Euthanasia is a term used to describe what we refer to as a “mercy-killing.” This type of death is common among patients who are in dealing with a great deal of suffering. Active, voluntary euthanasia is a form of euthanasia that requires someone, such as a doctor, performing the actual act of killing a person, such as a patient; however, the patient has given full consent to the doctor to allow this act to happen because it is in the patient’s best interest to no longer suffer. Although this act can appear as immoral in the eyes of some people, health care professionals consider the four major ethical principles, nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy and justice, when making these tough decisions centering around morality. The principle …show more content…
The principle of autonomy centers around the rights of the patient to make his or he own decisions. The principle of autonomy states, “rational individuals should be permitted to be self-determining” (Munson and Lague, page 941). An autonomous patient is an individual who is alert and eligible to make his or her own decision regarding their life and healthcare. It is required of the healthcare professional to abide by the wishes of the patient even of the healthcare provider may not agree with the request. Healthcare professionals cannot force a competent patient into making a decision that they do not want. The principle of justice is the principle that enforces the rights of the patient. The principle of justice is a broad principle that can be narrowed down to a category of noncomparative justice. Noncomparative justice is centered around “…people receive that to which they are entitles, that their rights are recognized and protected…” (Munson and Lague, page 938). Noncomparative justice deals with the rights of patients. If the patient is alert, and eligible to make their own decisions regarding healthcare, then it is their right to choose the healthcare that they believe is best for them. If this is the case, then it is the job of the healthcare provider to abide by the wishes of the patient regardless if the healthcare provider agrees with the decision. These two principles work together in order to ensure the rights of the patient are protected if he or she decides that ending their life is a greater relief than having to live in constant
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is known as a process in which an individual (sick or disabled) engages in an act that leads to his or her own death with the help of physicians or family members to end pain and suffering. There are several other terms used for this process, such as active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to what is being done to actively end life while passive euthanasia is referred as eliminating a treatment that will prolong a patient’s life, which will eventually lead to death (Levy et al., 2103, p. 402). Euthanasia and assisted suicide pose a significant ethical issue today, and understanding the issue requires examining the different principles, such as the ethical issue, professional code of conduct, strength and limitations, autonomy and informed consent, beneficence and nonmaleficence, distribution, and confidentiality and truthfulness.
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
For example, a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment. They also have the right to refuse resuscitation if they are in need of life support. Active or involuntary euthanasia refers to providing the means for someone to take their life or assisting with taking their life (“Euthanasia”). There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death.
In the medical field, there has always been the question raised, “What is ethical?” There is a growing conflict between two important principles: autonomy and death being considered a medical treatment. Physician assisted suicide is defined as help from a medical professional,
“Michael Manning, MD, in his 1998 book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring?, traced the history of the word euthanasia: ‘The term euthanasia.originally meant only 'good death,'but in modern society it has come to mean a death free of any anxiety and pain, often brought about through the use of medication.” It seems there has always been some confusion and questions from our society about the legal and moral questions regarding the new science of euthanasia. “Most recently, it has come to mean'mercy killing' — deliberately putting an end to someone’s life in order to spare the individual’s suffering.’” I would like to emphasize the words “to spare the individual’s suffering”.
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
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
The principle of autonomy states, that an individual’s decision must be respected in all cases, also an individual can act freely in accordance to their plan. For example, in a case where a patient and family demands to continue medical or surgical care and a physician want the patient to stop further treatment. In this case the patient’s choice will matter the most. According to the principle of autonomy it will be the patients and family choice whether to continue or discontinue treatment. The principle of beneficence which states, “one must promote good” comes into play in this case. In accordance to beneficence the patient will not benefit from the physicians responses personally. He/she will not benefit from harming her body with more surgeries. The patient will be going against the principle non-maleficence, which states that “one must cause no harm to an individual” by causing harm to herself. In this case the physician is justified in his/her actions by discontinuing medical or surgical care to the patient because it will not it her. These principles are what healthcare provider use to help and guide patients with the ...
Euthanasia is an action that result in the death of a person. There are four types of euthanasia, such as voluntary active euthanasia, nonvoluntary active euthanasia, voluntary passive euthanasia, and nonvoluntary passive euthanasia. Among the four types of euthanasia, voluntary active euthanasia or VAE is the most controversial ethical issue in the United States. It is the killing of a competent patient who decided to end his/her suffering by ending his/her life with the help of the physician. VAE is illegal in the Unites States; however, it is morally just. Voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral on the basis of Immanuel Kant’s human dignity, the utilitarian’s Greatest Happiness Principle, and James Rachel’s view of active euthanasia.
The debate on whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalized has been a controversial topic. Euthanasia is defined as ‘a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering’ [1]. Voluntary euthanasia refers to the patients who understand the terms in the consent and sign up under consciousness, while involuntary euthanasia is performed against patient's wishes and some people may regard it as a murder [1].
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.
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.
Dr. Kevorkian is a physician in Michigan. He is a well-known physician, although to some, he is known for the wrong reasons. He is known to most for assisting in the suicide of those who ask for help in their deaths. He has assisted in the suicide of over 140 people. This essay will discuss the financial benefits of allowing physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, doctors’ opinions on euthanasia, the consequences of Dr. Kevorkian’s actions, and why assisted suicide is the right choice for terminally ill people. Euthanasia is the patients’ choice and should be made legal in the United States and Dr. Kevorkian should not be sent to prison.
There exist three different types of euthanasia: active, passive and voluntary. Active euthanasia refers to the process of injection of painkillers and sleeping pills in order to reduce the time of suffering of a patient by making his death less painful. On the other side, voluntary euthanasia refers to the case of the conscientious patient, who voluntarily demands from the doctor to give up on treatments. In this case the patient is conscious that he will die soon and regardless that stops the treatments. In my discussion related to whether euthanasia should be legalized or not I will refer only to active and voluntary euthanasia arguments.