Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Death and dying in different religions
Culture difference between east and west
Religion and death
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Death and dying in different religions
A Dignified Death
Since ancient time, “dying with dignity” has experienced a different cultural context amongst humans. Some individuals have imagined and prepared their dying moments at an early age: Regardless of religious, political and /or society background. Dignity is defined as a sense of self-respect, self-worth and nobility. It is one of the highest consensus of autonomy belonging to humankind. Therefore, it is the sense of honor that makes humans stand up for whatever the meaning of freedom represents to them. The feeling of freedom that a person may have when dying could result in some delusional moments as their life is fading away, or is death perhaps the reality that dignifies human life.
There are cross-culturally different beliefs regarding death that are appropriate ways of dying with various meanings for that society. For some cultures agonizing while dying symbolizes a death with dignity. For other cultures the right to die peacefully and be aware of the final moments of life is dignifying (Leming & Dickinson, 2011). Every society around the world has their own definition of what is dying with dignity, and each individual wants to die according to their willingness death, but it is not always the case. An abrupt or sudden death, traumatic injuries or
…show more content…
Therefore, it is by creating a balanced, truthful communication, supportive and caring environment through the fading of a human life that death becomes meaningful. Every death is memorable, whether it happened in a hospital, or at a home, or in the street of a suburban neighborhood, on a royal bed, on an airplane, having dinner, during patrolling, at a war zone, or perhaps at the moment of birth. Dying with dignity was and will be the right to being born into this
Switzerland has an unusual position on assisted suicide as it is legally condoned and can be performed by non-physicians. The involvement of a physician is usually considered a necessary safeguard in assisted suicide and euthanasia. Physicians are trusted not to misuse these practices and they are believed to know how to make sure a painless death. Besides, the law has explicitly separated the issue of whether or not assisting death should be allowed in some circumstances and, whether physicians should do it. This splitting up has not resulted in moral desensitization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
The boundaries of right to die with dignity are hard to determine. Keeping the terminal patient comfortable is the purpose of comfort care, however there could be a very thin line between what we consider terminal sedation and euthanasia. In theory, comfort care is quite different from euthanasia. Keeping the patient comfortable and letting the nature take its course is at the core of comfort measures (Gamliel, 2012). Yet, the line between keeping comfortable and facilitating death is often blurry. Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering (Gamliel, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to highlight the ethical issue of keeping comfortable vs. hastening death, and the ethical principles involved. Facilitating or hastening death is considered unethical or even illegal.
Americans at the end of their lives no longer have this sense of continuity and stability. Rituals today are as likely to include tubes and noisy machines, artificial ventilators and unpleasant drug regimens bringing as many unpleasant side effects as health benefits. Many times the dying languishes in a hospital bed, surrounded not by the comforts of home and family but rather by sterility and bright lights, strangers and hushed voices. Death is no longer a mysterious part of a cherished tradition but a terrifying ordeal to be postponed as long as possible, an enemy that must be fought off at all costs.
Euthanasia is a word whose roots can be traced back to Greece where it meant good death. It encompasses various dimensions, from active where something is introduced to cause death, to passive where treatment or supportive actions are withheld. It also varies from voluntary euthanasia where one consents to it, to involuntary where a guardian can give consent and doctor assisted in which the doctors prescribes the medication and a third party or patient administers the prescription to cause death. Wishes for premature death have significantly contributed to the long debate regarding the role of this practice in the current health care. The debate however cuts across dynamic and complex aspects like ethical, legal, health, human rights, economic, religious, social, spiritual and cultural aspects of the enlightened society (Math & Chaturvedi, p. 889). Here, this intricate issue is argued from both sides of the ongoing debate and also the plight of the caregivers and the victims.
In her paper entitled "Euthanasia," Phillipa Foot notes that euthanasia should be thought of as "inducing or otherwise opting for death for the sake of the one who is to die" (MI, 8). In Moral Matters, Jan Narveson argues, successfully I think, that given moral grounds for suicide, voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable (at least, in principle). Daniel Callahan, on the other hand, in his "When Self-Determination Runs Amok," counters that the traditional pro-(active) euthanasia arguments concerning self-determination, the distinction between killing and allowing to die, and the skepticism about harmful consequences for society, are flawed. I do not think Callahan's reasoning establishes that euthanasia is indeed morally wrong and legally impossible, and I will attempt to show that.
This essay explores the views of doctors, of the general public, and of the original Hippocratic Oath on the practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Considerable reference material is employed - from professional sources.
...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.
