Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Dilemmas about euthanasia
Dilemmas about euthanasia
Should euthanasia be legal
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Dilemmas about euthanasia
Should humans be allowed to play the role of God? Legalizing Euthanasia would do exactly that. The ability to play with people’s lives should not be handed out under a legal/ and or medical disguise. Euthanasia is a practice that is unethical and immoral and it should be internationally forbidden and prohibited.
The term Euthanasia originated from the Greek word for “good death.” It is the act of or practice of ending the life of a person either by lethal injection or the suspension of medical treatment (ProCon.org, 2013). Euthanasia is a controversial issue that compares one’s quality of life to ethics. Euthanasia can be examined as a form of suicide or a form of being merciful. Even so, does humanity have the right to determine if someone should die or not? Many that are governed by a faithful belief may see Euthanasia as a practice against the will of God. However, others may believe that mankind has the choice over their own lives, and that the belief of God is a theory.
Having the right to end’s one life is inhumane. The most common religious argument is that human beings are...
Both Brittany Maynard and Craig Ewert ultimately did not want to die, but they were aware they were dying. They both suffered from a terminal illness that would eventually take their life. Their worst fear was to spend their last days, in a state of stress and pain. At the same time, they would inflict suffering on their loved ones as their family witnessed their painful death. Brittany and Craig believed in the notion of dying with dignity. The states where they both resided did not allow “active voluntary euthanasia or mercy killing at the patient’s request” (Vaughn 269). As a result, they both had to leave their homes to a place that allowed them to get aid in dying. Brittany and Craig were able to die with dignity and peace. Both avoiding
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
First of all, we were not in charge of our birth, we had no input of when we wanted to be born, is only fair that we don’t decide our death. I believe God creates life, He and He alone should decide when and how a person should dye. Only when the time come. I think is unethical to kill someone just because their quality of life is not up to people’s standard. Who are we to decide who should live or die. God the creator creates, let him decide when a person should die. I promise you God does not need our health in that matter. Euthanasia is a serious topic; It goes against the standards of traditional medicine. First, doctors have to take the Hippocratic Oath to become a practicing physician. The Hippocratic Oath says do whatever you can to save people’s life, on the contrary, Euthanasia is basically just killing them if they want to die and avoid the suffering. Second, euthanasia is not always applied to terminally ill patients either. People who have been in serious accidents, or who have debilitating diseases often consider using euthanasia as a resolution to their suffering. I believe the act of euthanasia is against the principles of Beneficence, Non-maleficence, and Life Preservation. By virtue, Beneficence tells us to be good and be kind to others, also do things to benefits others, preventing people from harms or anything
In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die. I plan to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of both active and passive euthanasia.
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.
Supporters of euthanasia argue that the First Amendment "forbids the establishment of religion" and therefore one can't say life belongs to God. However, in the case of Bowers versus Hardwick in 1986, the Supreme Court ruled "that citizens in a democracy may vote away individual rights, even if that vote is based ultimately on nothing but religious faith" (Bowden).
One of the strongest arguments against euthanasia comes from Stephen Potts who states “I object to the institutionalization of euthanasia. Because the risks of such institutionalization are so grave as to outweigh the very real suffering of those who might benefit from it” (Potts, p. 587; emphasis mine). Potts’s main point of this statement is that the risks that come with legalizing euthanasia to the society as whole outweigh the suffering of an individual. Potts gives nine reasons for his argument that he calls the “Risks of Institutionalization”. I will debate two of the nine arguments Potts gives. The first argument I will debate is the “Reduced pressure to improve curative or symptomatic treatment”. In this argument Potts states “Some
...with as we see fit. To kill oneself, or to get someone else to do it for us, is to deny God, and to deny God's rights over our lives and his right to choose the length of our lives and the way our lives end”. ("BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Euthanasia.") Taking one’s life would equate to playing God. The right to decide whether you live or not does not belong to humans. God created humans and therefore taking one’s life is tantamount to playing God.
James Rachel, in his article called Active and Passive Euthanasia analyzes the moral dilemma between administering a lethal drug to a patient versus letting the terminally ill patient succumb to their ailment. He brings up many good points such as the AMA’s policy forbidding what he calls ‘mercy killing’, and the legal ramifications it may also bring with it. I agree with him on what he says on the subject. And there is a gray area between what is the right thing to do. Active and Passive euthanasia are no equal, and there are cases where one would be more suitable than the other. For me personally I believe that it depends on the situation and it should be address case by case. For example if a patient is terminally ill and has only days to
Picture a close family member suffering from a terminal illness. They are struggling through their disease, and it is obvious that they are not getting any better. Instead of letting them die from this illness, the doctor offers to put them down in their sleep. They decide to take the doctor’s offer. When a person is extremely weak and suffering from a terminal illness, they should be given the right to end their own lives via assisted suicide. A person shouldn’t *should not have to live out the rest of their already shortened life knowing that they are slowly wasting away. Assisted suicide should be a legal practice in every state. By defining the importance of being given the choice to request assisted suicide, one will be persuaded to believe that it is indeed beneficial to not only the patient but said patient’s family.
Assisted suicide is suicide committed by someone with assistance from another person. Usually, doctors whose patients want to die assist it, but anyone can do the assisting. The topic of assisted suicide is of great controversy. Furthermore, in U.S. states where assisted suicide is legal it is restricted only to the medical field. I believe that assisted suicide should not be legalized because of moral issues related to the act. Such issues include the consequences of performing it, the nature of the suicide, and the morality of the assister.
Euthanasia had become a big debate in our society and the world. Many people ask, what is Euthanasia? “Euthanasia is a deliberate intervention or omission with the express intention of hastening or ending and individual’s life, to relieve intractable pain or suffering” (Sanders & Chaloner, 2007, p. 41). Thus the meaning of euthanasia is having the right to die if you are terminally ill, suffering and/or suffering a great amount of pain. Many people do not agree with the use of euthanasia, but if humans can put down animals why cannot we use euthanasia on humans? Back in ancient Greek and Roman times, the word euthanasia meant “good death”. Also it was allowed because many people did not live to long ages. When the times began to change so did people’s views on euthanasia, due to the new religion of Judeo-Christian Belief. Because life and death were giving to us by God, euthanasia goes against his wishes. If they practice in the act of euthanasia because of their beliefs they would be committing a sin and end up going to hell. (Yip,2009,p.1)
The term Euthanasia has come to mean an easy death, which is what we all want, but will legalizing euthanasia provide us with this? To legalize euthanasia is to regard the deliberate and barbaric act if killing a fellow human being is acceptable. Our lives are a gift from God and all life on our planet is given by the divine power of our God. God has final authority over our lives. and we should not do anything that would interfere with this.
Euthanasia is ending the life of a person deliberately to relieve their pain. It usually happens when a person is terminally ill or is suffering from a lot of pain and there is no other option to relieve the pain.
“One of the most important public policy debates today surrounds the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The outcome of that debate will profoundly affect family relationships, interaction between doctors and patients, and concepts of basic ethical behavior. With so much at stake, more is needed than a duel of one-liners, slogans and sound bites.”