Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Controversial topic of euthanasia
Controversial topic of euthanasia
Debate over euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Controversial topic of euthanasia
Suffering is a big deciding factor for people when it comes to euthanasia and when deciding if they should accept its many options. If someone is suffering from a sickness or illness and has been for a long period of time, they should have the choice of euthanasia. In the book Of Mice and Men Curly said, “I’m gonna get him. I’m going for my shotgun. I’ll kill the big son-of-a-bitch myself. I’ll shoot him in the guts.” (Steinbeck 96) Curly was going to make Lennie suffer and George, knowing that, euthanized Lennie so he wouldn’t have to suffer from what Curly was going to do to him. George wanted the best for Lennie. People have a hard time accepting euthanasia and the many different way euthanasia can be used. Euthanasia can be used in many
different circumstances and some people don’t believe it should be allowed. Gross states, “...there would be a social acceptance of euthanasia of the disabled, elderly, or other marginalized demographics.” (Gross 1) Some People think it should only be an option for the critically disabled and marginalized demographics, but not for the elderly. Everyone has a different opinion on who it should be available too. Similarly people also have a hard time figuring out if euthanasia is the right choice.
“My ultimate aim is to make euthanasia a positive experience” (Jack Kevorkian). Of Mice of Men by John Steinbeck shows has a very dramatic ending with the main character George, killing the other main character Lennie. George and Lennie are great friends, but it had to happen. This quote connects to what happened with George and Lennie because George did the best he could to make the euthanasia a positive experience for Lennie. George did this to Lennie as a friend, and he knew he had to do it because of Lennie's previous actions. The act of George killing Lennie was an act of euthanasia rather than murder. More specifically it is an act of non voluntary euthanasia.
According to James Rachels, “both passive and active euthanasia are permissible.” (Luper and Brown, p.347). He gives a doctrine from American Medical Association quoting,” mercy killing is contrary to which the medical professional stands” (Luper and Brown, p. 347). He makes arguments against the doctrine as to why it would be rejected. One, a physician should let the patient end his life if he wants to so that the patient does not have to endure the suffering. However, Rachels says in that situation it’s better for the physician to kill the patient, rather than letting one die because using lethal injections can be painless and quick, whereas, letting one die can be a slow and painful process (Luper and Brown, p. 348). He points out two
In Sullivan versus Rachel’s on euthanasia I will show that James Rachel’s argument is logically stronger than Sullivan’s argument. I will present examples given by both authors regarding their arguments and also on their conclusions about it. I will explain both of the author’s logical strengths and weaknesses in their arguments. I will give the examples given by both authors on how they prove their arguments to be true and later I will decide whose argument is stronger based on their strengths and weaknesses. I will give one of Rachel’s main strong arguments and one of Sullivan’s very weak arguments. I will also show if both of the author’s premises follow from the conclusion. And at the end I will give my opinion on my personal reasons on whose I think makes more sense in presenting their arguments.
It is important that communication is part of a euthanasia. In most cases clients pets are a large part of their life, they would want it to be stress free and painless for there animals ending. The decision that the clients have to make to get to this stage is usually hard for them so it is crucial that they are clear on how a euthanasia takes place and the possible after effects. This is so that the client is not disturbed if any unfortunate movements happen once the animal has passed away.
Euthanasia is a difficult ideal to understand, to lack the ability to place a value on someone’s life and to understand someone’s suffering at the sometime. Being pulled by both your heart and your soul at the same time.
Because only the individual or their families can decide what that particular persons quality is they should have the right to choose if euthanasia is an option. For those who suffer from terminal illnesses, euthanasia would be a way to escape from intolerable pain that cannot be alleviated by pain relieving drugs (Minois, 131).
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.
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.
Euthanasia, one of the words associated with the end-of-life debate, means different things to different people. The word is loaded with historical and emotional connotations. The dictionary allows for much interpretation: "The painless killing of a patient suffering from a painful and incurable disease," but stops well short of covering the always-changing practice of euthanasia. (Webster's 1995). For example, not everyone that requests euthanasia today is a "patient," or suffers from some incurable disease. Modern medicine has made it possible to keep people alive far beyond our ability to comfort them.
In the essay “The Morality of Euthanasia”, James Rachels uses what he calls the argument from mercy. Rachels states, “If one could end the suffering of another being—the kind from which we ourselves would recoil, about which we would refuse to read or imagine—wouldn’t one?” He cites a Stewart Alsop’s story in which he shares a room with a terminally ill cancer patient who he named Jack. At the end of the recounting, Alsop basically asks, “were this another animal, would not we see to it that it doesn’t suffer more than it should?” Which opens up the question of, “Why do humans receive special treatment when we too are animals?” We would not let animals suffer when there is a low chance of survival, so why is it different for us humans?
The famous dystopian novel, Brave New World by well recognized author Aldous Huxley is a very accurate description of society today. This novel was banned in many Countries, including Ireland and Australia in 1932 for good reason. This novel has many debatable motifs, one of the most underlying motifs is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, or euthanasia. In this dystopian novel, Aldous Huxley creates a world called the World State.In the World State, people use Euthanasia for anyone who is no longer useful to the society. At 60 years old, people are no longer of use to society. In Brave New World, everyone undergoes “mental euthanasia,” because they are constantly fed
... 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.
Gay-Williams does not believe that euthanasia can ever be in a patient’s self-interests. In some of his augments such as a misdiagnosis or in experimental procedure he believes there is always the chance of recovers at any point. He points out that death is final and there is no way to come back. He also points out in the argument of taking our life at any time that this just provides an easy way out and that recovery is certainly possible with feeling down or depressed. I do agree with his position with this topic. I do think often times people will look for the easy way out, and do not consider the consequences of their actions they choose to make. Euthanasia is both hard on the patient themselves, but one also has to think about their
When you hear the term euthanasia in reference to animals you think of the process that is used to end the suffering of an animal by putting them in a painless and permanent state of sleep. Today the term euthanasia is used to give reason to the murders of innocent animals all over the world. Animals should only be put down by euthanasia if they are in pain or suffering. Unfortunately most dogs that are euthanized over the course of the year are not aggressive or suffering from any disease (The Humane Society of the United States). Most of the animals are euthanized due to overpopulation in animal shelters. Euthanasia is a cruel and unnecessary practice that is not in the best interest for the animal.
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?