Euthanasia Finding a Common Ground Euthanasia is a subject that has been discussed, accepted, and rejected for several centuries. It is a subject that is difficult to digest much less discuss in the public forum, or even with one’s own family or physician. Society should not rush into a hasty decision, but as a society a joint decision needs to be made about the legalization of euthanasia. A compromise, legalizing euthanasia would allow terminally ill patients to have an active role in and/or a choice of how and when to end their life. When it comes to the possibility of living a life that is expected to involve extreme pain and suffering until death, one would think the answer …show more content…
They may also think that a terminally ill person should not have the right to kill themselves and may argue that life, no matter how bad it is, what shape it is in, is worth living. Some believe that a cure for any given disease may be found in the next hour, or next day and to deny someone of that possibility would indeed be inhumane. Others may believe euthanasia cannot be regulated, and that it could be miss used for the benefit of the government in controlling the rising cost of health …show more content…
Physicians may feel euthanasia could be a merciful way to alleviate the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients and could provide an alternate method of treatment for end stage diseases. Society may view euthanasia as a way in which pain and suffering can be ended humanly for persons who are terminally ill. Bringing solace and peace to the terminally ill is something society should reflect upon and remember that one day they may find their family member or themselves facing this dilemma. Responding to this issue in a positive manner, and by agreeing upon the legalization of euthanasia, society sends a clear message to all people that their lives matter and if one chooses euthanasia, it is their legal right to do so. Legalizing euthanasia would spare families the agony of watching a loved one pass away in less than a dignified manner. Terminally ill people do not want to burden their families with the financial burden that is left when one departs this life, euthanasia could lessen that burden. Euthanasia would provide for a more dignified way to end one’s life when faced with the prospect of prolonged pain and suffering. People should have the right to decide when and how they are going to die, and everyone should have the right to make this decision based on their own personal morals and beliefs. By enacting laws and regulations a person’s rights
The Hippocratic Oath states that “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel”. Euthanasia is where someone intentionally kills a person whose life is felt not to be worth living. It is definitely a controversial topic with many opinions on whether or not it should be legalized.
...the death rate and decrease the quality of care on patients. They argue that having the legal right to request an euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide will make doctors more comfortable ending a patient's life against their will without having to face any legal consequences. Although this point of view is true, I still think terminal ill patients should have the right to choose whether they want to keep living or not. This right should not be denied but modified. I think that once the patient knows he has no cure, he or she should sign a paper or make a will where it authorizes the doctor or family members to take the decision of ending his or her life in case his conditions worsens or the pain is unbearable. It would be just like the patients that have the "Do not resuscitate" request on their medical forms, but this time it would say "Do not prolong my agony."
Anyone can be diagnosed with a terminal illness. It doesn’t matter how healthy you are, who you are, or what you do. Some terminal illnesses you can prevent by avoiding unhealthy habits, eating healthily, exercising regularly and keeping up with vaccinations. However some terminally ill people cannot be helped, their diseases cannot be cured and the only thing possible to help them, besides providing pain relieving medication, is to make them as comfortable as possible while enduring their condition. Many times the pharmaceuticals do not provide the desired pain escape, and cause patients to seek immediate relief in methods such as euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending a life in order to alleviate pain and suffering, but is deemed controversial because many various religions believe that their creators are the only ones that should decide when their life’s journey should reach its end. Euthanasia is performed by medical doctors or physicians and is the administration of a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient on his or her express request. Although the majority of American states oppose euthanasia, the practice would result in more good as opposed to harm. The patient who is receiving the euthanizing medication would be able to proactively choose their pursuit of happiness, alleviate themselves from all of the built up pain and suffering, relieve the burden they may feel they are upon their family, and die with dignity, which is the most ethical option for vegetative state and terminally ill patients. Euthanasia should remain an alternative to living a slow and painful life for those who are terminally ill, in a vegetative state or would like to end their life with dignity. In addition, t...
The issue at hand is whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized for patients who are terminally ill and/or enduring prolonged suffering. In this debate, the choice of terms is central. The most common term, euthanasia, comes from the Greek words meaning "good death." Sidney Hook calls it "voluntary euthanasia," and Daniel C. Maguire calls it "death by choice," but John Leo calls it "cozy little homicides." Eileen Doyle points out the dangers of a popular term, "quality-of-life." The choice of terms may serve to conceal, or to enhance, the basic fact that euthanasia ends a human life. Different authors choose different terms, depending on which side of the issue they are defending.
As the years go by our society advances in all fields. As a result, we as a society have come to question many elements in our lives by comparing them to longstanding morals and traditions. The medical fields has always, and probably will always, raise many controversial issues. The latest concerns whether euthanasia or physician assisted suicide should be universally legalized in the U.S. Those opposed see that there are other alternatives other than taking a person’s own life, with the help of a doctor. Not only are they essential to incorporate into the options for people experiencing terminal illnesses, legalization would allow an overall upgrade in combating abuse with this treatment, at the same time, people are thoroughly against the
In the United States, euthanasia should be legalized. In the year of 1992, Chris Docker wrote about an elderly woman going through the last painful stages of her life. Docker shared that “Mrs. Boyes' was so ill that she "screamed like a dog" if anyone touched her… when she repeatedly requested to die, Dr. Cox finally gave her an injection of potassium chloride, bestowing on her the boon of a peaceful death so many of us feel we are entitled to” (Docker). This unfortunate situation is presented to many doctors across the US. With euthanasia currently being illegal, they cannot provide proper care for their patients. Euthanasia can spare many people of their undesirable agony they face close to their passing. Too many people are suffering from a terminal illness and wanting to be put out of their misery; therefore, euthanasia should be made legal and enforced nationwide.
Those in favor of euthanasia, think that it should be legal and also voluntary. With making euthanasia legal it ends suffering for the terminally ill. There are four types: passive voluntary, passive involuntary, active voluntary, active involuntary. Passive voluntary is the right to refuse treatment. Passive involuntary is not taking the initiative to help someone that can’t help themselves. Active voluntary is when someone chooses to end their own life. Active involuntary is taking the initiative to help someone who can’t help themselves. Only 2/4 types of
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.
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
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
“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.
Physician-Assisted Suicide is assisted suicide from a physician to a person to make it as painless and dignified as possible. There is also Euthanasia, which is to end a person life so they don’t have to go through any more pain and suffering without the patients consent. As of right now, only Montana, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have legalized Physician-Assisted suicide. To be eligible for Physician-assisted suicide, a patient must have a terminally ill disease. There are many pros and cons in this if you are having unbearable pain and want to end the suffering.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their lifetime. 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 suffering from euthanasia.
“One of the most important public policy debates today surrounds the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The outcome of that debate will profoundly affect family relationships, interaction between doctors and patients, and concepts of basic ethical behavior. With so much at stake, more is needed than a duel of one-liners, slogans and sound bites.”