Euthanasia, a Greek word for “good death” refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Passive and active euthanasia is a very controversial topic that has been tackled by many people. Authors James Rachels and Thomas D. Sullivan make opposing arguments about the permissibility of both passive and active euthanasia. Using the case of a Down’s syndrome baby, James Rachels argues that passive euthanasia may be in some cases morally indistinguishable from active euthanasia and in other cases even worse. On the contrary, Thomas D. Sullivan makes a case against Rachels claims by arguing that the real distinction steams from the traditional view, which is the intentional termination of human life is impermissible regardless of whether this goal is brought about by action or inaction. He argues that when one withholds means to sustain life is equal to killing. Although, instead of arguing about the distinctions of Euthanasia many people base their arguments on whether or not Euthanasia as a whole should be permissible in society. There is a grave distinction between passive and active euthanasia or in other words killing and letting die. Passive and Active Euthanasia have separate contributions but they can both in specific cases be not only permissible but helpful to a patient. Passive euthanasia is generally more morally permissible than active euthanasia although, under certain circumstances one may view active euthanasia permissibly as well. Although for different reasons John Rachels and Thomas D. Sullivan both conclude that Passive and Active Euthanasia are impermissible. When one thinks of “killing” it is thought of as a definite action taking place that results in death. While in... ... middle of paper ... ...sed to the questions brought forth earlier, some people will argue yes. Those appose to Euthanasia may argue that it is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. Thus, suggesting that the doing or not doing to prolong one’s life somehow shows that you value life less. That is not necessarily true. For euthanasia to even be considered means that the situation as has already reached extremes. As described earlier the majority of the cases that calls for the option of euthanasia leave the ill individual either in pain or in a worsen state of being. Refusing to take the chance of giving an individual a treatment that could possibly cause more damage is in no way showing that one values life any less. Passive euthanasia is actually valuing life to let nature run its course without your interference. Is it not human nature for everyone to at some point die?
According to Gamliel (2012), euthanasia refers to actions or omissions that result in the death of a person who is already gravely ill. Techniques of active euthanasia range fro...
Bibliography:.. Bernard, Neal, Ed. & Co. d. a. a. a. a. a. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone.
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.
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?
“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 American Medical Association (AMA) defines euthanasia in its Code of Ethics as the administration of a lethal agent by another person to a patient with the purpose of relieving the patient's intolerable and incurable suffering (qtd. in Frey). Euthanasia is categorized in two ways; as active or passive, and as either voluntary or involuntary. The first category refers to the means of ending life, and the second refers to the decision-making. Active euthanasia is associated with the merciful death act, while passive euthanasia involves withholding the medical care or not doing something to prevent death. When talking about voluntary euthanasia, is the patient the one that makes the r...
Euthanasia is clearly a mercy for those who suffer immensely through disease. Euthanasia should be an option for those that want it. It is obvious that many will still have objections and many will not make such a choice, but if they so choose, a quick and easy death awaits. I personally am not against euthanasia.
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
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
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.
Euthanasia is one of the most recent and controversial debates today (Brogden, 2001). As per the Canadian Medical Association, euthanasia refers to the process of purposely and intentionally performing an act that is overtly anticipated to end the person’s life (CMA, 1998)
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.
Euthanasia is a medical procedure which speeds up the process of dying for people with incurable, painful, or distressing diseases. The patient’s doctor can stop treatment and instead let them die from their illness. It come from the Greek words for 'good' and 'death', and is also called mercy killing. Euthanasia is illegal in most countries including the UK . If you suffer from an incurable disease, you cannot legally terminate your life. However, in a number of European countries it is possible to go to a clinic which will assist you to die gracefully under some very strict circumstances.
...r of Rights and Freedoms states that, “Everybody has the right to life, liberty, and the security of person.” By allowing euthanasia we are defying those basic rights to life. A persons right to life is now a persons right to die. One study shows that the majority of depressed elderly patients wanted to be euthanized, but no longer wanted to die after they got treatment. Euthanasia will provide death with dignity. A person should die knowing they are loved and their doctor did everything they could to keep them comfortable through the pain. Palliative care is the best for patients that want to die with dignity.