Euthanasia- Ethical or Unethical?
Assisted suicide, or euthanasia, was a term coined by Francis Bacon in the seventeenth century to describe a “painless, happy death.” The term “euthanasia” translates from Greek to
“good death.” Despite all of the positive words associated with euthanasia, the ethics of assisted suicide have been long debated, for many reasons.
Euthanasia works by a terminally ill patient -one with an incurable disease- requests to pass away. They use a heavy dose of a lethal drug to force the patient’s body to shut down, causing little to no pain for the patient. This process of assisted suicide is often distributed by a third-party, not being a family member or friend.
When it comes to assisted suicide, there are many laws
…show more content…
In the United States, it is perfectly legal to
“put down” a terminally-ill animal through the means of euthanasia. The definition for euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.” This definition is not human nor animal specific, recipient as “patient.” Using the definition of euthanasia, any organism can be euthanized, not only animals.
Based on the sole definition, we put animals out of their misery and suffering. How can we justify putting animals down when they are suffering, but not humans? To go on about that, humans can vocalize their opinions, and decide for themselves if they want to pull the plug or not, whereas animals cannot.
A well known phrase from the Constitution is “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which applies to all Americans. In every aspect of that, assisted suicide can be applied. When it comes to life, every American has the right to life. This implies they can do with it as they please, even if that means ending it. Liberty would be that individual’s decision to choose,
…show more content…
The Christian faith after Rome fell deemed assisted suicide morally wrong, and because of their strong religious power, made it illegal. “For many, the question of whether it is right to take the life of another person, no matter what the circumstances, is unambiguous. The
Christian moral tradition, as well as that of other religions, expressly prohibits killing another human being. The sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” trumps all other considerations”
(Gale, 2). This is why euthanasia has been carried out mostly in secrecy, all the way up until more modern times.
In opposition to the religious standpoint of killing another human, it is said that one should be able to decide for themselves if they want to live with a terminal illness or suffer in a vegetative state. “Opposed to this view is the notion that individuals should have the right to choose for themselves the treatment they receive toward the end of life” (Gale, 2).
One of the more mainly focused upon issues centered around the negative of assisted suicide would have to be the abuse of the practice. “Further, they [opponents of euthanasia] argue that active, voluntary euthanasia opens the door to abuse when, for example, a
Assisted Suicide, also known as mercy killing, occurs when a physician provides the means (drugs or other agents) by which a person can take his or her own life. This assistance is one of the most debated issues today in society followed by abortion. Physicians are frequently faced with the question of whether or not assisted suicide is ethical or immoral. Although assisted suicide is currently illegal in almost all states in America, it is still often committed. Is assisted suicide ethical? Studies have found that the majority of Americans support assisted suicide. One must weigh both sides of the argument before they can decide.
The discussion of physician-assisted suicide is frequently focused around the ethical implications. The confusion commonly surfaces from the simple question, what is physician-assisted suicide? Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as a circumstance in which a medical physician provides a lethal dose of medication to a patient with a fatal illness. In this case, the patient has given consent, as well as direction, to the physician to ethically aid in their death (Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue,
According to Gamliel (2012), euthanasia refers to actions or omissions that result in the death of a person who is already gravely ill. Techniques of active euthanasia range fro...
distant cousin of euthanasia, in which a person wishes to commit suicide. feels unable to perform the act alone because of a physical disability or lack of knowledge about the most effective means. An individual who assists a suicide victim in accomplishing that goal may or may not be held responsible for. the death, depending on local laws. There is a distinct difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide. This paper targets euthanasia; pros and cons. not to be assisted in suicide. & nbsp; Thesis Argument That Euthanasia Should Be Accepted & nbsp;
Brock argues for the use of euthanasia in his essay defending the implementation of euthanasia in medicine. One chief concern those against euthanasia have is that it will undermine the trust patients place in the hands of medical professionals. However, according to brock patients will not fear their doctors because they participate in euthanasia, but rather trust and appreciate their doctor even more (Brock pg.77). This is because those doctors know have a new tool to add to their repertoire. No healthcare provider would utilize physician assisted suicide or euthanasia without the consent of the patient and they all know this. In Brock’s essay he mentions the moral epicenter of this debate, and states that the public focuses on the moral issue of killing instead of what the doctor is supposed to do. That is a doctor is supposed to fulfill the wishes of their patient whether it be to undergo a risky surgery or to be given a lethal injection. Every human being will experience watching a loved one slowly deteriorate and will go through each day with the uncertainty of if their loved one will be there tomorrow or not. This is an unimaginable pain to bear emotionally, due to this euthanasia has its benefits. Although it can be hard to set a date for when to kill somebody it is a necessary evil. The benefit of euthanasia is that it allows for closure, and for that family to say their last
Assisted death can consist of either voluntary euthanasia or physical-assisted suicide. Voluntary suicide is when a doctor purposely administers drugs to force death upon a person, while physical-assisted suicide is when a doctor aids someone in committing suicide by presenting drugs for self administration by a family member or loved one (Tomlinson). This procedure is legal in Vermont, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico and recently passed in California. In 2014, Brittany Maynard, a young Californian woman with terminal brain cancer became an advocate for the terminally ill and took her own life under Oregon aid-in-dying law (The Brittany Maynard Fund). Maynard states, “Every terminally ill American deserves the choice to die with dignity… Freedom from prolonged pain and suffering is a most basic human right” (Firger). Having the ability to...
who has not explicitly requested aid in dying. This is most often done to patients who are in a
Should terminally ill patients have the right to choose how they would like to die? There ar...
Terminally ill, as stated in CNN news, is a person with a life threatening illness that has a prognosis of 6 months or less to live. Patients seek relief from symptoms such as unremitting severe pain, breathing difficulties such as choking and suffocation, nausea and vomiting. When a patient refuses treatment or is taken off of it, they will endure endless amounts of pain and suffering before they actually die. If the patient is given lethal medication, the death will be much swifter and peaceful.
[4] P. Allmark, "Euthanasia, dying well and the slippery slope," J. Adv. Nurs., vol. 18, pp. 1178-1182, 1993.
whilst, euthanasia is defined as; an intentional means of causing the death of a person, the motive being to benefit that person or protect him/her from further suffering.
In recent years the media has shifted more focus on the hot topic of physician assisted suicide. This expanded coverage has caused an ever widening gap on both sides of the debate because of the ethical concerns that come along with this act. Due in part to the advancements in modern medicine, assisted suicide should be viewed as a morally correct decision for individuals to make for themselves when there is no overcoming a life impairing mental or physical ailment. This form of medicine should only be used when the individuals have exhausted all possible procedures and options and the have a bleak chance on being healthy once again. The results of assisted suicide can be viewed as morally correct in regards to consequentialism, social contract theory, as well as deontological ethics. The act of assisted suicide can be viewed as selfless if one does not ultimately want to be a physical or monetary burden on other individuals. A patient can also help to save others in regards of organ donations. We as a country need to learn to observe the choices of the terminally ill patients and understand when they want to concede in their battle. If a person chooses to end their life, it should not be viewed as a sign of weakness, but rather as a statement that this individual does not want to suffer anymore.
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.
Euthanasia is one of the most recent and controversial debates today (Brogden, 2001). As per the Canadian Medical Association, euthanasia refers to the process of purposely and intentionally performing an act that is overtly anticipated to end the person’s life (CMA, 1998)
Robert Matz; Daniel P. Sudmasy; Edward D. Pallegrino. "Euthanasia: Morals and Ethics." Archives of Internal Medicine 1999: p1815 Aug. 9, 1999 .