If a patient is not seen to recover at any stage and, after all treatment possible, still remains incurable, then they should have the choice of euthanasia. Euthanasia would be a blessing to the critically ill patients and their families. However, under the above conditions I still can see where much abuse could occur resulting in euthanasia being seen as inhumane. If a patient who was depressed due to a feeling of pressure from home/friends/family the individual s choice for euthanasia would not be rational because there are treatments available to help deal with depression such as regular visits to a psychiatrist or the anti-depressants available from a medical practitioner. People must consider that euthanasia must be reasoned and not used as a temporary pain relief of something easily cured, but still what must be considered is what influence their can be on an individuals choice, example; pressure from family or feeling a burden.
Voluntary euthanasia is the act of ending the life of the patent with competent consent. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted without consent of the patient due to the loss of competence. In addition, there are two procedural types of euthanasia. Passive involves the withholding of life staining treatments to quicken death. Including halting of medications, the removal of respiratory mechanisms, and the discontinuation of food and water.
Most people believe in quality of life over quantity so with the availability of euthanasia people can dictate their lives and have the dignity of a chosen death. To deny an individual of the dignity of a chosen death, they are forced against their will to live out the rest of their life in agony and discomfort. Diaconescu (2012) believes that the law should not restrict individuals from their choice to preserve their quality of life in their own way. If an individual feels that dignity is unattainable due to the progression of a terminal illness, then taking recourse though assisted dying should to be a legitimate option. Keown (2002) comments that the main hindrance to the allowing of euthanasia has proved to be the objection that, even if they were morally acceptable in certain 'hard cases ', voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide could not be effectively controlled; society would slide down a 'slippery slope ' to the killing of patients who did not make a free and informed request, or for whom palliative care would have offered an alternative.
Euthanasia can also be defined as any killing carried out by medical means or by medical personnel; whether intended for the termination of suffering or indignity of a life not worth living. A standard definition of euthanasia is the intentional putting to death of a person with an incurable or painful disease. No matter how the term is defined, it is intentional suicide and it is wrong (Keown75). When terminally ill patients are considering euthanasia, common questions arise such as: Whose right is it anyway? What do those rights entail?
Sue Rodriquez had said “If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?” (Rodriquez, 1991) Rodriguez to answer her question, according to the Canadian Criminal Code, the government does. Although suicide is legal, seeking the help to perform assisted-suicide is illegal. As seen in s241 “anyone who (a) counsels a person to commit suicide, or(b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) Not only does this law control a personal decision, it discriminates against the vulnerable that do not have the means to end their lives. The law s... ... middle of paper ... ...governmental and religious bodies.
Murder or Mercy: The Morality of Voluntary, Active Euthanasia 1596 words without Works Cited Euthanasia is defined as the act or practice of killing or allowing someone to die in order to prevent further suffering. Some view this act as granting mercy by taking away the pain and allowing a person to die, others believe that this is murder. This practice is considered illegal in forty-six states, which leaves only four states that have passed laws allowing euthanasia to occur under the right circumstances. Active euthanasia is considered a very controversial topic because terminally ill patients believe they should have the right to decide when to end their lives but ethicists and lawmakers say otherwise. In the eyes of Ethics, voluntary euthanasia is still considered murder.
The idea of expediting the death of another is acknowledged, but not widely accepted throughout western civilization. However, in recent times, advancements in science and technology are helping to rewrite certain ethics concerning the life of another. Certain places, a few states within the United States, have deemed passive euthanasia ethical but leave physician assisted suicide and active euthanasia hanging in the balance because of disputes of whether or not doctors are violating their most important ethical code of conduct, that is to "Do no harm." The patient is the person most affected by the decision to end their life. The ultimate decision comes to the patient, however the patient's cognitive capabilities may be compromised, in the event of a terminally ill patient or if the patient is in a persistent vegetative state (BMJ Group).
This shows that people understand and sympathize with the pain a loved one can feel. It is for the reasons above that I believe that euthanasia should be legalized under the premise that the patient must have terrible quality of life and be suffering from a terminal illness and that a physician will administer the injection under the direction of two other physicians as to stop the possibility of misdiagnoses. I also believe that a person who has been in a coma or on life support but still has no chance of survival also have the right to euthanasia. Euthanasia is a hotly debated topic as it can make someone questions their deepest belief into what they believe is the meaning of living.
The applied moral issue of euthanasia, or mercy killing, concerns whether it is morally acceptable for a third party, such as a physician, to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in intense pain. I will go further into the facts of this in my paper. The euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die. Staunch defenders of personal liberty argue that all of us are morally entitled to end our lives when we see fit. Thus, according to these people, suicide is in principle morally permissible.
I believe that either a terminally ill person or a severely handicapped one should have the right to decide if they wish to live or to die. I think this right is one that should be able to be chosen by any human being provided they are of sound mind and know exactly what they are asking for, and any consequences that may come with their decision. Euthanasia is a very controversial subject circumscribing society’s morals values and beliefs. I think that these people have the right to choose to live or die, that statement being factual for the majority of people but for a large quantity of terminally ill patients and the permanently disabled this right cannot be put into practice. Vast amounts of these people lose complete use of their limbs or in fact lose the limbs entirely rendering them completely dependent.