The matter of euthanasia continues to be a contentious issue within today’s society. Over the past years, there have been a slew of debates that have tried to justify the practice of assisted suicide, otherwise known as euthanasia. Gallup’s survey in 2007 served to illustrate this fact by showing that over 75 percent of Americans believe that euthanasia should be permitted. However, what Americans have failed to discern is that legalizing any form of euthanasia goes against the sanctity of life and will result in no limitations to the justifications of why it is being performed. It seems as if society has become so debauched that the American people honestly feel that they can condone ending the life of a precious individual. Perhaps in order for one to construct a fitting viewpoint on euthanasia, one must be knowledgeable on the philology and background of euthanasia, along with having a clear comprehension of some underlying terms. Euthanasia is a term which “derived from the Greek word “euthanatos”, meaning simply a good death” (Perri, 1996). This word is extremely vulnerable to the various interpretations of all people; therefore, many people fall short when it comes to understanding the two distinct types of euthanasia. These two unique types are known as active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is described as being “the deliberate ending of a person’s life with the intent of reducing that person’s suffering” (Perri, 1996). For instance, active euthanasia can be as simple as injecting a patient with a harmful toxin. On the other hand passive euthanasia is typically defined as the “withdrawing of medical treatment with the intention of causing the patient's death” ("Types of euthanasia," 2001). Now an example of passive euthanasia is simply when a patient is perishing and the doctor choices not to recover them. Now it is imperative that one recognizes the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Another aspect in which euthanasia can be classified is as involuntary or voluntary. Involuntary euthanasia “is when a patient’s life is ended without the patient’s knowledge and consent” ("Types of euthanasia," 2001). A perceptible example of involuntary euthanasia is when a patient is in a coma and does not have the capability to decide what should happen to him. Lastly, the subject of voluntary euthanasia is “the patient requests that an action be taken to end his life, or that life-saving treatment be stopped, with full knowledge that this will lead to his death” ("Types of euthanasia," 2001).
Euthanasia is divided into two separate classifications consisting of passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Traditionally, “euthanasia is passive when a physician allows her patient to die, by withholding or withdrawing vital treatment from him…euthanasia is active when a patient's death results from his physician's killing the patient, typically by administering lethal medication” (Varelius, 2016). While active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide share many of the same characteristics, they differ in the role for committing the final act, resulting in the death of the patient. A third party, consisting of either a family member or the physician, is responsible for “pulling-the-plug” in active euthanasia. On the other hand, in physician-assisted suicide, it is ultimately up to the patient to commit the final death-inducing act. Varelius suggests that the separation of passive and active euthanasia can be explained by the involvement that the physician partakes in their patients’ death
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)
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.
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.
The definition of euthanasia is simple: "Easy, painless death." But the concept of euthanasia proposed by adherents of the euthanasia movement is complex and has profound consequences for all. Because the subject involves the discipline of medicine (diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, medical ethics and so on) as well as the discipline of law, the general public will have difficulty understanding it without some knowledge of these matters.
Euthanasia is the fact of ending somebody’s life when assisting him to die peacefully without pain. In most cases, it is a process that leads to end the suffering of human beings due to disease or illness. A person other than the patient is responsible for the act of euthanasia; for example a medical provider who gives the patient the shot that must kill him. When people sign a consent form to have euthanasia, it is considered voluntary, involuntary euthanasia is when they refuse. When people are not alert and oriented they are not allowed to sign any consent including the consent to euthanasia. When euthanasia is practiced in such situation, it is a non-voluntary euthanasia. In sum, people who practice voluntary euthanasia in honoring other
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
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.
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].
“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.
In order to provide a framework for my thesis statement on the morality of euthanasia, it is first necessary to define what euthanasia is and the different types of euthanasia. The term Euthanasia originates from the Greek term “eu”, meaning happy or good and “thanatos”, which means death, so the literal definition of the word Euthanasia can be translated to mean “good or happy death”.
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.
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.
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.