More handpicked essays just for you.
Legal and ethical issues surrounding euthanasia
Legal and ethical issues surrounding euthanasia
Debate against euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Throughout history, there has been an ongoing and crucial debate as to whether or not people have the right to end their lives, and under what conditions they may do so. The euthanasia debate has been quite intense, as it touches upon people’s most fundamental values, and provokes the most passionate of emotions. The mere act of euthanasia represents the gentlest way of terminating a person's life in order to relieve them from their suffering. The phrase itself is derived from the Greek word “euthanatos”, which means good or easy death Allowing terminally ill patients the right to decide where, how, & when their life will end is simply proper end-of-life care. It is literally adding insult to injury when we attach a stigmatizing word such as
The issue at hand is whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized for patients who are terminally ill and/or enduring prolonged suffering. In this debate, the choice of terms is central. The most common term, euthanasia, comes from the Greek words meaning "good death." Sidney Hook calls it "voluntary euthanasia," and Daniel C. Maguire calls it "death by choice," but John Leo calls it "cozy little homicides." Eileen Doyle points out the dangers of a popular term, "quality-of-life." The choice of terms may serve to conceal, or to enhance, the basic fact that euthanasia ends a human life. Different authors choose different terms, depending on which side of the issue they are defending.
Euthanasia, the right to die, death with dignity – no matter what you call it – should be readily available to all humans who wish to die. Euthanasia, as defined by MediLexicon’s medical dictionary, is “a quiet, painless death” or “the intentional putting to death of a person with an incurable or painful disease intended as an act of mercy” (----). There is one absolute certain in life – death. It is one matter that we have no choice in, we will all die. But shouldn’t we have some say in how, when, and where we will die? We are the ones who lived, after all. With the rise of support and advocacy of euthanasia, we might just be able to have some say in our deaths.
Assisted suicide is a very controversial topic. Some people believe it is morally wrong to end someone’s life, while others think that if someone is terminally ill and suffering, they should be given the option to die on their own terms. The Death with Dignity Act is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1997 in Oregon; soon Washington and Vermont followed after, and now California has passed this law but it still has not went into effect. This is a movement that offers patients the right to die with dignity rather than allowing the illness to kill them slowly, and painfully. More specifically it gives them the freedom to an option. It can be from either physician assisted suicide or euthanasia. Although both words are used interchangeably
Death is not a concept that is well grasped or understood but we all know the cycle of life, we live and we die. We do not know how and we do not know when, our fate is laid out for us, we just learn to accept it because it is just how it goes. Some are lucky enough to live a healthy life with few to none complications and some find themselves fighting for their lives because of a terminating illness or severely injured from any type of accident. In an act of pain, torture, agony and knowing there is no hope for survival why can it not be you that has the upper hand in deciding when it is time to say goodbye.
“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”.
Euthanasia, derived from the Greeks words eu and thanatos, literally means a good death (Holt, 2008, pp. 257). The intention of euthanasia is to provide terminally ill patients with the option of dying a dignified death; this is not a curtsey provided by many terminal illnesses, which are often accompanied by debilitating pain which often leave patients unable to care for themselves or participate in their own lives. “Respecting a patient’s autonomy is an important concept in the euthanasia debate.” (Holt, 2008, pp.268) there are two types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive euthanasia is defined as withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment (Collier & Haliburton, 2015, pp.320) and is currently legal in Canada. Active euthanasia entails a deliberate action to end the life of the patient, and can be voluntary, none voluntary, or involuntary. Currently in Canada all forms of voluntary active euthanasia are
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
Physician-assisted suicide is “the voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life.” (medterms.com) Surveys have shown physician-assisted suicide to be gaining more and more support amongst doctors and “up to half of adults believe it should be legal in cases of terminal illnesses.” (Vaugn, Page 597) In a 2000 large survey, Oncologists revealed 22.5% supported the use of physician-assisted suicide for a terminally ill patient with unremitting pain, 6.6% favored active euthanasia in these circumstances, 56.2% had received requests from patients for physician assisted suicide, 38.2% for active euthanasia, 10.8% had performed physician-assisted suicide and 3.7% active euthanasia. (Vaughn, Page 598) Not only have physician-assisted suicide begun gaining more support amongst physicians but also in the public. In a 2007 survey conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs, results have shown that 48% of the public believe it should be legal or doctors to help terminally ill patients end their own life by giving them a prescription of fatal drugs while 44% believe it should be illegal. (Vaughn, Page 603) In the 2007 Gallup Poll, results show 56% of the public believes when a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain, doctors should be allowed to assist the patient to commit suicide if the patients requests it and 38% believe it should not be allowed and 49% of the public believes that physician-assisted suicide is morally acceptable while 44% beli...
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
Euthanasia has been an ongoing debate for many years. Everyone has an opinion on why euthanasia should or should not be allowed but, it is as simple as having the choice to die with dignity. If a patient wishes to end his or her life before a disease takes away their quality of life, then the patient should have the option of euthanasia. Although, American society considers euthanasia to be morally wrong euthanasia should be considered respecting a loved one’s wishes. To understand euthanasia, it is important to know the rights humans have at the end of life, that there are acts of passive euthanasia already in practice, and the beneficial aspects.
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.
to over turn the law. Also Kevin Andrews was strongly not in favour and with
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.
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because