Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical dilemmas
Euthanasia : mercy or murder
Euthanasia : mercy or murder
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical dilemmas
Euthanasia Essay - Assisted Suicide Must be an Option
Life is a precious gift. Humans have the ability to decide how their lives are to be lived. In the United States, people can legally control to a limited extent their death. In a living will, a person can request that extraordinary life sustaining measures be withheld in terminal medical condition. However, the abrupt ending of a life via assisted suicide is controversial. Should people be allowed to take their own lives when facing a painful and prolonged ending? I believe that they should have that option.
Euthanasia, or mercy killing, can be defined as the "intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who dies" (Euthanasia). The infamous Dr. Kevorkian is known for assisting many people in their suicides. He was eventually tried and convicted for his role in this area. What crime did he commit? The people whom he assisted sought him out to help them have a calm and peaceful death under their own control. During Dr. Kevorkian's trial, questions were raised suggesting ...
Let's mention a known name in the euthanasia field, Dr. Jack Kevorkian. If this name sounds unfamiliar, then you have been one of the lucky few people to have been living in a cave for the last nine years. Dr. Kevorkian is considered to some as a patriarch, here to serve mankind. Yet others consider him to be an evil villain, a devil's advocate so to speak. Physician assisted suicide has not mentioned in the news recently. But just as you are reading this paper and I'm typing, it's happening. This hyperlink will take you to a web page that depicts in depth how many people Dr. Kevorkian has assisted in taking their lives.
Killing or assisting in suicide is not a morally indifferent act. Dr. Kevorkian says, “My intent was only to relieve their suffering, an act that inevitably killed the person.” He justified his acts, because most of his patients had Lou Gehrig’s Disease and could not feed or care for themselves (Murphy, 1999). Although only the good effect was intended, the bad effect (death) was the means to the good effect. The proportionality between the good and bad effect must be analyzed for each specific case. Dr. Kevorkian’s acts violated at least two of the principles of double effect, so they are not ethically justified.
"This is a very special day for me. It's the day of my release, the
Starting with the argument of it not being ethical, Martin Levin a practicing attorney states; that when he first began his paper and research he believed people should have the right to an assisted suicide. After doing extensive research he changed his mind. Just some of these reasons include sanctity of human life. It is stated that God created the human life and therefore our lives and bodies are the property of God. It is also stated that no one has the right to destroy Gods’ property (Levin M. 2002). In many churches ho...
...their own life and die with their own dignity is huge thing among anyone. No one should be denied the right to leave this earth if they are in constant and terrible pain. But people were also asked whether physician-assisted suicide should be allowed for people in severe pain who aren't terminally ill or for those with disabilities and the outcome was, “a solid majority — 71 percent — opposed the idea, with only 29 percent in favor of it. The results were the same as in 2011.” (Hensley, 2012). The whole idea of having physician-assisted suicide is for a patient with a severe illness with months to live is to go out in peace and without any complications. Overall, physician-assisted suicide has many pros and cons but the main issue is the patient. It should not be up to anybody except the dying patient. There are only four states that have legalized assisted-suicide.
In 1999 a well known physician, Jack Kevorkian, was convicted of second degree murder. One might think that Kevorkian committed the terrible crime of murdering someone, but that is actually far from the truth. Kevorkian was convicted because of something a little unusual; he helped a patient with assisted suicide. Alexander Stingl, a sociologist and science historian, and M. Lee, authors of “Assisted Suicide: An Overview,” define assisted suicide as “any case in which a doctor gives a patient (usually someone with a terminal illness) the means to carry out their own suicide by using a lethal dose of medication.” Kevorkian was convicted because as of right now, assisted suicide is illegal in the United States with the exceptions of Oregon, Montana, and Washington. Huge controversy rose over this case because some feel assisted suicide is a civil right whereas others feel it is unnecessary. Assisted suicide is a practice that has long been debated.
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.
Terminally ill patients should have the legal option of physician-assisted suicide. Terminally ill patients deserve the right to control their own death. Legalizing assisted suicide would relive families of the burdens of caring for a terminally ill relative. Doctors should not be prosecuted for assisting in the suicide of a terminally ill patient. We as a society must protect life, but we must also recognize the right to a humane death. When a person is near death, in unbearable pain, they have the right to ask a physician to assist in ending their lives.
According to West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, between 1990 and 1999, a well-known advocate for physician assisted suicide, Jack Kevorkian helped 130 patients end their lives. He began the debate on assisted suicide by assisting a man with committing suicide on national television. According to Dr. Kevorkian, “The voluntary self-elimination of individual and mortally diseased or crippled lives taken collectively can only enhance the preservation of public health and welfare” (Kevorkian). In other words, Kevor...
may not want to live the rest of their short life with all the pain and
...end ones terminally ill life should be up to the patient and no one else. Religion plays a major part on why the law hasn't been pasted yet. Just like the hippocratic oath, religion doesn't prohibit suicide in any way. One of the most basic commandments is “Thou shall not kill.” But no one knows where humans go once they past so it seems hypocritical to judge such situations on a myth. I do not encourage anyone to end their life nor would I request such a thing. However, I do support ones choice to die with dignity if facing medical reasoning such as terminal illness. The government should grant such request to honor their citizens.
There are some arguments for assisted suicide and Respect for autonomy is one of them. A competent person should have the right to choose to live or die. Justice is another. Competent terminally ill patients are allowed to hasten their deaths by refusal of medication. Physician assisted suicide may be a compassionate response to unbearable sufferings. Although society has a strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when a person is terminally ill and has a strong desire to end life. Lastly, legalization of assisted suicide would promote open discussion. These arguments make it hard to go along with the arguments against assisted suicide.
“In 1999, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician known for openly advertising that he would perform assisted suicide despite the fact that it was illegal, was convicted of second-degree murder” (Lee). The fact of the matter is human being...
Issue: Should Physician assisted suicide (PAS) or euthanasia be legalized for patients who suffer from terminal illnesses?