However, to preserve the individual 's self respect they would not want their family to see them fall apart and wither away. Nevertheless, the end of a family member 's life is hard on all loved ones and the last memories they have should be ones of joy and care. A patient should be able to pass away peacefully knowing that they did so with their respect and dignity intact. In the article “Is physician-assisted death in anyone 's best interest?”, James downar explains that many people try and delay death, even when faced with a hopeless situation. However, although they remain cognitively intact, other patients have limited life prolonging options and their quality of life and function deteriorate below the threshold that they consider acceptable. This portrays the idea that regardless of whether or not a person is in favour of, or opposed to euthanasia, all people would agree that they would want a dignified death for themselves and their loved ones. The problem starts when people cannot agree as to the definition of 'dignity. ' According to a new survey commissioned by ‘Dying With Dignity Canada’, approximately 84 per cent of Canadians support assisted dying. These results clarify that terminally ill patients need their rights recognized. That being said, those who are continually opposed to voluntary euthanasia must not deny people the right to die with
To conclude, difference and diversity in relation to a ‘good death’ are important to forming guidance to fully understanding what is defined in creating a good death. A method in which can be taken and used for gaining equality for all, regardless of age, sex or religious beliefs or financial status. Furthermore, what everyone will perceive as a ‘good death’ will differ, with no definition as to which is right or wrong. everyone has the right to die with dignity and respect, peacefully with minimal suffering surrounded by people they
Currently, physician-assisted suicide or death is illegal in all states except Oregon, Vermont, Montana and Washington. Present law in other states express that suicide is not a crime, but assisting in suicide is. Supporters of legislation legalizing assisted suicide claim that the moral right to life should encompass the right to voluntary death. Opponents of assisted suicide claim that society has a moral and civic duty to preserve the lives of innocent persons. There is a slippery slope involving the legalizing assisted suicide. Concern that assisted suicide allowed on the basis of mercy or compassion, can and will lead to the urging of the death for morally unjustifiable reasons is understandable. However, legalization can serve to prevent the already existent practice of underground physician-assisted suicide if strict laws to ensure that the interests of the patients are primary are installed and enforced. When a patient asks for assistance in dying, their wishes should be respected as long as the patient is free from coercion and competent enough to give informed consent. The intent of this work is to examine the legalization of assisted suicide in Oregon and the Netherlands and to argue that assisted suicide is morally and ethically acceptable in theory despite some unintended consequences of its implementation.
The subject of death and dying is a common occurrence in the health care field. There are many factors involved in the care of a dying patient and various phases the patient, loved ones and even the healthcare professional may go through. There are many controversies in health care related to death, however much of it roots from peoples’ attitudes towards it. Everyone handles death differently; each person has a right to their own opinions and coping mechanisms. Health care professionals are very important during death related situations; as they are a great source of support for a patient and their loved ones. It is essential that health care professionals give ethical, legal and honest care to their patients, regardless of the situation.
Death is something inevitable which all human beings must have to face today or tomorrow, or some part of their life.There are many people around the world sinking their lives in the darkness of dignity. Each and every day individuals all throughout the U.S. are diagnosed with terminal illness. They are compelled to wait until they die naturally, at the same time their bodies deteriorate by their sickness that will eventually take their lives. Some of the time, this implies living excruciating pain ,and that most states in our nation cannot do anything about it legally. People should have the will to live or die as the death of dignity is one of those acts that promotes this behavior , as a result it should be legalized all over the states,
Does euthanasia really violate human dignity?Euthanasia does not violate human dignity. In this essay, I am gonna conceive people that euthanasia does not violate human dignity and rights. I will write about three details that prove to the reader that euthanasia does not violate with human dignity. The first detail describes the suffering. The second describes their freedom, and the third describes why death with dignity is important.
The applied ethical issue of euthanasia, or mercy killing, concerns whether it is morally permissible for a third party, such as a physician, to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in intense pain. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words eu (‘well’) and thanatos (‘death’). It means a painless and gentle death. But in modern usage, it has come to imply that someone’s life is ended for compassionate reasons by some passive or active steps taken by another person. The euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die. Staunch defenders of personal liberty argue that all of us are morally entitled to end our lives when we see fit. Thus, according to these people, euthanasia is in principle morally permissible. Two additional concepts are relevant to the discussion of euthanasia. First, voluntary euthanasia refers to mercy killing that takes place with the explicit and voluntary consent of the patient, either verbally or in a written document such as a living will. Second, non-voluntary euthanasia refers to the mercy killing of a patient who is unconscious, comatose, or otherwise unable to explicitly make his intentions known. (Downing 1969) In these cases it is often family members who make the request. It is important not to confuse non-voluntary mercy killing with involuntary mercy killing. The latter would be done against the wishes of the patient and would clearly count as murder.
Death is something that causes fear in many peoples lives. People will typically try to avoid the conversation of death at all cost. The word itself tends to freak people out. The thought of death is far beyond any living person’s grasp. When people that are living think about the concept of death, their minds go to many different places. Death is a thing that causes pain in peoples lives, but can also be a blessing.