Euthanasia
The fear of enduring unceasing pain, of being trapped
by medical machines, of losing bodily integrity and personal
dignity and of being an emotional and financial drain on
one's loved ones- such fear lends strength to the movement
for euthanasia and for physician-assisted suicide (PAS).
Support for euthanasia/PAS has been spurred on by the
Hemlock Society, founded by former journalist Derek Humphry
and based in Eugene, Oregon. The society's political arm
helped draft initiatives aimed at legalizing euthanasia.
Ballot initiatives in the states of Washington (1991) and
California (1992) were both narrowly defeated by a 54 to 46
percent margin. The defeat of these "euthanasia" initiatives
shifted the focus to "assisted suicide," which gives more
control to the dying patient.
In 1994 Oregon passed its Death with Dignity Act by a
51 to 49 percent margin, becoming the first state to
legalize PAS. The statutes of Washington and New York
prohibiting PAS were subjected to constitutional review. In
June 1997 the Supreme Court ruled on Washington v.
Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill, declaring that PAS is not a
constitutional right. This ruling left each state free to
make its own decision about whether PAS and euthanasia
should be legally permitted within its borders. The Supreme
Court ruling recognized that our nation is already engaged
in an intense debate about the morality, legality and
practicality of PAS, and it encouraged the debate to
continue.
Michael Manning, a physician and a Roman Catholic
priest, reviews the arguments and takes a stand against
euthanasia/PAS. While giving unequivocal support to the
Roman Catholic position, his book is fair in its treatment
of opposing views.(...
... middle of paper ...
...
Herbin, Herbert. "Dying of Resentment." New York Times 21 Mar.
1996: Editorial Desk.
Humphry, Derek. Dying With Dignity. New York: Birch Lane, 1992.
Kearl, M. "Euthanasia and the Right to Die." Sociology of Death
and Dying. *http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/dtheuth.html*
McCuen, Gary E. Doctor Assisted Suicide: and the Euthanasia
Movement. Wisconsin: Gary E. McCuen publications inc.,
1994.
Robinson, B.A. "Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide: All
Sides of the Issue." Religious Tolerance. Ontario: Ontario
Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 1997.
*http://www.religioustolerance.org/euthanas.htm* 1 Jul. 2001.
Simons, Marlise. "Dutch Becoming first nation to Legalize
Assisted Suicide." New York Times 29 Nov. 2000:
Foreign Desk.
10. Walker, Richard. A Right to Die?. New York: Franklin Watts,
1996.
Oregon is currently the only state that gives the terminally ill the right to decide how and when they want to die. This is known as “Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act” which lets ill, competent patients, who have less than six months to live, choose their preferred lethal dose of medication after they confer with two doctors. Since this right is present in only one state, it causes controversy. David Sarasohn in “No Last Rights” discusses Attorney General John Ashcroft’s challenge to the 1997 Supreme Court decision, which gave doctors in Oregon the right to prescribe federally controlled substances intended to euthanize. Ken MacQueen in “Choosing Suicide” reflects on various cases of euthanasia, differences in lawmaking on euthanasia between Canada and Oregon, and illegal acts of euthanasia.
1. What is the difference between a. and a. The slippery slope argument for assisted suicide is a straightforward one to see and prove. In essence, it says that if assisted suicide is allowed without any principled lines or divisions, then we must allow for assisted suicide in cases like that of “a sixteen-year-old suffering from a severe case of unrequited love.” First we must acknowledge the assumption that the Supreme Court has made, which is, there are no principled lines they can draw between the different cases of assisted suicide.
The right to die movement entered the United States in 1980, when a man helped his dying wife ends her life. This man then found the Hemlock Society - an organization that would help terminally ill patients die in peace, and advocated for laws supporting physician assisted suicide. After this event, the movement took charge, finding itself being argued in court numerous times. Debates went on as more and more doctors were being charged with murder as they accommodated their suffering patient’s wishes to die with the method of euthanization - a painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable or painful disease. States began to propose legislation giving these terminally ill patients to be able to choose to die - and although many states rejected it at first, the matter still never left the courthouse. In 1994 the state of Oregon passed the “Death with Dignity Act” allowing “terminally ill adults likely to die within six months to obtain a prescription for lethal medicine from a doctor” - serving as a milestone in the right to die movement. In 2008 Washington becomes the second state to permit physician assisted suicide, and the year after Montana’s Supreme Court ruled that “doctors [couldn’t] be prosecuted for helping to hasten the death of terminally ill patients” (“1980”).
