The debate on whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalized has been a controversial topic. Euthanasia is defined as ‘a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering’ [1]. Voluntary euthanasia refers to the patients who understand the terms in the consent and sign up under consciousness, while involuntary euthanasia is performed against patient's wishes and some people may regard it as a murder [1]. 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. Legalization of euthanasia would also place us on a ‘slippery slope’. The ‘slippery slope’ argument, proposed by Walker [2], stated that if euthanasia is legalized, more immoral actions would be permitted and those actions might not be able to keep under control. One example is that involuntary euthanasia would start to happen after the euthanasia has been legalized. The Netherlands has legalized the euthanasia twelve years ago. This law at first... ... middle of paper ... ... and subsidizes their medical treatments when they are in need. Through these, the urgency of legalizing euthanasia may be decreased. Works Cited [1] R. M. Friedenberg, "Euthanasia," Radiology, vol. 221, pp. 576, 2001. [2] R. M. Walker, "Physician- assisted suicide: the legal slippery slope," Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center, vol. 8, pp. 25, 2001. [3] S. R. Benatar, "Dying and ' euthanasia'," South African Medical Journal = Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif Vir Geneeskunde, vol. 82, pp. 35, 1992. [4] P. Allmark, "Euthanasia, dying well and the slippery slope," J. Adv. Nurs., vol. 18, pp. 1178-1182, 1993. [5] C. S. Campbell, "Euthanasia and Religion," UNESCO Courier, pp. 37, 2000. [6] "Should euthanasia be legalized?" Br. J. Nurs., vol. 6, pp. 892, 1997. [7] Emmanuel EJ, “Cost savings at the end of life,” JAMA, vol. 275, pp. 1907, 1996.
Bernards, Neal, Ed. (1989). Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
In this essay I will be analysing the morality of voluntary active euthanasia (VAE). I will focus on the argument that if such an act is considered morally acceptable, it can only lead down a slippery slope in which society becomes grossly unrecognizable in terms of the value of life. This essay will examine the strengths and weaknesses of this argument and the moral principles which underpin it to determine whether or not it remains a convincing argument to VAE.
"Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide: All Sides." [On-Line]. Available: http://www.relgious tolerance.org/euthanas.htm #beli Downloaded: November 6, 1997
Every day, millions of people are being diagnose with terminal illnesses or being seriously injured in accidents. Sometimes, those illnesses and accidents become long and agonizingly painful deaths. Although medication could briefly ease the pain, the long-term agony that the patient has to deal with is ceaseless. Undoubtedly, the human life has an enormous value and is for that reason that it should be preserved in all the possible ways. Nevertheless, when the terminal illness comes to its last stage, or the damage caused for an accident is too much to handle and the only option left is death, shouldn’t it be the patient’s decision to end its suffering and pain in a dignified way? Or in cases where the patient has an impediment to decide, shouldn’t the family have the option to give their loved one an end to its suffer? As part of a free society, euthanasia should be considered as a legal and humane option for patients suffering from terminal diseases and victims of accidents, mainly because is every human right to die in a decent way.
Euthanasia is the fact of ending somebody’s life when assisting him to die peacefully without pain. In most cases, it is a process that leads to end the suffering of human beings due to disease or illness. A person other than the patient is responsible for the act of euthanasia; for example a medical provider who gives the patient the shot that must kill him. When people sign a consent form to have euthanasia, it is considered voluntary, involuntary euthanasia is when they refuse. When people are not alert and oriented they are not allowed to sign any consent including the consent to euthanasia. When euthanasia is practiced in such situation, it is a non-voluntary euthanasia. In sum, people who practice voluntary euthanasia in honoring other
Pereira, J. (2011). Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: The illusion of safeguards and controls. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/
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
Cotton, Paul. "Medicine's Position Is Both Pivotal And Precarious In Assisted Suicide Debate." The Journal of the American Association 1 Feb. 1995: 363-64.
...t of The Remmelink Report and the van der Maas Study in Euthanasia, in Euthanasia, Clinical Practice and the Law. Ed Gormally L. The Linacre Centre 1994. p 219-240.
... Association. 1998. “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.” Canadian Medical Association Board of Directors. Retrieved from http://www.cma.ca/index.php/ci_id/3214/la_id/1.htm on October 16th, 2010.
Kuhse, Helga. “Euthanasia.” A Companion to Ethics. Ed. Peter Singer. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1991. 294-302. Print.
Robert Matz; Daniel P. Sudmasy; Edward D. Pallegrino. "Euthanasia: Morals and Ethics." Archives of Internal Medicine 1999: p1815 Aug. 9, 1999 .
Larson, Edward J. “Legalizing Euthanasia Would Encourage Suicide” Euthanasia- Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wesseker. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1995. 78-83. Print.
...Prevention. "Physician-Assisted Suicide Should Not Be Legalized." Opposing Viewpoints: Problems of Death. Ed. James D. Torr and Laura K. Egendorf. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Harford Technical High School - MD. 15 Mar. 2010 .
Euthanasia, according to the dictionary, means the killing of a person who is suffering from an incurable disease. Lately, it had been a huge debate over whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. Personally, I believe that euthanasia should be legalized if it is voluntary. I have three reasons for my argument.