It affirms life and regards death as a normal process, neither hastening nor postponing death, but providing relief from suffering” (“Anti-euthanasia”). With this information, the advocates should focus more on giving patients the correct and sufficient medical care that they need rather than finding a way to end lives from suffering. Euthanasia should not be legalized because the effects will cause much turmoil on both religious and moral standards, and the government should not be given control over the deaths of their citizens, especially when there are different steps that can be taken to prevent this hastened life-ending process. Euthanasia is not solely about a person’s ‘right to die’, but the consequences, evidence, and history described to show how grim euthanasia has and will become.
Moral and Ethical Issues of Euthanasia As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it.
Callahan first goes on to state that euthanasia is different from suicide in that it involves not only the right of a person to self-determination, but the transfer of the right to kill to the acting agent (presumably a physician) as well. This right, however, is temporary and restricted to killing the patient only. It is not clear why this temporary transfer makes euthanasia wrong, for if this is wrong, then letting a patient die (in the case where the patient already has the assistance of life-supporting equipment) is also wrong, if there is no distinction between killing and letting die. So, we must return to this argument after addressing Callahan's claims of a distinction between killing and allowing to die. The argument for the distinction is based on the cause of death.
Therefore, instead of active euthanasia palliative care should be considered since they do help in treatment of pain. Conclusion Active euthanasia should not be justified or legalized drug therapy reduces the pain of a patient and instead of practicing active euthanasia. Palliative care centers are present and they can alleviate pain from a patient rather than ending his or her life. Life is sacred and we all need to protect. Active euthanasia will make medical professions to turn from caregivers to killers; they should protect human life at all cost.
According to Rachels, the major deciding factor in determining the morality of a route of euthanasia is the physician’s intention. Regardless of whether or not the doctor chooses to pursue the active or passive route, the intention to perform euthanasia in order to prevent any more futile pain for an already dying patient remains constant. Therefore, if one accepts that euthanasia is morally permissible, one cannot say to a doctor who intends to perform such a procedure that he is a better or worse person morally for choosing one route over the other. Several objections can be raised to this point of view such as the fact that the passive case is to be encouraged because actively euthanizing a person would be easily likened to murder while the passive
According to James Rachels, “both passive and active euthanasia are permissible.” (Luper and Brown, p.347). He gives a doctrine from American Medical Association quoting,” mercy killing is contrary to which the medical professional stands” (Luper and Brown, p. 347). He makes arguments against the doctrine as to why it would be rejected. One, a physician should let the patient end his life if he wants to so that the patient does not have to endure the suffering. However, Rachels says in that situation it’s better for the physician to kill the patient, rather than letting one die because using lethal injections can be painless and quick, whereas, letting one die can be a slow and painful process (Luper and Brown, p. 348).
It allows for a highly questionable distinction between killing and letting die, which, if accepted, lead to indefensible medical decisions. Sullivan chooses to focus on the integrity of the Doctrine. The AMA Doctrine delivers the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary care. Ordinary care is obtained without excessive expense, pain or other inconvenience, while, extraordinary care is all treatment that does not fall under ordinary care and attempts to prolong the life of a terminally ill patient. The Doctrine can be considered a simple prohibition of murder, ensuring that doctors do not without ordinary care, because doing so would be considered killing.
Should terminally ill patients have the right to a physician-assisted suicide simply to protect their civil liberties? Or is this option just a devised method opposing the purpose of doctors and physicians and the morals of civilization playing the role of a scapegoat and devaluing human life? Although on the surface, physician-assisted suicide for patients in critical condition appears to be a plausible remedy, when further inspected, a practical perspective arises saying this so-called final solution is morally and ethically wrong considering the responsibility of medics, society, and law makers. Doctors’ and physicians’ technical ambition is purely to treat patients that they encounter. This common knowledge contributes to the obvious position that stands against physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia.
The prohibition against taking human life is based on fundamental and deeply held ethical and religious convictions. In this essay I will discuss the options available for the doctors, and whether they are able to stop the treatment of Sadia, and if so, the ethical issues will arise as a result of this. "Dying is an integral part of living... the right to die with dignity should be as well protected as is any other aspect of the right to life. State prohibitions that would force a dreadful, painful death on a rational but incapacitated terminally ill patient are an affront to human dignity." In addition to this, choosing the manner of death could be included as an aspect of right to life but interests of the state and society will justify interference with it, as seen in the case of Pretty v UK.
Some argue that "patients whose illnesses cause them unbearable suffering should be permitted to end their distress by having a physician perform euthanasia"(Singer and Seigler p.381), while others on the same side argue that the decision to turn toward euthanasia is one's own; that "the well-recognized right of patients to control their medical treatment includes the right to request and receive euthanasia" (Singer and Seigler,381). These two claims are based on the rights of the individual but must be "balanced against the legal, political, and religious prohibitions against killing that have always existed in society generally and in medicine particularly" (Singer and Seigler,382). Euthanasia should be illegal because it creates too many risks and is morally wrong. Four of the main risks euthanasia would bring about if it were legalized fall under what experts call "involuntary euthanasia." The first one is "crypthanasia."