should be able to do it without being made to feel like they have done something wrong. Some lay some guidelines and say...
... middle of paper ...
...he same time, it is ending the person's life that is the most valuable thing a person may ever hope to own. The decision to end one's life at the time of suffering should then be let laid into the hands of the sufferer and let it be upon his/her own conscience to decide whether he/she wants to end their lives. And yet it is a life that they are ending, life that is only given once and can never be replaced by anything else.
References:
1. Baird, Robert M. ed.: Euthanasia: The Moral Issues (Prometheus, 1989).
2. A.B. Downing, ed.: Euthanasia and the Right to Death (Humanities Press, 1969).
3. J. Glover: Causing Deaths and Saving Lives (Penguin, 1987)
4. Dennis J. Horan: Death, Dying and Euthanasia (Greenwood Press, 1980).
5. D. Humphrey: The Right to Die: Understanding Euthanasia (Harper and Row, 1986).
6. Marvin Kohl, ed: Beneficent Euthanasia (Prometheus, 1975).
7. Daniel C. Maguire: Death by Choice (Doubleday, 1974).
8. James Rachels: The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality (Oxford University Press, 1987).
9. Maguire, Daniel. Death By Choice. (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1984).
10. Pence, Gregory E. Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: (McGraw-Hill, 2000).
If not for our law enforcement officers receiving a tip from someone in the Muslim community this group could still be operating today. The first step toward success was to actively looking into the tip. We have heard many a time that a crime could have been prevented if not for a lack of resources. A proper allocation of resources can be factored into
Policing is a very difficult, complex and dynamic field of endeavor that is always evolves as hard lessons teach us what we need to know about what works and what don’t work. There are three different Era’s in America’s policing: The Political Era, The Reform Era, and The Community Problem Solving Era. A lot has changed in the way that policing works over the years in the United States.
Working with people can be challenging, but so rewarding all at the same time. As humans, we are certainly not perfect and we are making mistakes daily. Making decisions is one thing that does not come easily to us, and depending on the day you can get multiple different answers to one situation. The NASW Code of Ethics is an extremely helpful tool when we are working with clients and something that does not ever waiver in ethical decision-making. If we are working in the Social work profession, then we must insure we are making the correct decision for everyone who is involved with the client.
One could agree, community policing should be focused on changing the way in which citizens respond to police in more constructive and proactive ways. A few things should be recommended changing the departments policy especially those folks of color, working with schools to provide the right information to the youth but give them positive reinforcement in a collective effort all will help with crime reduction personal pride in one community and
“Michael Manning, MD, in his 1998 book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring?, traced the history of the word euthanasia: ‘The term euthanasia.originally meant only 'good death,'but in modern society it has come to mean a death free of any anxiety and pain, often brought about through the use of medication.” It seems there has always been some confusion and questions from our society about the legal and moral questions regarding the new science of euthanasia. “Most recently, it has come to mean'mercy killing' — deliberately putting an end to someone’s life in order to spare the individual’s suffering.’” I would like to emphasize the words “to spare the individual’s suffering”.
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
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.
The objective of this essay is to examine one of the six pillars of the President’s Task Force on 21st century policing. Of the six pillars, pillar four’s target is the importance of community policing and crime reduction. The definition of community policing is the use of partnership and problem-solving methods to address public safety issues, such as crime, fear of crime and social disorders. The highlight of community policing is that it partners with residents in the community to implement public safety. Some background into how community policing came to be was in the 1960s and 70s, civil rights protest were in effect. For example San Diego’s police department conducted a study with community policing. “Officers were expected to become
I believe a closer relationship between the police and the community is a good idea because involving the community can help create a safer crime reduced environment. As Leighton (2016) states the definition of community policing as "a philosophical, organizational, and operational approach to urban policing which emphasizes a police-community partnership to solve local crime and disorder problems" (p. 129). I find involving the community can establish trust between the police and the citizens as they are both working towards a common goal, as we can see community partnership creates a sense of alliance in keeping order (Leighton, 2016, p. 130).
Community policing is a viewpoint and a managerial approach that endorses new affiliation among police and people. It stands on the principle that both the community and the police has to work jointly to prioritize, identify, and resolve current problems such as felony, fear of crime, drugs, overall neighborhood decay and social/physical disorder. Their goal should be to recover the general value of living in the neighborhood. Community policing involves a division wide pledge from everybody, sworn members and civilian, to the community policing viewpoint. Also it tests all employees to discover ways to state this new viewpoint in their occupations.
Community policing as it is now known today has been evolving slowly since the civil rights movement in the 1960s and exposed the weakness of the traditional policing model (law. jrnk. org. n.d.). Unfortunately, it was not until the 1980s when it began to be called community policing because police departments and the community felt that police officers need to be better involved in the community by committing more foot patrol and problem solving in the community. Therefore, they felt that it would build a better relationship between the police and the community. Although, foot patrol is a key component in community policing a lot of cities that use this model as of today have gotten away from the foot patrol due to the way some people view
Weisburd, D. (2011). Community-Oriented Policing to Reduce Crime, Disorder and Fear and Increase Legitimacy and Citizen Satisfaction in Neighborhoods . The Campbell Collaboration , 1-9.
Community policing is predicated upon a strong relationship with the community and public at large. The aim is to form strong ties between members of the community and the police, in efforts at reducing crime. This does not mean that the police are no longer in authority or have relinquished their duties to protect and serve. It does mean, however, that the expertise and resources that are found within the communities will be of great assistance to the police in carrying out their duties. "All local government officials, social agencies, schools, church groups, business people—all those who work and live in the community and have a stake in its development—will share responsibility for finding workable solutions to problems that detract from the safety and security of the community" (Bureau of Justice Assistance 1994, p. 13).
(Berlin, Michael M. "Encyclopedia of Community Policing and Problem Solving.") At the same time, aggressive patrol tactics adopted in response to rising crime and civil disobedience increased the likelihood of hostile confrontations between police and citizens and contributed to increasing complaints against the police (Berlin, Michael M. "Encyclopedia of Community Policing and Problem Solving.") The community policing literature strongly suggests that community policing could improve communication and trust between police and citizens, reverse the growing distance and isolation of the police from the public, and reduce citizen complaints of brutality and indifference (Berlin, Michael M. "Encyclopedia of Community Policing and Problem
As many immigrant and minority communities see the police as corrupt, community policing could be a step in the right direction to gain their trust and to show legitimacy. Many troubled neighborhoods have poor collective efficiency and police departments can help community 's gain this with community policing. Many times where neighborhoods need community policing the most(high crime spots) there is poor citizen involvement in police events and programs(Skogan 1988).Residents could fear that if they cooperate with law enforcement the criminals will retaliate(Grinc 1994). Even with community policing, minorities, especially blacks do not seem to get the benefit of involvement(skogan 1990).