Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical dilemmas with euthanasia
Ethical and legal issues euthanasia
Ethical dilemmas with euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical dilemmas with euthanasia
Course Title: Date Euthanasia Euthanasia is a word whose roots can be traced back to Greece where it meant good death. It encompasses various dimensions, from active where something is introduced to cause death, to passive where treatment or supportive actions are withheld. It also varies from voluntary euthanasia where one consents to it, to involuntary where a guardian can give consent and doctor assisted in which the doctors prescribes the medication and a third party or patient administers the prescription to cause death. Wishes for premature death have significantly contributed to the long debate regarding the role of this practice in the current health care. The debate however cuts across dynamic and complex aspects like ethical, legal, health, human rights, economic, religious, social, spiritual and cultural aspects of the enlightened society (Math & Chaturvedi, p. 889). Here, this intricate issue is argued from both sides of the ongoing debate and also the plight of the caregivers and the victims. Euthanasia has always been defined as easy and gentle death especially in cases of painful and incurable illness. It has also been referred to as mercy killing of those considered hopelessly ill, incapacitated or injured patients. It is a matter of life and death. To medical practitioners the dilemma remains: prolong …show more content…
In fact, traditional medical objectives remain intact and that includes caring, curing and alleviating patient’s suffering. Opponents of euthanasia would thus question the core morality of medicine if the fundamental objective were altered in ways that are not compatible with the protection of human dignity, such ending the life of a patient. Medical ethics thus appreciates the rights of any physician to denounce the practices of euthanasia. Practitioner’s moral or religious values are generally regarded as valuable rationales to object such practices as euthanasia (Nunes & Rego, p.
Euthanasia is a word derived from Greek that has the etymological meaning of an easy death through the alleviation of pain (Moreno, 1995). Through the course of history, the signification of the term has changed and evolved in many different definitions. A useful definition of euthanasia on which we will base this essay, is named ‘mercy killing’, which signifies deliberately putting an end to someone’s life to avoid further suffering, as stated by Michael Manning in 1998. The euthanasia debate possesses a strong significance in our modern society. A discussion conducted by both scholars and politicians is going on whether physicians have the right to hasten the death of an individual by the administration of poison. In this essay
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.
.... Palliative care also focuses on the life quality improvement of the patients, allowing them to recover the dignities of life before death. In all these cases, it is ruled out that any case of euthanasia is morally justifiable due to the aforementioned reason. However, when the patient himself shifts his interest from his own to others, especially the poor and needy, voluntary euthanasia will become sacrificial euthanasia, as viewed by others. In this case, euthanasia is neither akin to murder nor suicide. Instead it is a form of charity towards others, while abandoning one's own interest for the sake of others. This sacrifice holds a high view of the sanctity of life as it tries to help the life of others but is still not enough to push euthanasia into an acceptable mode. Euthanasia is taking the lead on a very dangerous road that society has decided to embark on.
When it comes to the topic of euthanasia the four ethical goals of health care providers are in direct conflict with one another. An argument can be made that both permitting and preventing euthanasia violates one of those four principles which are as follows: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. Perhaps the biggest conflict is between the principles of autonomy and non-maleficence. When it comes to PAS we cannot allow our patients to act autonomously while at the same time making sure to do no harm. In addition the Hippocratic Oath serves as a large roadblock on the way to legalizing PAS. The Hippocratic Oath is an oath taken by healthcare providers at the beginning of practice outlining obligations and proper conduct of providers. The Hippocratic Oath is based on the maxim “do no harm” and more specifically it states “neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course”. American medicine traditionally succumbs to this oath and has therefore made PAS illegal. It is important to note, however, that this Oath was written thousands of years ago and it may need to be revised in the face of both e...
“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”.
Is it wrong to commit euthanasia? What is euthanasia? Euthanasia is the act of assisting to end one life. There are two different kinds of euthanasia, passive and active. Passive euthanasia is the act of withholding medication and letting the patient die slowly and Active euthanasia is the acceleration of death, with the use of medication. Although some form of euthanasia made be necessary at some point, but the act of killing another person is redundant because everyone should have the right to live equally among others. Yes, I do agree that people should have the right to die, if they choice to so. However, one should only die if there is no medical treatment available or if it is the last option.
