The Debate Over Euthanasia The controversy over euthanasia has recently become highly publicized. However, this issue is not a new debate. Society has voiced its opinions on the subject for hundreds of years. Euthanasia, which is Greek for "good death", refers to the act of ending another person’s life in order to end their suffering and pain.1 Two forms, passive and active euthanasia, categorize the actions taken to end the person’s life. Passive euthanasia involves removing a patient’s life support, withholding food and water, and discontinuing medical treatments. Active euthanasia includes any direct action taken to cause the death of the person, such as administrating a lethal drug.2 The debate over this issue stems from moral, ethical, and religious beliefs. All of these standpoints either side with the patient dying a natural death or from an accelerated death by euthanasia. History Throughout history, euthanasia has been used as a way to relieve a patient from an incurable illness or from living a life of unbearable pain. Many cultures, such as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations, did not oppose one’s decision to end his life rather than living with agonizing pain.3 During this time period, this choice was commonplace. A few ancient philosophers, who believed that the ending of a human life belonged to the gods only, met it with objection. When the Christian era began, the subject was rarely discussed or practiced because of the strong trust and faith held in God and his divine command. It was not until the eighteenth century Enlightenment period that new ideas favoring euthanasia were put forth by philosophers and other prominent figures such as Samuel Williams and David Hume.4 By the close of the 1800’s... ... middle of paper ... .... - "Euthanasia: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions," International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force, 2 March 1999, http://iaetf.org/index.htm (8 March 1999). - Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide: All Sides of the Issues, 3 March 1999, http://www.religioustolerance.org/euthanas.htm(4 March 1999). - Green, James T. The Effects of Chemotherapy, 22 January 1999, http://www.databaun.com/jamez/writing/chemo.html(2 March 1999). - "Interview With Timothy Quill M.D.," Frontline/WGBH Educational Foundation, 1998, http://www2.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kevorkian/medicine/quill2.html(4 March 1999). - Larue, Gerald, Th.D. Playing God: Fifty Religions Views on Your Right to Die Wakefield, NJ: Moyer Bell, 1996. - Manning, Michael M.D. Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1998.
The word Euthanasia comes from the Greek and means “good death” (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp) and in the range of this paper, it will be called physician assisted suicide or “active” euthanasia. The definition of “active” euthanasia is ending one’s life yourself or with aid of a doctor. It can be done in various different ways; however, the most common form is with a combination of drugs, usually given by a physician. ( http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp) The reason Physician Assisted Suicide (or PAS) is an important issue in this country and around the world is that there are many people out there suffering from debilitating, incurable and intensely painful diseases that would like to end their lives with dignity and without suffering. (Leo & Lein, 2010, The Value of a Planned Death)
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
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.
Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.
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.
One area of moral dilemma that requires our attention is regarding euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of ending life in order to relieve pain or suffering caused by a terminal illness. Euthanasia can further be divided into two subcategories active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is the process of deliberately causing a person’s death. In passive euthanasia a person does not take any action and just allows the person to die. In many countries, the thought of euthanasia is morally detestable. However, many doctors find nothing wrong with allowing a terminally ill patient to decide to refuse medication. This decision is a form of passive euthanasia the doctor did not actively cause the patient’s death, but he did nothing to prevent the patient’s death. Failing to act and directly acting is not the same as not being responsible for the consequences of an event.
Any discussion that pertains to the topic of euthanasia must first include a clear definition of the key terms and issues. With this in mind, it should be noted that euthanasia includes both what has been called physician-assisted "suicide" and voluntary active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide involves providing lethal medication(s) available to the patient to be used at a time of the patient’s own choosing (Boudreau, p.2, 2014). Indifferently, voluntary active euthanasia involves the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. Physician-assisted suicide is felt to be easier psychologically for the physician and patient than euthanasia because
Euthanasia is one of the most recent and controversial debates today (Brogden, 2001). As per the Canadian Medical Association, euthanasia refers to the process of purposely and intentionally performing an act that is overtly anticipated to end the person’s life (CMA, 1998)
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. 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 for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.
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.
Dying with dignity, mercy death, right to die, and assisted suicide are just a few of the common terms, which describe a person’s death by euthanasia. Euthanasia has and always will be a very sensitive and controversial topic. There are two common questions surrounding this dilemma. The first is when is it considered mercy? Is it when a person is facing a terminal illness? The second is when is considered murder? Is it when a person looking for an easy way out of suffering and pain? This paper will examine the ethical dilemma of euthanasia according to the Christian worldview and compare it to other options of resolving the dilemma.
Everyone, at some point in their life, will grapple with the grievous reality of a loved one dying. Doctors and medical practitioners will do all they can to comfort and help those who are terminally ill, but their efforts will only postpone the inevitable. Modern medical advances have facilitated the use of life-support machines and intubation, but these advances have also facilitated the controversial introduction of euthanasia and physician-assisted dying. A number of pro-choice advocates have recently suggested that euthanasia is the gentlest, easiest, and quickest way to end one 's life with dignity. By focusing on these appealing prospects, however, many people do not adequately take into account what I consider to be important constituents
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.
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.