Euthanasia Should Euthanasia be practiced? Is it justifiably moral and ethically right? Euthanasia is described as the painless killing of a patient in anguish from a fatal and agonizing sickness or in an indefinite coma. There are two major forms of Euthanasia that are morally and robustly debated, Active Euthanasia and Passive Euthanasia. Active Euthanasia is described as a good death, whether committed by the person themselves or from the assistance of a physician. Passive euthanasia is defined as the destruction of life through the act of withholding life-sustaining treatment. Active and passive euthanasia should be legally and ethically practiced. It can be argued that active and passive euthanasia is justifiably moral and ethically ok,
I will be defending this moral position using John Stuart Mill’s Act Utilitarianism theory. ` First, John Stuart Mill’s Act Utilitarianism theory of ethics, “is a utilitarian theory of ethics which states that a person's act is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much happiness as any other act that the person could perform at that time”, does support my thesis in supporting Active and Passive euthanasia. In layman’s terms Act Utilitarianism as defined is happiness as pleasure with the absence of pain. According to the book, Act Utilitarianism theory can be best summed up using the famous phrase by Jeremy Bentham, “the greatest good for the greatest number”. This theory by Jeremy Bentham is supported by another quote of his, "Nature has placed mankind under two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as determine what we shall do". Jeremy Bentham’s version of Utilitarianism is a pleasure seeking, self-indulgent theory that is based off the principal that people in their very
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
I believe Rachels’ argument is not successful. In Rachels’ paper he argues that active vs. passive euthanasian is on the same level morally speaking. He shows that by killing vs. letting die has no difference.
Should euthanasia be allowed or not? It has become a very controversial issue nowadays. Velleman and Hooker have different perspectives on euthanasia, and whether there should be laws permitting voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Although there are well-reasoned arguments on both sides, I would strongly agree with Hooker's argument that there should be a law permitting voluntary euthanasia when it is for the wellbeing of the person and that each individual should be able to make their own decision.
Euthanasia has been a very polemic subject in American society. Its objective is to conclude the life of a person at their own request, a family member, or by the determination of a health care professional to avoid unnecessary suffering. There is a lot of moral and ethics involved in euthanasia, exist a big difference between provoke death and allow death. The first one rejects life, the second one accepts its natural end. Every single intentional act of provoke the death of a person without consent is opposed to ethics and is punishable by law. One of the biggest moral controversies in the XXI century is the fact that some people agree in the autonomy humans have to determine the moment of death. The moral and legal implications are huge and the practical benefits are also enormous. This is a touchy and controversial issue and my goal on writing this paper is to remain on favor of euthanasia. I will elaborate later on my reasons to believe and support euthanasia, but first let’s examine the historical perspective of this moral issue.
I picked voluntary euthanasia as my written assignment topic this week because while reading through it, my mother’s comment of that she wants to just pass away quickly, rather suffering slowly and be a burden to everyone around here a long time ago came to my mind. She made that comment after visiting someone dying from cancer, so I understand why she made that remark. The reasons cited for voluntary euthanasia is to end the suffering and stop being a burden to everyone around you and is asking for health professionals to assist in ending your life (Young, 2014). Not many countries as we learned has legalized euthanasia, but a few like the Netherlands has set 5 very strict conditions for asking for voluntary euthanasia which are: “suffering
The first definition of ethical in the dictionary is “pertaining to, or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.” The first definition Dilemma is defined as “a situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives.” Using these two definitions, an ethical dilemma can be defined as when a person has to choose a decision that goes against one’s morals. One alternative may have a negative impact on one’s life or another person’s life. Another alternative may be an excellent choice for one person but may have negative impacts as well. Therefore, an ethical dilemma often puts ones morals and values into question. This paper will review a case study of euthanasia,
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.
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.
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?
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
I have argued that both active and passive euthanasia are morally permissible, but many people are already okay with passive euthanasia because they believe the cause of death is different from active euthanasia so to some people passive euthanasia is the only morally acceptable one, and active euthanasia is the one that is morally impermissible. Both active and passive euthanasia are difficult things to accept because they both involve death and people are generally uncomfortable when it comes to that topic. I argue now that active euthanasia is more acceptable than passive euthanasia, not because of the morality between the two (because morally they are the same), but because active euthanasia is the one that ends the pain and suffering more
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.
“Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.”(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life. These patients are incompetent to decide because they are either minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted when it is against the will of the patient (Gupta, Bhatnagar, Mishra). Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia means life-sustaining treatments are withheld and nothing is done to keep the patient alive. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician do something by giving drugs or substances that ends a patient’s life. (Medical News Today)
Euthanasia has been an ongoing debate for many years. Everyone has an opinion on why euthanasia should or should not be allowed but, it is as simple as having the choice to die with dignity. If a patient wishes to end his or her life before a disease takes away their quality of life, then the patient should have the option of euthanasia. Although, American society considers euthanasia to be morally wrong euthanasia should be considered respecting a loved one’s wishes. To understand euthanasia, it is important to know the rights humans have at the end of life, that there are acts of passive euthanasia already in practice, and the beneficial aspects.
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.