More handpicked essays just for you.
James Rachels: The Morality of Euthanasia
English essay on euthanasia mercy killing
English essay on euthanasia mercy killing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: James Rachels: The Morality of Euthanasia
James Rachels, author of The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality (1986) supports euthanasia from the argument from mercy. It is his opinion that euthanasia is acceptable when death is the sole answer to inescapable pain and suffering. It is difficult and perhaps inconceivable to comprehend the awful pain that terminally ill patients endure. For the most part, our conscious reaction is to avoid talking or thinking about it. This being said, Rachels believes the argument is simple, the argument from mercy states euthanasia is justified as it provides a resolution to that. It means acting on our compassion to putting an end to the person’s suffering, hence committing mercy killing. Rachels provides an example into the sad dying journey of the
Despite euthanasia being depicted as unjust in terms of Kings definition I believe that ending a patient’s life in order to relieve pain and suffering is ‘just’ only if the patient has made the decision and doctors have done all they could. Besides, a happy death sounds a lot better than a painful death.
According to James Rachels, “both passive and active euthanasia are permissible.” (Luper and Brown, p.347). He gives a doctrine from American Medical Association quoting,” mercy killing is contrary to which the medical professional stands” (Luper and Brown, p. 347). He makes arguments against the doctrine as to why it would be rejected. One, a physician should let the patient end his life if he wants to so that the patient does not have to endure the suffering. However, Rachels says in that situation it’s better for the physician to kill the patient, rather than letting one die because using lethal injections can be painless and quick, whereas, letting one die can be a slow and painful process (Luper and Brown, p. 348). He points out two
In the Robert Latimer case, as in many other cases of euthanasia, it can never
Euthanasia has always been defined as easy and gentle death especially in cases of painful and incurable illness. It has also been referred to as mercy killing of those considered hopelessly ill, incapacitated or injured patients. It is a matter of life and death. To medical practitioners the dilemma remains: prolong
“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”.
The famous dystopian novel, Brave New World by well recognized author Aldous Huxley is a very accurate description of society today. This novel was banned in many Countries, including Ireland and Australia in 1932 for good reason. This novel has many debatable motifs, one of the most underlying motifs is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, or euthanasia. In this dystopian novel, Aldous Huxley creates a world called the World State.In the World State, people use Euthanasia for anyone who is no longer useful to the society. At 60 years old, people are no longer of use to society. In Brave New World, everyone undergoes “mental euthanasia,” because they are constantly fed
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
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
In Sullivan versus Rachel’s on euthanasia I will show that James Rachel’s argument is logically stronger than Sullivan’s argument. I will present examples given by both authors regarding their arguments and also on their conclusions about it. I will explain both of the author’s logical strengths and weaknesses in their arguments. I will give the examples given by both authors on how they prove their arguments to be true and later I will decide whose argument is stronger based on their strengths and weaknesses. I will give one of Rachel’s main strong arguments and one of Sullivan’s very weak arguments. I will also show if both of the author’s premises follow from the conclusion. And at the end I will give my opinion on my personal reasons on whose I think makes more sense in presenting their arguments.
... greater pain and anguish for longer periods of time than my father did, I believe euthanasia is the only compassionate form of relief we can provide. I believe it is morally important to allow an individual to die with respect for his or her dignity, while respecting his or her autonomy. Because of these reasons, euthanasia is morally justified when administered under strict controls.
.... Palliative care also focuses on the life quality improvement of the patients, allowing them to recover the dignities of life before death. In all these cases, it is ruled out that any case of euthanasia is morally justifiable due to the aforementioned reason. However, when the patient himself shifts his interest from his own to others, especially the poor and needy, voluntary euthanasia will become sacrificial euthanasia, as viewed by others. In this case, euthanasia is neither akin to murder nor suicide. Instead it is a form of charity towards others, while abandoning one's own interest for the sake of others. This sacrifice holds a high view of the sanctity of life as it tries to help the life of others but is still not enough to push euthanasia into an acceptable mode. Euthanasia is taking the lead on a very dangerous road that society has decided to embark on.
Rachels’ first premise is, “passive euthanasia (i.e., withholding treatment) is permissible in part because it ends a patient’s suffering”. He then supports this premise by providing a quote from the American Medical Association. This quote essentially states that the intentional killing of one human being by another (in this case, active euthanasia) goes against the AMA and is therefore wrong. The cessation of necessary treatment to prolong the life of the body by the patient or the immediate family (passive euthanasia) when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent, however, is permissible. His second premise is that “active euthanasia is a more efficient and humane means to ending the patient’s suffering than passive euthanasia.” To defend this claim, Rachel gives the case of a patient with incurable throat cancer. This patient is sure to die in a matter of days even if treatment is continued. The patient does not wish to live on in agony and asks the doctor to cease treatment. The doctor ag...
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.
The world is full of people, some of which are suffering every day from pain. Even with the advancements that have been made with medicine, it’s not enough to cure many diseases or to heal a person’s pain. Euthanasia is commonly referred to as a “mercy killing”. It is the intentional act of putting a person to death quietly and painlessly who has an incurable or painful disease, it is intended to be an act of mercy. According to (ANA, 2013), Euthanasia is the act of putting to death someone suffering from a painful and prolonged illness or injury.
The definition of the term “mercy” is giving compassion or forgiveness to someone that doesn’t deserve it. Has anyone ever thought of suicide as a compassionate act? Euthanasia comes from the greek word eu meaning good and thanatos meaning death. Has anyone ever thought of suicide being good? Andrew Coyne says, “A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured.” We take life for granted and forget that it is a gift and not something we should just be able to end when it is most convenient for us. While it can be perceived as a way to take away pain and suffering from the ill, euthanasia doesn’t solve the real problem for people and should stay illegal.