The question of euthanasia is one that has plagued the human sense of morale for centuries. With modern medical technology it becomes even more pressing. I will cover three aspects of Euthanasia including three principles for, three principles against, and my own conclusion as to why Euthanasia is morally justified.
There are two different types of euthanasia: active and passive. Passive euthanasia involves withholding medical treatment from a patient whose chances for surviving are nonexistent. This method mostly applies to a patient who is living of a machine. In order to stop the person's suffering the family decides to remove life support equipment. Another example that would be considered to be passive euthanasia is stopping medications. In other words passive euthanasia allows nature to take its course. This is the most popular form of euthanasia because it is legal.
Amelia Chromy Mr. Edmund English 4-Period 4 March 31, 2014 The Value of Life Euthanasia, the intentional and direct killing of a patient by a physician or another party, most commonly done by useful lethal injections. Originally done to compassionately end pain or suffering. Imagine society where people live in constant fear for their lives. They would never live life to the fullest, or know what was coming in their future.
Euthanasia is the act of painlessly killing a patient whom is suffering from an incurable and agonising disease, or in an irreparable coma, which is essentially know as a method of ending a life to relive unstoppable suffering of a patient (Nordqvist, 2015). The two main categories of euthanasia are voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is the act of allowing the patient to choose if he or she wants to end their life, while involuntary euthanasia is where the procedure is conducted without consent of the patient, where a family member makes the decision, as the patient is incapable of doing so. There are also two main classifications of euthanasia: passive and active. Active is the treatment that directly causes a death, while passive is intentionally withholding
Euthanasia has been a major controversy throughout the years. Euthanasia is basically a painless way for a person to terminates his or her life while going through incurable and painful disease or in comas. Through years, states have been going back and forth to decide whether the patients going through these painful disease, should have the right to decide to end their life or shouldn’t be able to decide at all. During these debates about the topic only three states out of the whole country have made it possible to legalized euthanasia such as: Oregon, Washington, and Montana. In my opinion, I am against this process of people having the chance to end their life and having others the permission to do so such as, doctors or family.
The voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral. It is morally right for a person to seek euthanasia because it is their freedom or autonomy to control their own lives. It ends the suffering of the patient without harming other people. Furthermore, it prevents the person to suffer by giving him/her lethal injection or medication that prevents a person to die slowly with pain. On the other hand, the arguments against euthanasia are not sound. A thorough assessment will protect patient who request euthanasia for the benefits of others. A patient who seek for euthanasia does not use him/herself as means, but as ends to respect his/her own humanity. Furthermore, God as a benevolent will not allow a person to suffer which endorse the purpose of euthanasia – to end suffering. Therefore, voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized in the United States.
The practice of euthanasia has many names: “mercy killing”, “assisted suicide”, or “physician assisted suicide,”and according to Medina, euthanasia is defined as purposefully killing or allowing the death of terminally sick or injured person with the idea or goal of relieving their pain and suffering(Medina).
Merriam-Webster defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” As a globally issues, euthanasia is always in controversial. Swanton,D argued that euthanasia protects the rights of individuals and the freedom of religious expression. Additionally, Sydeny,D outlines europe’s increasing acceptance of euthanasia which may mean that euthanasia is a preferable choice for people. Conversely, Fagerlin, A PhD from University of Michigan Medical School and Carl E. Schneider, JD from University of Michigan Law School suggest the great distortion of living wills if euthanasia is allowed. What is
Euthanasia was an idea created in the mid 1800’s, when John Warren recommended the used of chloroform to hasten death and take away pain. By definition, it means good death. Even if a death was brought upon out of mercy from a physician, but nothing good didn’t came from it, it’s not consider to be euthanasia. The greater good and the lesser evil can be interpreted in different way, and what is the value in life and it’s relation to the definition of death can also vary. Consequently, countless debates and cases emerged, where the decision to whether or not kill the patient was situated. Who get to decide and is it morally permissible in the first place. This problem emerges from each individuals’ value on life and how they perceive death. People can perceived death as an ending to a suffering, and denying that choice is inhumane, or they can perceived it as an end to self, and you can’t just kill yourself because its convenience. There are a lot of grey areas that emerged from this debate, but a deep look inside the debate. We can see that how our personal belief on life and death dictate our opinion. The debates on euthanasia, an important issue that can govern the relationship between hospital and the community, are separated into two sections, one for and one against, both sided used their individual interpretation of life to argued their opinion on the debate and when taking a closer look, we can see how the view in death dictate their opinion on the issue and how that affect the laws implemented by their government.
Our modern day society has been recurrently challenged on many topics that have been deemed as “moralistically impacting.” It is accepted today that a problem cannot be solved in modern day society unless adequate proof is offered to manipulate the stalwart beliefs of many individuals in a way as to reach an impasse amongst two opposing parties. Euthanasia happens to be a topic that has been debated extensively for the larger part of the twenty-first century (Larue). Even the definition of euthanasia evokes mixed emotions: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy (Merriam-Webster). The struggle over whether euthanasia should be accepted as a common practice is majorly stimulated by multiple cultures that tend to consider how many of their viewpoints come into question when determining where they stand on the issue (Larue). Either way, both parties cannot argue with the obvious actuality that an individual that adopts the option of “opting out” dies indefinitely. The burden and conviction associated with taking one’s life is often too much for an individual to take. Under closer observation, euthanasia has three main issues that cause it to be more detrimental than beneficial. Problems with euthanasia include its violation of ethics, its disagreement with the law system, and the moralistic and religious values that conflict with its practice (Larue).