Argument Against Euthanasia To make things clear from the start, I am against euthanasia, but for the purpose of this assignment, I will be examining an argument from Philippa Foot’s Euthanasia. I would like to argue the issue of physician culpability in active euthanasia versus passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia can be thought of as any immediate action that is carried out in such a way as to terminate a person’s life; this can range from a murderer who shoots a victim on one end, to a doctor who gives a patient a lethal dosage of medicine on the other. Passive euthanasia consists of the non-procurement or removal of any measures that are not designed to either extend a person’s life. Both bring about the person’s death in a “natural” …show more content…
It is not clear what a doctor 's duties are to his patient if life can be prolonged only at the cost of suffering or suffering relieved only by measures that shorten life.” (20) The sentences above this in Foot’s paper explain that firemen’s and bodyguards’ duties consist of logically saving as many lives as possible, however, doctors seem to be short changed in this respect. That being said, a doctor’s duty is to preserve life and relieve suffering to the best of his ability. In my personal opinion, it is paramount for doctors do all in their power to preserve life and to alleviate suffering. If both of these criteria cannot be met, then keeping the patient alive should be the top priority. I strongly agree with Foot that the patient has a right to life, protected under the first amendment; and the right of non-interference. If the decision over euthanasia must be made, be it passive euthanasia or physician assisted suicide, it should never be negatively reflected on the doctor, as long as he acted according to the desire that the patient, or the primary decision maker. For example, someone’s grandfather lies in the hospital, and his family has him sign a DNR, his heart stops, and he is not resuscitated. In my opinion this is not euthanasia, but for this paper, it must defined as passive euthanasia, because there was a chance that he could have been revived. The point where I disagree the most with Foot is about a doctor’s duty: I believe a doctor’s duty is only to administer care, keeping the patient alive and well to their best of his or her ability. In order for a doctor to be certified, he or she must take the Hippocratic Oath, one of the components being, “first do no harm.” I believe it is never a doctor’s right to decide for a patient to live or die. The doctor should always ask the
Euthanasia and assisted suicide is known as a process in which an individual (sick or disabled) engages in an act that leads to his or her own death with the help of physicians or family members to end pain and suffering. There are several other terms used for this process, such as active euthanasia or passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to what is being done to actively end life while passive euthanasia is referred as eliminating a treatment that will prolong a patient’s life, which will eventually lead to death (Levy et al., 2103, p. 402). Euthanasia and assisted suicide pose a significant ethical issue today, and understanding the issue requires examining the different principles, such as the ethical issue, professional code of conduct, strength and limitations, autonomy and informed consent, beneficence and nonmaleficence, distribution, and confidentiality and truthfulness.
Euthanasia is divided into two separate classifications consisting of passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Traditionally, “euthanasia is passive when a physician allows her patient to die, by withholding or withdrawing vital treatment from him…euthanasia is active when a patient's death results from his physician's killing the patient, typically by administering lethal medication” (Varelius, 2016). While active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide share many of the same characteristics, they differ in the role for committing the final act, resulting in the death of the patient. A third party, consisting of either a family member or the physician, is responsible for “pulling-the-plug” in active euthanasia. On the other hand, in physician-assisted suicide, it is ultimately up to the patient to commit the final death-inducing act. Varelius suggests that the separation of passive and active euthanasia can be explained by the involvement that the physician partakes in their patients’ death
The ongoing controversy about Physician assisted suicides is an ongoing battle among physicians, patients and court systems. The question of whether or not individuals have the “right” to choose death over suffering in their final days or hours of life continues to be contested. On one side you have the physicians and the Hippocratic Oath they took to save lives; on the other you have the patients’ right to make life choices, even if that means to choose death to end suffering. The ultimate question “is it ethical for a physician to agree to assisted suicides and is it ethical for a patient to request assisted suicide?
In today’s modern society the use of euthanasia and assisted suicide is a hot button topic. Due to the argumentative nature of this issue many philosophers have created their own ideas on how euthanasia and assisted suicide benefit or harm society. These philosophers such as Brock and Callahan differ in their arguments about euthanasia and assisted suicide. Like almost all the heavily opinionated topics in society there should be limits to the use thus my consensus regarding euthanasia and assisted suicide is that it should be legalized to a certain extent.