“Thomas More, in describing a utopian community, envisaged such a community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of ‘torturing and lingering pain’” (Voluntary Euthanasia). Euthanasia is an act that would be used to relieve suffering patients. Before one can argue for or against the legalization of euthanasia, he must understand the difference between the different types of euthanasia: active versus passive, voluntary versus non-voluntary and involuntary, and euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. First, “active euthanasia occurs when something is done with the specific intention of ending a person‘s life, such as injecting a lethal medication,” while “passive euthanasia occurs when interventions that might prolong life are withheld, such as deciding against connecting a dying person to a life support” (Euthanasia- Euthanasia: History, Controversy, Facts). Second, voluntary euthanasia is when a competent person asks for help to end his life, while non-voluntary euthanasia is when a person is not competent to make the decision for himself, and involuntary euthanasia is when the patient is completely against euthanasia (National Right to Life). There is even a difference between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, as euthanasia describes “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals,“ while physician-assisted suicide is when a person is giving the tools needed to end his own life by a physician (Suicide, Euthanasia, and Physician-Assisted Suicide). Although involuntary euthanasia should never be viewed as permissible, all other kinds of euthanasia should be legalized with the aid of living wills, giving the sufferin...
However, “The United States Supreme Court found that liberty as defined in the 14th Amendment does not include the right to assistance in dying” (Vacco v. Quill). It was later decided that the responsibility for determining whether assisted death should be legalized should belong to individual states. According to a report by CNN, in 1994 Oregon became the first state to legalize assisted suicide for terminally ill, mentally able adults. Today there are five states in which physician assisted suicide is legal. In Oregon, Vermont, Washington and California the option is given by each states individual laws. In Montana the patient must have a court decision. Oregon was the first state to pass the death with dignity act.
Even when the act passed in Oregon, it was by a close vote of only 51.31% to 48.69% (“Death with Dignity”, 2015). 20 years later, it is still widely discussed and debated throughout the United States. There are many different groups and individuals that either strongly support or are strongly opposed to the Death with Dignity Act. Two of these groups are the Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization, which supports the DWDA, and the International Task Force on Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide which does not support the act.
Although Dr. Jack Kevorkian was ultimately incarcerated for murder, his practices of euthanasia sparked interest in the idea of physician-assisted death. The general consensus of the public was his actions were malpractice due to the possibility of his patients not actually wanting to die. Assisted suicide arose from the remnant of Dr. Kevorkian’s infamy. In 1994, Oregon passed a law called Death with Dignity, which legalized assisted suicide. Although many people found the law to be a social breakthrough, the implications that have arisen exemplify how assisted suicide is too complex to be legalized.
People are probaly confused at the fact that society approving people to be euthanized. Obviously, if it was stated in a letter to the editor in the Detroit Free Press entitled, “Death, Dignity.” The writer is simply saying it’s okay to end lives. It also states that John Engler, our state government, is supporting two important projects that assist in these suicides. Engler is trying to establish Michigan to be a national leader in death with dignity (Death, Dignity). That doesn’t sound like dying with dignity to me. I think assisted suicide is wrong and we should take an account that killing yourself isn’t dignified.
In 1997, Oregon became the only state allowing legal physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Although physician-assisted suicide has been legal in Oregon for four years, it remains highly controversial. PAS is when a doctor prescribes their patient to medication which would kill them. Patients must pass certain requirements in order to request a prescription for lethal medication. The patient must be 18 years or older, a resident of Oregon, able to make health care decisions, and diagnosed with a terminal illness that would lead to death within six months. After meeting these requirements patients are able to request a prescription for lethal medication from a licensed Oregon physician. To receive a prescription for lethal medication, the following steps must be completed:
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.
Euthanasia, as defined by the Encarta Encyclopedia, is the “practice of mercifully ending a person’s life in order to release the person from incurable disease, intolerable suffering, or undignified death” (Encarta, 2004). Euthanasia is a Greek word, which means “good death.” As humans, we understand death is something we cannot avoid but having some control over death is empowering and reassuring to us. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness, intolerable pain, or in a long-term coma, euthanasia is an acceptable option for someone to end his or her life. With the consent of their doctor(s) these people should be able to have the law on their side supporting their decisions.
When you hear the term euthanasia in reference to animals you think of the process that is used to end the suffering of an animal by putting them in a painless and permanent state of sleep. Today the term euthanasia is used to give reason to the murders of innocent animals all over the world. Animals should only be put down by euthanasia if they are in pain or suffering. Unfortunately most dogs that are euthanized over the course of the year are not aggressive or suffering from any disease (The Humane Society of the United States). Most of the animals are euthanized due to overpopulation in animal shelters. Euthanasia is a cruel and unnecessary practice that is not in the best interest for the animal.
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”.
Euthanasia Euthanasia is a though that ponders in the mind of many everyday. Is it right, is it wrong, who can decide the value of a person's life? Euthanasia is an option that many sick and dying people consider everyday. Euthanasia can be a sick person's only escape from a life of torment and suffering where they are waiting to die. People also choose Euthanasia as a means to ending their life because they feel that can no longer live their lives the way the want to.
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.