Euthanasia: Mercy Killing or Murder?
We, as humans, are mortal beings. Our life span is finite. Even though we are mortal, we try to hang onto our lives as long as we can; fear of death and wanting to live forever are, after all, part of human nature. Sometimes, however, the field of medicine capitalizes on this aspect of humanity. While it is certainly true that one goal of medicine has always been to prolong life, another goal has been the alleviation of pain and suffering. One point at which these two views collide is over the hotly debated issue of euthanasia.
Euthanasia, or "mercy killing," as it has been called, is certainly not an issue with just two sides. There are many shades of gray involved, so to speak. Euthanasia, after all, ranges from simply allowing an individual to die naturally without life support or "pulling the plug" (passive euthanasia), all the way to Jack Kevorkian's suicide machine (active euthanasia). To complicate things further, there is also voluntary euthanasia, "Cases in which patient requests to be killed, and dies as a result of action taken by another person," involuntary euthanasia; "cases in which no action is requested because the patient is unconscious, senile, or otherwise incapable of making a request, but the person is allowed to die or is killed," and nonvoluntary euthanasia; "cases in which a conscious, terminally ill patient states that they do not want to die, but is allowed to die or is killed anyway" (http://valdosta.peachnet.edu). While an individual may advocate one form of euthanasia, it is not uncommon for the same person to be completely against another form. There are cases in which euthanasia is wrong, especially cases involving conscious pe...
... middle of paper ...
...d dreaded events that human beings ever have to go through. This is probably the main reason that euthanasia is so controversial. It is human nature for us to try and prolong our lives as long as possible, and, through medicine, we have prolonged them quite a bit. It is important to remember, nevertheless, that sometimes while attempting to fight our common enemy death, we lose sight of the best interests of the individuals whose lives we are affecting. Are these people not the most qualified people to make this decision? It is, after all, their lives that hang in the balance.
Works Cited
"Murder" American Heritage Dictionary on CD-ROM, 1991.
Internet: Http://www.ieatf.org.McCord, William.
Internet: Http://valdosta.peachnet.edu.
"Moral Dilemmas." Society 29 July-August 1992: 22.
Pallone, Nathaniel. Society 29 July-August 1992: 35.
Coal mines in these times were glorified death traps and collapsed. Often. Workers or their families were basically never compensated for anything, and even when they took things to court, essentially no court was sympathetic toward any coal miner or their family, and if their father or brother died, they were on their on for the rest of their life, often then forcing child boys to work if they weren’t already. Also, not many workers spoke proper english in the mines, so they could not read instruction signs, and by misuse of equipment, killing themselves and/or other
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 issue at hand is whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized for patients who are terminally ill and/or enduring prolonged suffering. In this debate, the choice of terms is central. The most common term, euthanasia, comes from the Greek words meaning "good death." Sidney Hook calls it "voluntary euthanasia," and Daniel C. Maguire calls it "death by choice," but John Leo calls it "cozy little homicides." Eileen Doyle points out the dangers of a popular term, "quality-of-life." The choice of terms may serve to conceal, or to enhance, the basic fact that euthanasia ends a human life. Different authors choose different terms, depending on which side of the issue they are defending.
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.
Is a multisystem disease related to abnormal insulin production, impaired insulin utilization, or both. Diabetes Mellitus is a serious health problem throughout the world. It is the 5th leading cause of death in the U.S. It is the leading cause of heart disease, stroke, adult blindness, and nontraumatic lower limb amputations.
Starvation, suffocation with a plastic bag, carbon monoxide and lethal doses of drugs are some way to die practiced by euthanasia. In definition, euthanasia is the option that some people choose to end his/her life when living becomes too unbearable for them. Tough Euthanasia is mostly asked by the person who wants to die; there are some cases where the person does not is even conscious of his/her death, such cases are typically seen with persons in the vegetative state. Some people do not agree with the practice of involuntary Euthanasia; they argue against this process labeling it as a crime. While opponents may think this is an action against the law because it takes away the life of someone without his/her consent, other people opt to consider
The issues in the euthanasia debate usually revolve around patients who are terminally ill and/or suffering intractable pain. The patient must fully think about every aspect of what euthanasia would involve. I think that once a patient is seeking to end his or her life due to illness; they must have a will in place and also note the reason why they want to end their life. Euthanasia does raises lots of worrying ethical dilemmas like in what condition euthanasia can be justify, is there any ethical difference among killing someone and letting them die, is there any right to end the life of an individual who is suffering from serious
“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”.