Suffering in pain and knowing that there is no hope is a horrible thing to experience as we live. Lying on a hospital bed in misery and grief because of a condition or illness that is hopeless is completely depressing to anyone. Euthanasia is one of the most controversial issues in society due to the difference in people’s point of views about dying. Although the lives of many patients can be saved with the latest breakthroughs in treatments and technology, we are still unable to find treatment for all diseases, and these patients have to go through painful or treatments that have greater risk than benefits only to prolong their life with little or no chance of full recovery. These patients struggle with physical and emotional pain for the reason that they feel like they are worthless because they can’t move or decide rationally. Euthanasia should be an option to certain terminal ill people because it allows them to choose whether they want to die or live a painful life.
The concept of physician-assisted suicide has been a topic of debate since the birth of medicine. Controversy even surrounds its name as the term “suicide” is associated with a form of mental illness and irrational behavior, both of which are to be prevented it if at all possible according to medical obligation (Quill and Greenlaw). Physician assisted death/suicide occurs when a physician provides a medical means of death and instruction to a patient but does not administer the actual cause of death (Lonnquist and Weiss 389-91). This is quite different than the concept of active euthanasia in which a physician directly administers the cause of death. Recognized as far back as the 5th century BCE in the ancient Hippocratic Oath, the origin of this practice cou...
Should euthanasia be allowed or not? It has become a very controversial issue nowadays. Velleman and Hooker have different perspectives on euthanasia, and whether there should be laws permitting voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Although there are well-reasoned arguments on both sides, I would strongly agree with Hooker's argument that there should be a law permitting voluntary euthanasia when it is for the wellbeing of the person and that each individual should be able to make their own decision.
In this article, Dr. Braddock and Dr. Tonelli explain the difference between physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Physician assisted suicide is “Practice in which a physician provides a competent, terminally ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient's request, which the patient intends to use to end his or her own life” (Braddock and Tonelli). The authors then describes that euthanasia is when the physician administers the lethal medication. They write this article with the intent to inform the public about this highly controversial subject. The Dr.’s explain the positive side in assisted suicide as, “Physician aid-in-dying is ethically justifiable” (Braddock and Tonelli). They write that people who are for assisted death are about respect, justice, compassion, individual liberty, and honesty for the sick and dying . The authors then explain that, on the other hand, “Physician assisted suicide is ethically impermissible” (Braddock and Tonelli). They give examples, that could have a negative impact on society, such as, religion, potential for abuse, false diagnosis or prognosis, and how it could been seen as a contradiction to the Hippocratic oath.
Doctors prefer to never have to euthanize a patient. It is a contradiction of everything they have been taught for a doctor to euthanize someone, because a doctor’s job is to do everything in their power to keep the patient alive, not assist them in suicide. The majority of doctors who specialize in palliative care, a field focused on quality of life for patients with severe and terminal illnesses, think legalizing assisted suicide is very unnecessary. This is due to the fact that if patients do not kill themselves, they will end up dying on a ventilator in the hospital under the best possible care available, with people around them trying to keep them as comfortable as possible. Legalized euthanasia everywhere has been compared to going down a slippery slope. Officials believe that it could be done over excessively and the fear of assisted suicide numbers rising greatly is a great fear. This is why euthanasia is such a controversial subject worldwide. But, even though it is a very controversial subject, euthanasia is humane. Every doctor also has a say in whether or not they choose to euthanize a patient or not, leaving only the doctors who are willing to do this type of practice, for euthanizing patients. Medicine and drugs prescribed by a doctor for pain or suffering can not always help a person to the extent they desire, even with the help of doctors
One area of moral dilemma that requires our attention is regarding euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of ending life in order to relieve pain or suffering caused by a terminal illness. Euthanasia can further be divided into two subcategories active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is the process of deliberately causing a person’s death. In passive euthanasia a person does not take any action and just allows the person to die. In many countries, the thought of euthanasia is morally detestable. However, many doctors find nothing wrong with allowing a terminally ill patient to decide to refuse medication. This decision is a form of passive euthanasia the doctor did not actively cause the patient’s death, but he did nothing to prevent the patient’s death. Failing to act and directly acting is not the same as not being responsible for the consequences of an event.
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
“Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.”(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life. These patients are incompetent to decide because they are either minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted when it is against the will of the patient (Gupta, Bhatnagar, Mishra). Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia means life-sustaining treatments are withheld and nothing is done to keep the patient alive. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician do something by giving drugs or substances that ends a patient’s life. (Medical News Today)
...nd want to die.’ “So I killed him, for I knew he couldn’t live.” This is a form of active euthanasia used in the bible.(NLT Bible) (faithfacts.org)
In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die. I plan to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of both active and passive 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