Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
physician assisted suicide is morally justified
A DEFENSE OF ACTIVE EUTHANASIA
euthanasia and physician assisted suicide
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: physician assisted suicide is morally justified
Active Euthanasia: Physician Assisted Suicide is Wrong
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.
Maguire argues by defining his terms. After explaining on page 447 how difficult it is to decide "to impose death," he says on page 448 that it is a moral argument, not a legal argument. In the final sentence of the fifth paragraph, he contends that "morality and legality are not identical." His transition, the first sentence of the sixth paragraph, invites the reader to "face up to the objection." The objection, according to the fourth paragraph, is "that there is no moral way in which death could be imposed on a person who is incapable of consent because of youth or irreversible loss of consciousness." The fifth paragraph begins by admitting the truth of this objection. These transitions tie together an argument that seems to agree with the objection, while defining the terms of the argument. When all the terms have been defined, however, the objection is rejected. He argues that, in some cases, it would be "morally good . . . to terminate a life" (p. 448). The ter...
... middle of paper ...
...ing, however, is that somebody is killing somebody else, and that is wrong. Therefore, the definition always means that somebody is doing something that is wrong.
Bibliography:
Bernards, Neal, Ed. (1989). Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
Doyle, Eileen. "Consequences of Imposing the Quality-of-Life Ethic." Bernards pp. 463-466.
Johnson, Dana E. "Euthanasia Should Not Be Based Based on Economic Factors." Bernards, pp. 132-137.
Leo, John. "Cozy Little homicides." Bernards pp. 461-463.
Maguire, Daniel C. "Death by Choice." Bernards pp. 447-452.
Neff, David. "Dial 119 for Murder." (1991). Commonweal, Aug. 9, pp. 452-453.
Neuhaus, Richard John. (1991). "All Too Human." National Review, Dec. 2, p. 45.
of Notre Dame Press, 1979.
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
killing and letting die. Some argue that letting die, which is the action considered to take
Potts, Stephen G.. "Euthanasia Should Not Be Legalized." Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Bernards, Neal. ed. San Diego. Greenhaven Press, Inc. 1989.
I have brought forward considerations that counter Callahan's reasoning against three types of arguments that support euthanasia: the right to self-determination, the insignificant difference between killing and letting a person die by removing their life-support, and euthanasia's good consequences outweighing the harmful consequences are all positive, relevant and valid factors in the moral evaluation of euthanasia. Callahan's objections against these reasons do not hold.
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.
McCullough, Colleen. "Why I Oppose Euthanasia." The Weekend Australian 16-17 Mar. 1996. http://www.ucaqld.com.au/trendz/3ethics/oppose.htm (27 Feb. 1997)
Opposing Viewpoints."Introduction to Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints." Euthanasia. Ed. Carrie Snyder. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. http://ic.galegroup.com.library.collin.edu/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&disableHighlighting=false&prodId=OVIC&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010134107&userGroupName=txshracd2497&jsid=af2eacb374dfea6a89c0773d16c35a50
CRAIG PATERSON, THE CONTRIBUTION OF NATURAL LAW THEORY TO MORAL AND LEGAL DEBATE CONCERNING SUICIDE, ASSISTED SUICIDE, AND EUTHANASIA (Universal-Publishers 2010).
Rachels, Jame. "Active and Passive Euthanasia." New England Journal of Medicine 292 (1975): 78-80. Print.
Larson, Edward J. “Legalizing Euthanasia Would Encourage Suicide” Euthanasia- Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wesseker. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1995. 78-83. Print.
Pojman, Louis P., and Lewis Vaughn. "The Morality of Euthanasia." Introduction. The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature. 4th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. 821-22. Print.
Yip,J. (2009). Euthanasia : An Overview. Canadian Point of View: Euthanasia, 1. Retrieved from Canadian Points of View Reference Centre database.
Robert Matz; Daniel P. Sudmasy; Edward D. Pallegrino. "Euthanasia: Morals and Ethics." Archives of Internal Medicine 1999: p1815 Aug. 9, 1999 .
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. 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 for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.
Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, ethics, and public policy: An argument against legislation. New York: Cambridge University Press.