The family of the person being euthanized may not want their family members in pain – to suffer. It can be a family duty to do the right thing for the person and society. Depression, family conflict, feelings of abandonment, and hopelessness, are emotional burdens on family members seeing a person suffer. Committing euthanasia may be the humane act to do for the afflicted family member in this case. The euthanized person may even be of use to society in a utilitarian manner, if his/her bodily organs are to promote the welfare of others, one life saves the lives of others.
Euthanasia is very controversial in the sense, many argued that it is assisted suicide and could be a cover for outright murder. Others have also argue that, in hastening the dying process of a patient is not apparently the way to relieve suffering. In contrast, regardless of a patient’s medical condition, euthanasia is against medical ethics, is against most religions, and it is not the ultimate answer to end suffering patients. Physicians and doctors have a code of ethics that’s guide their practices. Euthanasia is a direct violation of the medical oath which states that Physician-assisted suicide, like eu... ... middle of paper ... ...during the time of a terminal illness that people have a unique opportunity to reflect on the way they have lived their lives, to make amends for wrongs done, to provide for the future security of loved ones and to prepare mentally and spiritually for their own death.
On the other end, such assistance, or methods, are considered as a form of murder. As a “mercy killing”, people often inaccurately voice that human euthanasia is in a patient's best interests, disregarding the threats of: the slippery slope effect, no regulatory system, and sanctity of life infringement. A frequent argument against the legalization of human euthanasia is that it will begin a slippery slope towards involuntary (euthanizing of a patient without his or her consent) and non-voluntary (euthanizing of a patient not capable of giving consent) euthanasia . Society is only looking to legalize voluntary euthanasia, but the doors will open to non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, two methods of death that could easily be written off as murder. The slippery slope argument claims that if an action, such as euthanasia, were to be permitted, then society will be led down the slippery slope, or be permitting other actions that are morally wrong, “in general form, it means that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted” (“Anti-euthanasia”).
In most cases, passive euthanasia is permitted but whether or not active euthanasia should be allowed creates a major controversy. (Rachel,452) The question, should a person be allowed to end their life through active euthanasia when they are terminally ill and the pain of dying is unbearable, seems easy enough to answer. Many sound arguments and well presented cases refuting euthanasia, however, have proved it to be ethically, morally, and legally wrong. The pro-euthanasia case is based on two main claims. 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).
And who has the right to deny a person a peaceful ending to their life and stop the suffering permanently? Euthanasia is a very controversial topic and those in favour argue that it’s the patients choice what they do with their life in cases of terminal illnesses the death is inevitable so what is the point in prolonging the process? Others argue that Voluntary euthanasia will eventually lead to involuntary euthanasia and the termination of people deemed as undesirable. A strong ethical argument against the use of euthanasia is that, Lord Walton, chairman of a House of Lords committee looking into euthanasia says: “We concluded that it was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused.” Since involuntary euthanasia is indistinguishable from murder it will be hard to identify and regulate murder cases as they can be passed off as involuntary euthanasia leading to the severity of murder as a crime being mediocre since people can escape the consequence using euthanasia. There is also concern that doctors are bestowed with too much power and... ... middle of paper ... ... used in other situations other than terminal illness is old age and being able to die with dignity before they are unable to go through with simple tasks such as going toilet alone, this is usually they don’t burden their families and retain pride.
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.
Euthanasia is a premeditated action attempted by a health expert with the objective of ending one 's life to alleviate agony. Voluntary euthanasia is when a terminally ill patient assents to end their life, whereas involuntary euthanasia takes place when a suffering individual does not consent nor request to end their life. These patients are incompetent to choose in light of the fact that they are either a minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions. The imperative issue with euthanasia is the fact that it manages the deliberate closure of a life. The tension with euthanasia lies between the ethical obligation to diminish suffering, especially in terminally ill patients who settle on a cognizant choice to end their life, and the forbidding against association by doctors and other health experts in the ending of a life.
The types of euthanasia are active, passive, voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary, and indirect. Active Euthanasia is when a person directly and deliberately causes the patient’s death while passive euthanasia is when a person does not directly take the person’s life but allows death to happen. Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient requests to end his or her life while non voluntary euthanasia is when the person that will die does not make the decision but a appropriate person makes the decision on their behalf. Involuntary euthanasia is when a perso... ... middle of paper ... ...anasia and physician assisted suicide as morally wrong while proponents argue that it allows a person to die with dignity. My personal belief is that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are almost always immoral.
Sincerely this way for looking for a non suffering death is very inhumane. Euthanasia is a very non-ethical especially for the physicians who have to medicate this and watch this happen to their patients. How would you feel watching people die more and more quickly each day because of this drug? It must be heartbreaking especially if you studied to try to save people’s lives. We should try to fix a problem instead of creating new ones with euthanasia.
Euthanasia, a sensitive and delicate subject. The termination of someone who is very sick to relieve them of the suffering of their disease is a great moral dilemma. The debate on the ethics of Euthanasia can incite strong emotions on both sides of the argument, those who support the idea and those who oppose the idea with great dislike. I happen to believe that euthanasia or assisted suicide is not as morally wrong as some people make it out to be. Does an individual on his deathbed not have the right to die with dignity and no pain?