Topic: Human Rights & Euthanasia
Key words: Euthanasia or voluntary assisted suicide, Human Rights, Community Development practice.
Introduction:
Since numerous years the debate on legalizing euthanasia has been lurking within the medical profession worldwide. However, the implications of legalizing euthanasia has been contested on different levels, be it on moral, cultural, ethical, religious, philosophical, legal or even on human rights grounds. In this paper, we will expound on crucial aspects such as the relevance of human rights in the euthanasia debate. Particular attention will be also drawn as to how despite the fact that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) stipulates that we have a ‘right to life’ but still says nothing
…show more content…
They have to be grounded and granted. That means that there should be an appropriate justification why we believe we deserve that right and that someone else has an obligation to grant us these rights. Now the issue that arises then is who is going to grant these rights? Depending on one’s worldview, the giver of these rights will vary. For example, if I believe that atheism is true, then, there is no God. There is no rights-giver. Some people might argue that there might be no God, but the state can give me these rights. Therefore, I can vote or fight for certain legislation to give the right to euthanasia. Well, that is true, I can do that. However, there are some loopholes in that. Firstly, if the state can give me a right, then the state can also take that right away from me (and of course that is the nature of the right, right?). Secondly, this is not a fundamental human right. It is not a right that is given to me by virtue of me being human. It is just the right that is given by virtue of vote and as said earlier, if these rights could be voted into laws, it can also be voted out of …show more content…
But the right to life raises some perplexing issues, mainly: who should enjoy the right? Where does it begin? Where does it end? Does having a right to life implies that there is a right to die? Would it be suitable to provide palliative care to a terminally ill or dying person, albeit the treatment may as a side-effect contribute to the shortening of the patient’s life? Should the patient’s consent and capacity be considered? Should it be the role of the State to ‘protect’ or ‘ascertain’ the right to life even if the person does not want to live any longer, or against that person’s own wishes? Or do people have, under the Convention, not just a right to life, and to live – but also a right to die as and when they choose to die: even if that would mean committing suicide? And if so, can they look for others’ assistance to end their lives? Can the State allow the ending of life in order to end suffering, albeit the person concerned cannot express his or her wishes in this
Any discussion that pertains to the topic of euthanasia must first include a clear definition of the key terms and issues. With this in mind, it should be noted that euthanasia includes both what has been called physician-assisted "suicide" and voluntary active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide involves providing lethal medication(s) available to the patient to be used at a time of the patient’s own choosing (Boudreau, p.2, 2014). Indifferently, voluntary active euthanasia involves the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. Physician-assisted suicide is felt to be easier psychologically for the physician and patient than euthanasia because
Euthanasia is a word derived from Greek that has the etymological meaning of an easy death through the alleviation of pain (Moreno, 1995). Through the course of history, the signification of the term has changed and evolved in many different definitions. A useful definition of euthanasia on which we will base this essay, is named ‘mercy killing’, which signifies deliberately putting an end to someone’s life to avoid further suffering, as stated by Michael Manning in 1998. The euthanasia debate possesses a strong significance in our modern society. A discussion conducted by both scholars and politicians is going on whether physicians have the right to hasten the death of an individual by the administration of poison. In this essay
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.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines euthanasia as “the action of inducing a gentle and easy death” (Oxford English Dictionary). Many people around the world would like nothing more than to end their lives because they are suffering from painful and lethal diseases; suffering people desperately seek doctors to help them end their lives. Many people see euthanasia as murder, so euthanasia is illegal in many countries. Euthanasia is an extremely controversial issue that has many complex factors behind it including medical costs, murder and liberty rights. Should people have the rights to seek euthanasia from doctors who are well trained in dealing with euthanasia?
“If you truly believe in the value of life, you care about all of the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.” This thought-provoking quote by Joni Eareckson Tada conveys a sense of obligation held by society to take up the roles of caretakers for the ones that cannot aid their own health. In the relativity of physician-assisted suicide, the word “care” in the previous statement is defined by helping those in need, in this case, pertaining to health issues with a potentially terminal outcome. When analyzing this controversial subject, one must consider all aspects of the medical context as well as the ethical conviction that pairs with it. Should terminally ill patients have the right to a physician-assisted suicide simply to protect their civil liberties? Or is this option just a devised method opposing the purpose of doctors and physicians and the morals of civilization playing the role of a scapegoat and devaluing human life? Although on the surface, physician-assisted suicide for patients in critical condition appears to be a plausible remedy, when further inspected, a practical perspective arises saying this so-called final solution is morally and ethically wrong considering the responsibility of medics, society, and law makers.
“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”.
Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
In the essay “The Morality of Euthanasia”, James Rachels uses what he calls the argument from mercy. Rachels states, “If one could end the suffering of another being—the kind from which we ourselves would recoil, about which we would refuse to read or imagine—wouldn’t one?” He cites a Stewart Alsop’s story in which he shares a room with a terminally ill cancer patient who he named Jack. At the end of the recounting, Alsop basically asks, “were this another animal, would not we see to it that it doesn’t suffer more than it should?” Which opens up the question of, “Why do humans receive special treatment when we too are animals?” We would not let animals suffer when there is a low chance of survival, so why is it different for us humans?
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.
Life or Death? I see it fitting to start off by actually explaining what “Right to Die” is. The Right to Die is a principle based on a person’s choice to terminate their life or to endure voluntary euthanasia. The two Supreme Court cases that relate to the constitutional Right to Die are Cruzan by Cruzan V. Director, Missouri Department of Health and Washington V. Glucksberg . The first of these cases is based on the constitutional right of the state to interfere with medical decisions. Whether the state has a right to withhold the parent’s decision to remove life-sustaining support from their child. While the second case argues whether the state has a right to restrict a patient’s decision to partake in Physician Assisted Suicide.
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”.
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.
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.
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.