Euthanasia, the process of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering, is a conflicting subject. I myself still have a hard time coming up with a definitive outlook on it. The readings in Chapter 3 have given me tons of insight on the issue. I didn’t completely disagree with any of the readings but the one that resonates with me the least is John Hardwig’s “Is there a Duty to Die? For, one I can understand wanting to die to prevent pain and suffering, but I believe the choice should be up to you entirely. In that sense, it’s not necessarily a duty to die but accepting that your time has come, or is near. With that said, Hardwick’s views start to conflict with mine when he says “There can be a duty to die before one’s illnesses …show more content…
Additionally, another statement that I find faint with my views is when the author says “A duty to die is more likely when the part of you that is loved will soon be gone or seriously compromised” “Or when you soon will no longer be capable of giving love” (Hardwick 185). What Hardwick means by these two statements is that the duty to die is especially prominent in dementing disease that impair someone’s ability to sanely express emotion. I find this unnerving because someone who is demented isn’t even the right mindset, literally, to make rational decisions on their own. This will more than likely leave a demented person’s life in the hands of the caregiver. For me “a duty to die”, or in my beliefs acceptance of one’s death shouldn’t be held in the power of somebody else. To wrap things up, I don’t believe someone should feel obligated to die, although inevitable, death, especially impending death is something that should be accepted on a personal level, and if that translates to a “duty” to die then that person has all the right to feel that …show more content…
Tracy’s father was faced with an unfortunate decision, and in his decision, I cannot condemn him for his actions. Now saying this I don’t believe what he did was particularly the right decision or particularly the wrong decision. As for his life sentence, it’s quite outrageous. My reasoning for this is because of his actual intentions and his mental rationale in doing so. He claims that he did it out of love and mercy, which I whole-heartedly agree with. With Tracy’s condition already being a significant trouble to live with and the fact that her surgeries brought her much pain and suffering is something that would be hard to bear. They claimed that she had the mental capacity of a four month old baby, so in that sense, it’s almost like watching an innocent baby constantly in pain. One part of the case says that Tracy’s mother believed that the many surgeries especially the one that removed her upper thigh bone were not surgeries but mutilations. I can see why her mother would think this. I can only imagine what it would be like to watch your loved one constantly be mutilated and going under the knife. Surgery and visits to the doctor alone can be stressful enough in itself, let alone ones that can be perceived as mutilations. Additionally the case states that Tracy had 5-6 seizures a day, which would imaginably be hard to watch and care for. Ultimately, I cannot in any way condemn Tracy’s
How it relates to healthcare: The child’s injuries proved severe, and Bedner faced a long prison sentence if convicted,but he didn’t face murder charges.As his critically ill daughter,C.B. remained on life support the hospital sought to exclude Bender from decisions regarding from life support. The girl eventually did die, but the case generated considerable public debate and stimulated a controversy among bioethics scholars .
Terri Schiavo is a forty year old women who had a severe heart attack 15 years ago which resulted in brain damage. She had no living will so there is no legal document of what she would have wanted if she became brain damage and couldn’t function on her own but her husband, Michael Schiavo, says that after 15 years of being on a feeding tube she would have wanted to die. The question is should he have the right to remove the feeding tube? Anybody who knows me will know that my answer is no! The reason for that is because I am a Christian and I do not believe in terminating someone’s life. It’s my belief that as long as a persons heart is beating he or she stills has life in them.
The thought of death is a scary one. However the scarier thought is “living” a life in pain and suffering from an incurable and terminal disease such as cancer or Alzheimer’s. Imagine your grandparent has recently been diagnosed with Stage 4 Lung cancer. Now the doctor will list off all the possible treatments and in your heart you want your grandparent to try everything to fight for their life. After hearing the doctor give the terrible news, your grandparent ask the doctor about some options but also mentions assisted death. Your mind floods with memories and arguments against it. Your grandparent explains how they have lived a full life, doesn’t want to put the family in debt from the medical bills along with the inevitable cost of a funeral and have
Bibliography:.. Bernard, Neal, Ed. & Co. d. a. a. a. a. a. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone.
Mortality is an ever-fleeting moment in time, yet some believe the spirit and soul is eternal. The desperation of perishing flesh painted in detail Dudley Randall’s poem “To The Mercy Killers.” The focused principally on the allying functions of a mortal body during a state of no recovery. Randall presents to an audience a plea for mercy, and for the continuous gift of life. Randall’s poem strikes as a sore spot within humanity, euthanasia. The choice to exercise a person’s right to euthanasia due to a medical condition or a personal choice seems to strike a sensitive spot within most human beings. The notion of playing GOD in a sense seems ridiculous to some yet others may view euthanasia as a personal right. Who is to say which personal view is correct? The purpose of this essay is to broaden and present alternative views in which euthanasia maybe appropriate.
Justice is something that we all as human being want to see fulfill, especially when we are the one that need it for us or our love ones. The family members of those who were killed by Susan Atkins and her companion will agree with it. The damage cause to their dears and the endless pain and suffering in effect from their death will support the decision take by the parole board in September 2, 2009 in the denial of a compassionate release due to Atkins’ health.
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.
However, despite the support that this right to die movement had gained, there was opposition as states like California, Michigan, and Maine rejected it. The divided opinions of the nation then lead to the controversial question: Should terminally ill patients have the right to choose to die? However, with religion aside, the answer leans towards “yes.” Terminally ill patients should have the righ...
Despite euthanasia being depicted as unjust in terms of Kings definition I believe that ending a patient’s life in order to relieve pain and suffering is ‘just’ only if the patient has made the decision and doctors have done all they could. Besides, a happy death sounds a lot better than a painful death.
Another reason a patient may opt to euthanasia is to die with dignity. The patient, fully aware of the state he or she is in, should be able choose to die in all their senses as opposed to through natural course. A patient with an enlarged brain tumor can choose to die respectively, instead of attempting a risky surgery that could leave the patient in a worse condition then before the operation, possibly brain-dead. Or a patient with early signs of Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease may wish to be granted euthanization before their disease progresses and causes detrimental loss of sentimental memories. Ultimately it should be the patient’s choice to undergo a risky surgery or bite the bullet, and laws prohibiting euthanasia should not limit the patient’s options.
Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.
The argument given in an article by Martin Beckford is that if people agree that some people are better off dead, then they must also agree that it is right to end their lives if the people are physically impaired [4]. This argument does have a true premise – acceptance of voluntary euthanasia does mean that it is better for someone to die.
When speaking in terms of legalized euthanasia, and self-determination, Callahan feels that people should make decisions for themselves according to their own beliefs as to what comprises the good life. (pg. 226) He also states that we will, one way or another, die of some disease and that death will have dominian over all of us. (pg. 227)
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.
Euthanasia, according to the dictionary, means the killing of a person who is suffering from an incurable disease. Lately, it had been a huge debate over whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. Personally, I believe that euthanasia should be legalized if it is voluntary. I have three reasons for my argument.