Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of euthanasia BBC
Opinions on euthanasia
Essays on legalization of assisted suicide
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and cons of euthanasia BBC
Euthanasia is a controversial issue because of the many ethical issues involved. Although, it can provide relief to suffering humans, but the moral standards are stretches for some because they are killing a human being. The proof for why euthanasia should or should not be used came from euthanasia books, that have both a pro and con section to the book. The other information came from euthanasia awareness websites. It could also be an economical way to save families and the government money, because euthanasia is cheaper than long term care. Therefore, euthanasia should be used because it could provide relief to the suffering person and their family.
Every profession, and workplace stands by different ethical standards regarding their performances within the workplace. In the medical field euthanasia is a highly controversial topic. Some nurses would like to have euthanasia become legal and some are afraid to administer the lethal medication to very sick patients, because it may result in their death. Others believe that euthanasia is a good thing because it gives the person relief from suffering. (Van Bommel, 1992) Humans should have the right to choose euthanasia as a solution to end their pain and suffering.
Euthanasia has many definitions, which involve ending ones life based on different practices. Euthanasia, in general, is defined as the act or practice of ending the life of an individual that is suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, by a lethal injection. (Euthanasia, n.d.) Non-voluntary euthanasia involves the guardian of the patient in making the final decision regarding their care. The patient is unable to make such a decision because they are either unconscious due to disease ...
... middle of paper ...
... allowing them to suffer and to die with dignity.
A New Zealand Resource for Life Related Issues. (2011). Economic Aspects of Euthanasia. Retrieved May 17, 2011, from http://www.life.org.nz/
BBC. (2011). Forms of Euthanasia. Retrieved May 17, 2011, from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/forms.shtml
Euthanasia. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical
Dictionary. Retrieved May 15, 2011, from Dictionary.com, website: http:/
dictionary.reference.com/Browse/euthanasia
Pankratz, R. (2010). Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide. Retrieved April 16,
2011, from Canadian Physicians for Life website: http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/
Reasons for Euthanasia. (2011). Retrieved May, 16. 2011, from Euthanasia.com
website: http://www.euthanasia.com/
Van Bommel, H. (1992). Dying for Care: Hospice Care or Euthanasia.
Toronto, ON: NC Press Limited.
killing and letting die. Some argue that letting die, which is the action considered to take
Euthanasia comes from the Greek word that means “good death” (“Euthanasia” literally). In general, euthanasia refers to causing the death of someone to end their pain and suffering, oftentimes in cases of terminal illness. Some people call these “mercy killings”. There are two types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive or voluntary euthanasia refers to withholding life-saving treatments or medical technology to prolong life.
Euthanasia – the ending of a terminally ill patient’s life by a third party, normally a physician, to end the pain and suffering of the patient.
Euthanasia, according to Munson , refers to the act of ending life in order to relieve pain and suffering for the patient by means of lethal injections. Euthanasia gives terminally ill patients the opportunity to end their suffering and pain when the illness is incurable. There are also different types of euthanasia called involuntary, voluntary, and non-voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is the focus in this analysis, meaning that all patients involved are found to be completely competent and able to make a decision to end their life.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is a medically assisted death; painlessly killing a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease. Euthanasia usually allows the medical doctor to be in charge of giving the option of death to the patient or asking the patient’s relatives to euthanize the patient. Many victims of euthanasia involve the elderly or newborn infants. Euthanasia is unethical, impacting negatively the lives of many people.
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
I believe that euthanasia, as a drastic course of action, should not be legal. In my opinion, the only exception to this that should exist is euthanasia being used to carry out punishment for a crime. Euthanasia should only be used to punish criminals who have committed a crime that the punishment of their crime is the death penalty.
The voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral. It is morally right for a person to seek euthanasia because it is their freedom or autonomy to control their own lives. It ends the suffering of the patient without harming other people. Furthermore, it prevents the person to suffer by giving him/her lethal injection or medication that prevents a person to die slowly with pain. On the other hand, the arguments against euthanasia are not sound. A thorough assessment will protect patient who request euthanasia for the benefits of others. A patient who seek for euthanasia does not use him/herself as means, but as ends to respect his/her own humanity. Furthermore, God as a benevolent will not allow a person to suffer which endorse the purpose of euthanasia – to end suffering. Therefore, voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized in the United States.
Our values, opinions and beliefs depend on what culture, religion and the society we come from. People who are against view euthanasia as murder and that we must respect the value of life. Those who are in favor of euthanasia believe that doing such act eliminates the patient’s pain and suffering. Also, the right to die allows the person to die with dignity. Euthanasia may involve taking a human’s life, but not all forms of killing are wrong nor consider as murder. It depends on the underlying reasons and intentions. If you value a person’s life and the cause of death is for the patient’s benefit and not one’s personal interest, then euthanasia is permissible.
... greater pain and anguish for longer periods of time than my father did, I believe euthanasia is the only compassionate form of relief we can provide. I believe it is morally important to allow an individual to die with respect for his or her dignity, while respecting his or her autonomy. Because of these reasons, euthanasia is morally justified when administered under strict controls.
whilst, euthanasia is defined as; an intentional means of causing the death of a person, the motive being to benefit that person or protect him/her from further suffering.
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?
Euthanasia is a medical procedure which speeds up the process of dying for people with incurable, painful, or distressing diseases. The patient’s doctor can stop treatment and instead let them die from their illness. It come from the Greek words for 'good' and 'death', and is also called mercy killing. Euthanasia is illegal in most countries including the UK . If you suffer from an incurable disease, you cannot legally terminate your life. However, in a number of European countries it is possible to go to a clinic which will assist you to die gracefully under some very strict circumstances.
In the following essay, I argue that euthanasia is not morally acceptable because it always involves killing, and undermines intrinsic value of human being. The moral basis on which euthanasia defends its position is contradictory and arbitrary in that its moral values represented in such terms as ‘mercy killing’, ‘dying with dignity’, ‘good death’ and ‘right for self-determination’ fail to justify taking one’s life.