Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues of euthanasia
What are the advantages and disadvantages of euthanasia
Ethical issues of euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical issues of euthanasia
Mortality is an ever-fleeting moment in time, yet some believe the spirit and soul is eternal. The desperation of perishing flesh painted in detail Dudley Randall’s poem “To The Mercy Killers.” The focused principally on the allying functions of a mortal body during a state of no recovery. Randall presents to an audience a plea for mercy, and for the continuous gift of life. Randall’s poem strikes as a sore spot within humanity, euthanasia. The choice to exercise a person’s right to euthanasia due to a medical condition or a personal choice seems to strike a sensitive spot within most human beings. The notion of playing GOD in a sense seems ridiculous to some yet others may view euthanasia as a personal right. Who is to say which personal view is correct? The purpose of this essay is to broaden and present alternative views in which euthanasia maybe appropriate.
When I think of euthanasia, my mind tends to drift towards stories played out in the media and with various acquaintances’ throughout the years. One case that comes to mind is that of Terri Schiavo. The highly publicized and prolonged series of legal challenges presented in the case of Terri Schiavo was a legal and government conflict with the core issue being prolonged life - which persisted from 1990 to 2005. The heart of the matter was whether to carry out the decision of the husband of Teresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo to terminate life support and allowing her life to end. Doctors medically diagnosed her as being in a persistent vegetative state without any chance of any hope of recovery. Ultimately, after years of drifting in and out of the United States court system, along with government intervention Terri ultimately was removed from life-support and expir...
... middle of paper ...
...ble conclusion and consensus on this issue; negative because of the complexity which has allowed the controversy to play out endlessly and the positive aspect of this argument is how this topic has put the spotlight on the issue of mercy killings enriching the public discourse thus energizing and engaging our society to think beyond within the box.
Works Cited
The Mercy Killers- Dudley Randall
J Fla Med Assoc. 1990 Sep;77(9):821-8.
Withdrawal and withholding of life-supporting food and fluids. One state's struggle-Caralis PV. Source: Department of Medicine, University of Miami School of Medicine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/212189 LIFE AND DEATH TUG OF WAR THE WHOLE TERRI SCHIAVO STORY 15-year saga of brain-injured woman no clear-cut, right-to-die case- DIANA LYNNE Published: 03/24/2005
Source: http://www.wnd.com/2005/03/29516/#Wu79LyiU4MTEAERy.99
The Web. 08 Feb. 2014. “Experts weigh in on law keeping brain-dead pregnant woman alive.” CBS News. The Associated Press.
In February of 1990 a woman named Terri Schiavo collapsed at home suffering cardiac arrest in her home in St. Petersburg, Florida. She was resuscitated but had severe brain damage because she had no oxygen going to her brain for several minutes. Terri was severely brain damaged and in a vegetative state but could still breathe and maintain a heart beat on her own. After two and a half months and no signs of improvement, impaired vision, and the inability to move her arms and legs she needed a feeding tube to sustain her life since she seemed to be in a persistent vegetative state. For 2 years doctors attempted speech and physical therapy with no success. In 1998 Schiavos husband claimed she would not want to live in that quality of life without a prospect of recovery so he tried several times over the course of many years to pull the feeding tube so she could pass. Bob and Mary Schindler challenged and fought for a
Terri Schiavo is a forty year old women who had a severe heart attack 15 years ago which resulted in brain damage. She had no living will so there is no legal document of what she would have wanted if she became brain damage and couldn’t function on her own but her husband, Michael Schiavo, says that after 15 years of being on a feeding tube she would have wanted to die. The question is should he have the right to remove the feeding tube? Anybody who knows me will know that my answer is no! The reason for that is because I am a Christian and I do not believe in terminating someone’s life. It’s my belief that as long as a persons heart is beating he or she stills has life in them.
Bibliography:.. Bernard, Neal, Ed. & Co. d. a. a. a. a. a. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone.
Johnson, Harriet McBryde. "Not Dead at All: Why Congress Was Right to Stick up for Terri Schiavo." Slate Magazine, 23 March 2005
Terri Schiavo case study concluded to be serious to the public. The outcomes and misunderstandings surrounding her situation offer important lessons in medicine, law, and ethics. Terri Schiavo had a cardiac arrest, triggered by extreme hypokalemia brought on by an eating disorder. She suffered severe brain damage due to her heart stopping for five minutes. Her condition was in great debate in the media, euthanasia and guardianship of her state of living.
Terri Schiavo was now in a Persistent Vegetative state. Her family and her spouse had a hard time dealing with a condition this complicated. The case was then taken to the court in 2002. The trial took place in Florida and was conducted for six days. The trial included four neurologists,radiologist and her physician. All of the physicians agreed with persistent vegetative state of Terri Schiavo. The court came to the conclusions of “ clear and convincing” evidence. The
In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die. I plan to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of both active and passive euthanasia.
It seemed that our opinions aligned in the Cuban case, but not the Schiavo case. When Governor Bush initially stated he would have someone look into the case (p. 196), I did not imagine him intervening at such a great magnitude. This is a delicate issue, and I could easily empathize with Schiavo’s family on this matter. At the same time, Schiavo consciously made the decision to marry her husband, so she may have wanted him to move on and be happy in the event that something happened to her. Furthermore, she may have expressed sentiments to her husband that she would not want to be left in a vegetative state, thereby supporting his reason to remove the feeding tubes. Since these ideas were not a far stretch for my imagination, I thought that it would be more appropriate for a court to grant both sides the opportunity to present their cases and evaluate the cases accordingly. Conversely, I did not think it was appropriate for the Governor to intervene, weighing the case in the family’s favor, without attempting to understand the other party’s
I'm not afraid of being dead. I'm just afraid of what you might have to go through to get there” (Pamela Bone). The sense of dying or losing a loved one is a conception that has plagued any family member at some time or another. How will one deal with the struggle of burying their loved one, the bills, and not waking up and seeing them or calling them every day? More so, will that person be in the pain when they leave their physical form? Euthanasia, or assisted suicide, gives a person the chance the take the ending of their life into their own hands and make, an otherwise undefined, decision of how he/she would want their final moments to be. In this paper I plan to display that based on the utilitarian perspective, Rachels’ writings, and contemplating human rights constructed from a governmental outlook, that euthanasia is just and morally acceptable and should be considered in a reasonable means of expiry when an entity is plagued with chronic mental, emotional, or physical pain.
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.
“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 June 1990, there was a large spark of this issue of mercy killing and assisted suicide when Dr. Jack Kevorkian assisted Janet Adkins a patient in suicide. This debate later on sky rocketed in March 1991 when a doctor, Timothy Quill also came clean to his assistance in the professional suicide of Diane Trumbull. From here, a large number of public events followed regarding physici...
middle of paper ... ... I believe that for the sake of ‘B’, we come together, and finally pull the plug on this debate. Works Cited Ball, Howard. At Liberty to Die: The Battle for Death with Dignity in America.
‘Mercy’, ‘dignity’, ‘good’ and ‘self-determination’ are the moral basis that the advocates for euthanasia defend. How appealing they sound, their accounts are simply an attempt to escape from dying process, through which we still hold our existence. The argument of pro-euthanasia might suggest that we are able to control over our life and death without moral conflict because such values related to euthanasia can justify the action of killing.