Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The legal implications of euthanasia
Should euthanasia be permissible
Should euthanasia be permissible
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The legal implications of euthanasia
Euthanasia has been a debated topic dating back since ancient times. Euthanasia is the practice of painlessly killing a patient suffering from a terminal or severely painful disease and is also known as assisted suicide. The only difference between assisted suicide and other forms of euthanasia is which person performs the final procedure that kills the patient. Both sides strongly argue if the practice should be allowed or not and both sides do have strong arguments that support them. Currently in the United States, euthanasia is fully legal in the states of California, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington and is legal under court ruling in Montana. Overall with the rapid growth of medical technology, euthanasia shouldn’t be the last resort, …show more content…
Rita Marker, a well known euthanasia opposer and the director of the International Task Force of Euthanasia says that in the Netherlands, euthanasia is considered a medical treatment as long as there are physician that meet the requirements and also with the patient's consent (Marker, "Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide Today" 60). This statement shows that in other countries such as the Netherlands that euthanasia is not only legal but is more commonly practiced than other countries such as the United States and also even called a medical treatment by the physicians and medical staff there. Marker also says that Children in the Netherlands may request euthanasia, if they are between the ages of twelve and sixteen and have their parent’s permission and also are not required to have a age certain age limit or have a terminal illness to qualify for euthanasia (Marker, "Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide Today" 60). In that discovery made by Marker, it shows that qualifying for any type of euthanasia or assisted suicide doesn't have many requirements and almost anyone no matter the age or illness can go through with it easily. Wesley J. Smith an American author and lawyer finds more radical practices in Holland, a coastal region located in the western part …show more content…
Doctors in countries like Netherlands or states like Oregon where euthanasia is allowed must go through a lot because it is legal there. Merja Kuuppelomäki a Finnish health facility administrator talks about what the doctors go through when they are required to help a patient go through with euthanasia. Doctors say “everyone is so focused on the patient when it comes to euthanasia but no one thinks about the physician that has to perform it and what they go through and they may experience guilt by going through with the process and also from other doctors who are apart of their staff (Kuuppelomäki 20).Doctors also have concern for the mental well being of what other doctors have when they are to go through with active euthanasia (Kuuppelomäki 20). Kuuppelomäki conveys that not only the patients but doctors must also face many mental obstacles such as guilt or abuse because they in the bigger picture are going through a lot too because instead of them being on the deathbed their the ones intentionally killing the
Assisted Suicide, also known as mercy killing, occurs when a physician provides the means (drugs or other agents) by which a person can take his or her own life. This assistance is one of the most debated issues today in society followed by abortion. Physicians are frequently faced with the question of whether or not assisted suicide is ethical or immoral. Although assisted suicide is currently illegal in almost all states in America, it is still often committed. Is assisted suicide ethical? Studies have found that the majority of Americans support assisted suicide. One must weigh both sides of the argument before they can decide.
In short, euthanasia asks questions that cannot be answered from the perspective of medicine alone. The inappropriateness between assisting voluntary death and the professional ethos of physicians may mean that physicians should not assist death, except it does not necessarily settle the argument of whether anyone ever should. Acceptance for palliative care seems to be growing, but support of assisted suicide is growing also, because end of life issues are kept in the public eye. Additional empirical analysis of this situation is important. Furthermore, this debate could continue to yield insights into the issues around suffering at the end of life.
Assisted suicide and euthanasia is a controversial issue all over the world, and it leads to debate as to whether or not an individual should be allowed to decide the moment and form of one’s death, along with the
given," which seems to mean that no one has a right to consent to have
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been a hot topic of debate for quite some time now. Some believe it to be immoral, while others see nothing wrong with it what so ever. Regardless what anyone believes, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal for physicians and patients. Death is a personal situation in life. By government not allowing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights! Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the power to save the lives of family members and other ill patients. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal however, there should be strict rules and guidelines to follow and carry out by both the patient and physician. If suicide isn’t a crime why should euthanasia and assisted suicide? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal and the government should not be permitted to interfere with death.