Critics to the idea of providing dying patients with lethal doses, fear that people will use this type those and kill others, “lack of supervision over the use of lethal drugs…risk that the drugs might be used for some other purpose”(Young 45). Young explains that another debate that has been going on within this issue is the distinction between killings patients and allowing them die. What people don’t understand is that it is not considered killing a patient if it’s the option they wished for. “If a dying patient requests help with dying because… he is … in intolerable burden, he should be benefited by a physician assisting him to die”(Young 119). Patients who are suffering from diseases that have no cure should be given the option to decide the timing and manner of their own death. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for
Anyone can be diagnosed with a terminal illness. It doesn’t matter how healthy you are, who you are, or what you do. Some terminal illnesses you can prevent by avoiding unhealthy habits, eating healthily, exercising regularly and keeping up with vaccinations. However some terminally ill people cannot be helped, their diseases cannot be cured and the only thing possible to help them, besides providing pain relieving medication, is to make them as comfortable as possible while enduring their condition. Many times the pharmaceuticals do not provide the desired pain escape, and cause patients to seek immediate relief in methods such as euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending a life in order to alleviate pain and suffering, but is deemed controversial because many various religions believe that their creators are the only ones that should decide when their life’s journey should reach its end. Euthanasia is performed by medical doctors or physicians and is the administration of a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient on his or her express request. Although the majority of American states oppose euthanasia, the practice would result in more good as opposed to harm. The patient who is receiving the euthanizing medication would be able to proactively choose their pursuit of happiness, alleviate themselves from all of the built up pain and suffering, relieve the burden they may feel they are upon their family, and die with dignity, which is the most ethical option for vegetative state and terminally ill patients. Euthanasia should remain an alternative to living a slow and painful life for those who are terminally ill, in a vegetative state or would like to end their life with dignity. In addition, t...
Pain and suffering is one reason people support euthanasia. “Pain-relief treatment could or even would shorten life”. (32) Yet, it is justified if the purpose is to comfort and relieve pain. Providing adequate amount of pain-relief treatment is also a way to extend life. It lessens the patient’s distress psychologically and physically. (Somerville) Going beyond the limit by overdosing the patient will poison the body and hastens death. In this case, it is unacceptable because its intention is to kill a person’s life and not to comfort.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their lifetime. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are suffering from euthanasia.
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?
Diabetes mellitus (DM) or simply diabetes, is a chronic health condition in which the body either fails to produce the amount of insulin needed or it responds inadequately to the insulin secreted by the pancreas. The three primary types of diabetes are: Diabetes Type 1 and 2, and during some pregnancies, Gestational diabetes. The cliché for all three types of diabetes is high glucose blood levels or hyperglycemia. The pathophysiology of all types of diabetes mellitus is related to the hormone insulin, which is secreted by the beta cells of the pancreas. This hormone is responsible for maintaining an optimal glucose level in the blood. It allows the body cells to use glucose as a main energy source. Due to abnormal insulin metabolism, in a diabetic person, the body cells and tissues cannot make use of glucose from the blood, resulting in elevated blood glucose level or hyperglycemia. Over time, elevated blood glucose level in the bloodstream can lead to severe complications, such as disorders of the eyes, cardiovascular diseases, kidney damage and nerve destruction. In Type 1 diabetes, the pancreas is not able to produce sufficient amount of insulin as required for the body. The pathophysiology of type 1 diabetes suggests that it’s an autoimmune disease, in which the body’s own immune system generates secretions of substances that attack the beta cells of the pancreas leading to low or no insulin secretion. This is more common in children and young adults before the age of thirty. Type 1 is also referred as Insulin dependent Diabetes Mellitus or Juvenile Diabetes, exogenous insulin is needed for its treatment. In type 2 diabetes mellitus we find insulin resistance with varying degrees of insulin secretory defects and is more comm...