“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 is defined as “The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.” Euthanasia has been practiced in a plethora or countries from today’s time, dating back to Ancient Geek and Roman civilization. During that period it was used to assist one another die, which was approved in their society and not seen as problematic. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes a tremendous quarrel. Euthanasia should be looked at with an open-mind and understanding. Therefore, this is a situation where it’s up to the patient if they want to put themselves through euthanasia and no one else’s, it should be strictly between the patients (or spouse if needed) and their physician.
Euthanasia refers to the exercise of deliberately ending the life of a patient suffering from a chronic and excruciating disease or in an unalterable coma. Euthanasia, infanticide and suicide were practiced in the 5th century up to the 1st century before Christ. Euthanasia comes from the Greek words, “Eu” as in good and “Thanatosis” as in death. Euthanasia is sometimes addressed as “assisted suicide”. Some countries have adapted euthanasia as a legal death sentence to one’s self such as Belgium, and Luxembour; whereas in other countries it is strictly forbidden. Euthanasia should not be permitted because doctors are never sure that the patient’s death is imminent, humans do not have the right to decide who lives and who doesn’t, and a patient can never be certain of such a decision.
A very important question that arises today is whether euthanasia be legal or illegal. Euthanasia is defined as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (such as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” (Webster). Doctors, Pastors, and normal day citizens are on both sides of the issue of euthanasia. Euthanasia is currently only legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, California, and Vermont. Through carefully looking at euthanasia, this paper will focus on three reasons euthanasia should be illegal. The following three reasons will be examined as to why euthanasia should be illegal, the power it gives to doctors, alternative treatment, and moral values.
The word euthanasia is derived from Greek language where 'eu’ meaning good and 'thanasia’ meaning death. Euthanasia is also known as the practice of intentionally ending a life of person who is either suffering from an incurable disease or is in immense pain. In other words euthanasia is physician assisted dying (PAS). The influence of scientific and medical discoveries in the recent times has changed the nature of debate on human euthanasia, and people on opposing sides have different arguments on human euthanasia. To understand the argument for and against euthanasia, it is substantial to understand the various form of euthanasia that exist:
Advances in modern medical technology have served to deny people the right to die, and euthanasia, it may be argued, has emerged with the purpose of reclaiming that right. Euthanasia, which is defined as “granting painless death to a hopelessly ill patient with a non-curable disease,” is a very controversial issue (Russell 3). Illegal in all countries, except the Nertherlands, it is still practiced all over the world in an attempt to give people the right to a painless, and natural, death (Emanuel 1). In short, the advances in modern medicine and its techniques, have created a situation whereby people’s lives are artificially extended, despite the fact that they could be in an irrecoverable coma or suffering from an incurable chronic illness, leading increasing numbers of people to support euthanasia, as an option for a humane and dignified death.
The applied ethical issue of euthanasia, or mercy killing, concerns whether it is morally permissible for a third party, such as a physician, to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in intense pain. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words eu (‘well’) and thanatos (‘death’). It means a painless and gentle death. But in modern usage, it has come to imply that someone’s life is ended for compassionate reasons by some passive or active steps taken by another person. The euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die. Staunch defenders of personal liberty argue that all of us are morally entitled to end our lives when we see fit. Thus, according to these people, euthanasia is in principle morally permissible. Two additional concepts are relevant to the discussion of euthanasia. First, voluntary euthanasia refers to mercy killing that takes place with the explicit and voluntary consent of the patient, either verbally or in a written document such as a living will. Second, non-voluntary euthanasia refers to the mercy killing of a patient who is unconscious, comatose, or otherwise unable to explicitly make his intentions known. (Downing 1969) In these cases it is often family members who make the request. It is important not to confuse non-voluntary mercy killing with involuntary mercy killing. The latter would be done against the wishes of the patient and would clearly count as murder.
Various countries take opposite sides and either allow euthanasia or prohibit it. “Euthanasia, however, occurs secretly in all societies including those in which it is held to be immoral and illegal. The core of the challenge of euthanasia is ethical because human life is in stake” (Vaknin, 2). Those who argue on the legalization of physician-assisted suicide would believe that if states were to permit it, in essence, would be considered murder.