In her paper entitled "Euthanasia," Phillipa Foot notes that euthanasia should be thought of as "inducing or otherwise opting for death for the sake of the one who is to die" (MI, 8). In Moral Matters, Jan Narveson argues, successfully I think, that given moral grounds for suicide, voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable (at least, in principle). Daniel Callahan, on the other hand, in his "When Self-Determination Runs Amok," counters that the traditional pro-(active) euthanasia arguments concerning self-determination, the distinction between killing and allowing to die, and the skepticism about harmful consequences for society, are flawed. I do not think Callahan's reasoning establishes that euthanasia is indeed morally wrong and legally impossible, and I will attempt to show that.
Abstract: Religious or moral beliefs may prevent some of us from seeking the assistance of others to hasten our own death. But should we hold others accountable because of the standards that we choose to live by? With adversaries of assisted-suicide opposing the legalization of such acts, we are forcing our beliefs onto others who prefer peace and comfort at their time of death. As Christians, non-Christians, philosophers, teachers and laypersons, we all share one very key affiliation other than life and death itself. We are born with the "freedom of will", either by the Grace of God, or some other greater force. As such, it appears logical that we have some preconceived right to choose whether or not we aggressively seek death.
Furthermore, people feel that legalizing doctor-assisted suicide will open the floodgates and lead to a slippery slope that will ultimately devalue the worth of human life and lead to doctors pressuring the terminally ill to request assisted suicide. The evidence tells a different story however. One Dutch research article found that those most often requesting suicide were terminal cancer patients (15%) and those who had a terminally progressive neurological disorder (8%) (Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al., 2010). The same article showed that of all the patients these doctors saw, only 7% asked for doctor assisted suicide/euthanasia and around only 2.4% of the patients actually received euthanasia/doctor assisted suicide (Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al., 2010). To be clear, active euthanasia is when a doctor actively does something that will end a patient’s life, like injecting the patient with a lethal dose of poison and passive euthanasia is when the doctor withholds treatment that could potentially save a patient, such as in the case of a do not resuscitate order. Physicians, the study showed are generally very conservative in allowing PAS, as two thirds of those who requested euthanasia/PAS did not receive
Assisted suicide brings a debate that involves professional, legal and ethical issues about the value of the liberty versus the value of life. However, before conceive an opinion about this topic is necessary know deeply its concept. Assisted suicide is known as the act of ending with the life of a terminal illness patients for end with their insupportable pain. Unlike euthanasia, the decision is not made by the doctor and their families, but by the patient. Therefore, doctors should be able to assist the suicide of their patients without being accused of committing a criminal offense. This conception is supported by three points of view. The first point defenses the autonomy of people, which covers the right of people to make decision about their own life. The second point advocates the empathy for our fellow human and their dignity at the end of their life. Lastly, the voice of society which has been giving more support to assisted suicide and euthanasia in the last years.
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
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
Whose life is it, anyway? Euthanasia is a word that means good death. Euthanasia normally implies that the act must be initiated by the person who wishes to commit suicide. But, some people define euthanasia to include both voluntary and involuntary termination of life. Physician assisted suicide is when a physician supplies information and/or the means of committing suicide (lethal dose of sleeping pills or carbon monoxide gas) to a person, so that they can easily terminate their own life.
In “Why Physicians? Reflections on the Netherlands’ New Euthanasia Law,” Welie introduces the audience to the origin of the law and states his opposition to it. The next few paragraphs describe the history of article 40 of the Dutch penal code and how it excused physicians from euthanizing at a time when it was illegal. “Article 40 waives the liability to punishment for anyone who commits a crime while compelled to do so by force majeure, that is, by a psychological or moral force so strong that the perpetrator could not resist it” (Welie 42). Many doctors felt liable in not obeying the law, however, they felt morally wrong in prolonging a particular patients’ suffering. Physicians are faced with the dilemma of whether or not relieving a patient’s suffering is worth the risk of being prosecuted and losing their license to practice medicine.
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.
The practices of physician assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia have long been topics of dispute, despite both being legal in several places throughout the world. In the United States, both Oregon and Washington State currently offer assisted death to certain terminally ill individuals. The Netherlands permits both assisted death and voluntary active euthanasia to individuals faced with unyielding and burdensome suffering. The discussion behind voluntary active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide questions both the legality and rightfulness of each practice in society. Physician assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia should both be widely legalized because they are morally legitimate practices implicit in the concepts