The topic of euthanasia is one that has become highly controversial during the last several decades. The argument develops greater contentiousness when concerning the life, or lack their of, of terminally ill and persistent vegetative state patients. To further perpetuate the dilemma, one must consider in which specific circumstance euthanasia becomes morally justified for these patients?
Philosophers like Peter Singer and Margaret Battin have dedicated their personal and professional time to evaluating the choice to which a person has the right to continue to live or to die. In order to do this, we first have to examine what exactly euthanasia is. The practice of euthanasia can be classified in two different ways. First, euthanasia can be either active or passive. Active euthanasia involves the direct interruption of ongoing daily functioning that otherwise would be adequate to maintain life. Passive euthanasia involves the withholding or withdrawing of treatment that might support ongoing daily functions; without drugs or treatment the body would continue its process of shutting down. In the case of passive euthanasia, the argument can be made that the treatment is actually withholding the natural process of death. Secondly, euthanasia can be divided into three categories based on a level of consciousness: involuntary (death against ones wishes), voluntary (death based on expressed wishes), and non-voluntary (incapable of consent or competent decision-making).
It goes without saying that involuntary euthanasia, with the exception of a few scattered legal systems (Netherlands, Oregon), is illegal as it should be. The concepts of voluntary and non-voluntary are something that Peter Singer profoundly deliberates in his book, Prac...
... middle of paper ...
... the patient appears at times to be awake” (Rakestraw, 392). In order to employ the principle of mercy as stated before, it requires that suffering be present. A patient with no self-awareness will not be cognizant of one’s physical suffering. Therefore, the principle to which Battin argues the justification of euthanasia is extraneous under persistent vegetative state circumstances.
Works Cited
Donald Van DeVeer and Tom Regan, eds., Health Care Ethics: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987), pp. 58-97.
Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2014.
Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 3rd edition. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), pp. 157-171.
Robert V. Rakestraw, "The Persistent Vegetative State and the Withdraw of Nutrition and Hydration." (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sept. 1992), pp. 389-405.
Anyone can be diagnosed with a terminal illness. It doesn’t matter how healthy you are, who you are, or what you do. Some terminal illnesses you can prevent by avoiding unhealthy habits, eating healthily, exercising regularly and keeping up with vaccinations. However some terminally ill people cannot be helped, their diseases cannot be cured and the only thing possible to help them, besides providing pain relieving medication, is to make them as comfortable as possible while enduring their condition. Many times the pharmaceuticals do not provide the desired pain escape, and cause patients to seek immediate relief in methods such as euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending a life in order to alleviate pain and suffering, but is deemed controversial because many various religions believe that their creators are the only ones that should decide when their life’s journey should reach its end. Euthanasia is performed by medical doctors or physicians and is the administration of a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient on his or her express request. Although the majority of American states oppose euthanasia, the practice would result in more good as opposed to harm. The patient who is receiving the euthanizing medication would be able to proactively choose their pursuit of happiness, alleviate themselves from all of the built up pain and suffering, relieve the burden they may feel they are upon their family, and die with dignity, which is the most ethical option for vegetative state and terminally ill patients. Euthanasia should remain an alternative to living a slow and painful life for those who are terminally ill, in a vegetative state or would like to end their life with dignity. In addition, t...
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.
This essay leaves no rock unturned in its analysis of the debate involving euthanasia and assisted suicide. Very thorough definitions are given for both concepts - with examples that clarify rather than obscure the reader's understanding.
Euthanasia has been a long debated subject consisting of many opinions and believes. For this paper I will be providing my rationale on why I am for legalization of active voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill clients in Canada. Active voluntary euthanasia should be legalized because it respects the individual’s choice, it allows individuals to flourish in their passing, and reduces the individual from further suffering. These are all important components of bioethics, and are all good reasons why euthanasia is not a negative thing. Active voluntary euthanasia is “the active killing of a dying person” requested by the client themselves (Collier & Haliburton, 2011, p. 226). In the paper I will also be discussing about virtue ethics, the principle of autonomy, and care ethics.
Euthanasia has been a very polemic subject in American society. Its objective is to conclude the life of a person at their own request, a family member, or by the determination of a health care professional to avoid unnecessary suffering. There is a lot of moral and ethics involved in euthanasia, exist a big difference between provoke death and allow death. The first one rejects life, the second one accepts its natural end. Every single intentional act of provoke the death of a person without consent is opposed to ethics and is punishable by law. One of the biggest moral controversies in the XXI century is the fact that some people agree in the autonomy humans have to determine the moment of death. The moral and legal implications are huge and the practical benefits are also enormous. This is a touchy and controversial issue and my goal on writing this paper is to remain on favor of euthanasia. I will elaborate later on my reasons to believe and support euthanasia, but first let’s examine the historical perspective of this moral issue.
...volving the ethical and moral values that impact society today and in the course of time. Not only are doctors’ purposes being compromised with the proposition of active euthanasia, but also a religious and philosophical perspective. The exercise of assisted suicide would deteriorate the responsibility of the civil law and conclusively endanger its reason to protect and provide a just system. Even if one is not spiritually inclined or subject to moral or ethical conviction, the practice of physician assisted suicide promotes widespread abuse and influences society, climatically devaluing human life. It is not a question of terminally ill patients having the civil liberty to choose life or death; it is a matter of moral principle that upholds the community to a protective and answerable standard. It is not a humane option to negotiate ethical accuracy for autonomy.
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
Gedge, E., & Waluchow, W. (2012). Readings in health care ethics (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Broadview Press.
According to Stephen G. Potts, a patient might seek euthanasia for the benefits of other people (79). In his argument against VAE, the p...
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
There are two methods of carrying out euthanasia, the first one is active and the second one is passive. Active euthanasia means the physicians deliberately take actions which cause the death of the patients, for example, the injection of sedatives in excess amount. Passive euthanasia is that the doctors do not take any further therapies to keep the ill patients alive such as switching off the life supporting machines [1]. This essay argues that the legalization of the euthanasia should not be proposed nowadays. It begins by analyzing the problem that may cause in relation to the following aspects: ‘slippery slope’ argument, religious view, vulnerable people and a rebuttal against the fair distribution of medical resources. This essay concludes that the legalization of the voluntary euthanasia brings more harm than good.
In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die. I plan to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of both active and passive euthanasia.
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.
McGee, Glenn and Arthur L. Caplan. "Medical Ethics." Microsoft® Encarta® 98 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1997: Microsoft Corporation. CD-ROM.
Garrett, T. M., Baillie, H. W., & Garrett, R. M. (2010). Health care ethics: Principles and problems (5thed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.