Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical arguments on euthanasia
Euthanasia arguments for
Euthanasia arguments for
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical arguments on euthanasia
Both Ken Harrison and Paul Kalanithi experience what most would consider tragic endings to promising lives. Ken Harrison, a devoted sculptor and art professor in the play, Whose Life Is It Anyway, loses all mobility in his body after an accident, while neurosurgeon Paul Kalanithi, the author of When Breath Becomes Air, confronts his probable death during his battle with stage-four lung cancer. In both situations, the protagonist is condemned to almost certain death, which is tragic; however, each manages to produce some form of positivity out of the mournful situations. Analyzing both cases shows that both Ken and Paul have left behind a legacy that transcends their somber passing. Ken Harrison, who is stable but finds that he truly only has …show more content…
Hazel Biggs, author of Euthanasia, Death With Dignity and The Law, writes that patients “fervently desire to take their own lives but are physically prevented from doing so” because people (most importantly doctors) have their own moral dilemmas on the subject (Biggs 107). This conflict of values and rights sparked the debate between doctors and patients about who has the ability to make such arduous decisions. One the on hand doctors practice to will to keep going and pushing until there is a fix for the problem. However, Ken would argue that he should not have to “live at any price” because if he cannot be self-supporting than he will “spend the rest of [his] life in the hospital’ which is an “act of deliberate cruelty” (Clark 54-55). To have the option of ending his life on his terms would give clarity to his life. Effectively, Ken’s case is an inspiration in itself, as it would create the legal precedence of giving patients the right to choose their own fates. For Ken, the clarity comes in the form of having his body represent choice rather than some sort of “medical achievement”, like Frankenstein’s monster-as he puts it sarcastically (Clark 56). Such precedents can be valuable, even today. One parallel to of Ken’s case is Brittany Maynard, who only a few years ago was diagnosed with terminal cancer and wished to take her …show more content…
His book, a curt but detailed platform provided Paul with the opportunity to articulate to readers and most importantly, family, why he lived a long meaningful life. In a TED Talk by BJ Miller, he states that patients, “those who suffer” like Paul, want to “allow life to play itself out” until the end turns into a “crescendo” (Miller “What Really Matters”). For those who may not know, a crescendo builds up to something that is much more melodramatic than where it started, so Miller is trying to portray that life builds up to the end, it is just up to the individual to find that self-fulfilling clarity. All throughout life Paul looked for ways in life to experience life deeply, rather than become a doctor who examined life under a scope. One example of this was a childhood story where he had to decide between a summer in a lab or a summer camp that was all about having quality time by experiencing life. Any serious medical professional would have chosen the lab job, but Paul chose to experience life instead of study it. Just like in Millers speech, Paul was not afraid of death; he was afraid of suffering in life, but Paul insisted avoiding pain was not the point. However, Paul never seemed to struggle in finding ways to live life without a fear of dying. Throughout his book, Paul talks about how he has
The case had a many important questions to it. In one question: is physician-assisted suicide morally, ethically, legally correct, and/or fair to anyone?
Another instance of how someone’s right to bodily autonomy can surpass the right to life can be understood when thinking about end of life scenarios. Marquis’s argument suggests it would be immoral for a doctor to take a comatose patient off life support, even if the patient previously arranged to be taken off life support. Following Marquis’s logic because a person in a vegetative state could theoretically wake up in the future, a doctor would be obligated to keep them on life support against their wishes. Additionally, as Marquis briefly mentions in his paper, people suffering from terminal illness must also be denied euthanasia (197). In find it troubling that Marquis seems to have arbitrarily decided that even adult human beings do not have the right to make medical decisions that would greatly lessen their suffering. Additionally, Marquis’s argument also suggests that committing suicide would not only be immoral,
Michaela DePrince’s book Taking Flight is a memoir about her journey from being a war orphan to ballerina. This book has impact society by teaching young people that they can do whatever they put the mind to, no matter their race or background.
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
The ongoing controversy about Physician assisted suicides is an ongoing battle among physicians, patients and court systems. The question of whether or not individuals have the “right” to choose death over suffering in their final days or hours of life continues to be contested. On one side you have the physicians and the Hippocratic Oath they took to save lives; on the other you have the patients’ right to make life choices, even if that means to choose death to end suffering. The ultimate question “is it ethical for a physician to agree to assisted suicides and is it ethical for a patient to request assisted suicide?
Imagine, if you will, that you have just found out you have a terminal medical condition. Doesn’t matter which one, it’s terminal. Over the 6 months you have to live you experience unmeasurable amounts of pain, and when your free of your pain the medication you’re under renders you in an impaired sense of consciousness. Towards the 4th month, you begin to believe all this suffering is pointless, you are to die anyways, why not with a little dignity. You begin to consider Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). In this essay I will explain the ethical decisions and dilemmas one may face when deciding to accept the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I will also provide factual information pertaining to the subject of PAS and testimony from some that advocate for legalization of PAS. PAS is not to be taken lightly. It is the decision to end one’s life with the aid of a medical physician. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that PAS is “Suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent.” PAS is considered, by our textbook – Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. There are other forms of euthanasia such as non-voluntary, involuntary, and passive. This essay is focusing on PAS, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. PAS is commonly known as “Dying/Death with Dignity.” The most recent publicized case of PAS is the case of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where she lived. At the time California didn’t have Legislative right to allow Brittany the right to commit PAS so she was transported to Oregon where PAS is legal....
Robin Cochrane Mrs. Schroder AP Literature and Composition 3 January 2018 The Awakening 1999 Prompt In one’s lifetime, he or she may face an internal struggle. Perhaps the struggle lies in a difficult choice between right and wrong. Perhaps it lies in a decision between want and need.
Marcus understands that man should not fear death because it is natural and "only children are scared by a natural process" (2:12). If man does not fear death, then they will live their lives without fear. If man lives without fear, then their lives will, in turn, be ideal.
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.
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
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
Diane called all of her friends to say goodbye, including Dr. Quinn, and took her life two days after they met. This is a fascinating case because it presents the distinction between a patient’s right to refuse treatment and a physician’s assistance with suicide. Legally, Diane possessed the right to refuse treatment, but she would have faced a debilitating, painful death, so the issue of treatment would be a moot point. It would be moot in the sense that Diane seemed to refuse treatment because the odds were low, even if she survived she would spend significant periods of time in the hospital and in pain, and if she didn’t survive she would spend her last days in the hospital. If Diane were to merely refuse treatment and nothing else (as the law prescribes) than she would not have been able to avoid the death which she so dearly wanted to avoid.
Jack Kevorkian, his work brought attention to the long avoided issue of self termination of terminally ill patients. He was an advocate for those who did not have one. “Dr. Kevorkian brought new attention to end-of-life issues and helped spawn a movement that led to the growth of hospice care and discussions inside medical schools over how doctors should be trained on dying patients’ (Linebaugh, 2011). Some states like California are considering passing bills that will allow "competent adults, to submit a request for the right to make the informed decision to die on their own terms if and when they are ready to do so” (Physician-Assisted Suicide, Pro or Con?, 2015). What many people fail to realize is that the patient must be terminally ill and cannot be someone who is just attempting to commit suicide.
A Hedonistic Utilitarian View on Physician-Assisted Suicides Death with dignity, or physician-assisted suicide, is a highly controversial topic in medical fields today. The choice to bring an individual’s life to an end is a huge decision that has the ability to alter many live—not just that individual’s. Each person with their own disease is in a different situation than the next. Because of this, it is hard to look at these cases with a rule that is fully for or against it.
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because