Life branches into many subjects that can be discussed and criticized thoroughly. One of the most complicated and broad branches is ethics and human rights. As life proceeds, people are getting more aware of their rights and whether they are practicing them in an ethical way or not. We might think that it’s our right to live and end our life any time we want. But is it ethical to do so? Here comes the idea of euthanasia – mercy killing- that permits the ending of a person’s life that is suffering to death. Euthanasia exists in two types: active euthanasia, which is the administration of a lethal drug by the physician to kill the suffering patient, and passive euthanasia that includes the removal of the probes and devices that are connected to the patient to allow his death. (Mclnerney, 175) Euthanasia became a highlighted ethical topic in medical science specifically and in the society generally due to the progress of medicine accompanied by technology that gave birth to devices and techniques that promote an artificial prolonged life that can convey suffering at one hand, and expensive costs for some families on the other hand. A person suffering from a certain severe disease might think that ending his life is better than living in torture. But is this a right thing to do? Euthanasia is the easy way, but not the right way. Euthanasia is a controversial topic that carries different opinions and points of views within it. These views can be classified as with or against. Proponents of euthanasia argue that euthanasia is the mercy act for suffering and dying patients rather than prolonging their misery. As life is a right, so does its ending. So it’s the patient’s right to end his life after balancing the benefits to live with t... ... middle of paper ... ...n Indian Perspective.” Indian Journal Of Psychiatry 54.2 (2012): 177-183. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2014. Retreated from: http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.aub.edu.lb/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=79274857&site=ehost-live * Smith, Wesley J. “Medical Murder.” First Things: A Monthly Journal Of Religion & Public Life 233 (2013): 39-44. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Apr. 2014. Retreated from: http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.aub.edu.lb/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=86895257&site=ehost-live * Tollefsen, Christopher. "Mind The Gap: Charting The Distance Between Christian And Secular Bioethics." Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies In Medical Morality 17.1 (2011): 47-53. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2014. Retreated from: http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.aub.edu.lb/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=61048037&site=ehost-live
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
The cultural connotations of euthanasia involve a speedy and merciful death done for the benefit of the person being euthanized. Many associate the term with phrases like “mercy killing” implying that it is for the benefit of the subject and not to their detriment, furthermore this phrase suggests that the act of euthanasia itself is an act of charity. In her paper Euthanasia Phillipa Foot sets out to discuss the major philosophical implications associated with the act of euthanasia and whether or not they can be morally justified in certain circumstances, and goes on to discuss the tremendous societal impact of a fully legalized and widely accepted practice of euthanasia. She first begins by addressing the commonly held definition of euthanasia,
Conclusion In recent years euthanasia has become a very contentious topic. The Greek means easy death, yet the controversy surrounding it is just the opposite. Whether the issue is refusing to prolong life mechanically, assisting suicide or active euthanasia, we eventually have to confront societies’ fears towards death itself. Above all culture cultivates fear against ageing, death, and dying, and it is not easy for people to except that it is an inevitable part of life. However, the issues that surround euthanasia are not only about death and dying but are also about rights, liberty, privacy and control over one’s body. So the question remains: who has the right?
...d to a person’s suffering. People from all over the world have completely different opinions about assisted suicide. Many people believe that euthanasia is a very effective way of ending a person’s grief. Many people are fighting against the law. The law against assisted suicide is unjust and should be illuminated. The government should have no say in whether a person’s heart stops beating because of their agony. Euthanasia should be up to the sick individual and the government’s decision to place a law should be withdrawn. But euthanasia has to be done in an ethical manner and humanely. Restrictions should be placed around euthanasia and should be done in a very delicate and specific way. It should be understood that euthanasia should only be used under extreme circumstances and to ease a person’s pain. A person’s torturous life can easily come to a gentle close.
Euthanasia is one of the most complicated issues in the medical field due to the debate of whether or not it is morally right. Today, the lives of many patients can be saved with the latest discoveries in medicine and technology. But we are still unable to find cures to all illnesses, and patients have to go through extremely painful treatments only to live a little bit longer. These patients struggle with physical and psychological pain. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. discusses the topic of just and unjust laws in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” which brings into question whether it is just to kill a patient who is suffering or unjust to take that person’s life even if that person is suffering. In my opinion people should have the right, with certain restrictions, to end their lives in the way they see fit if they are suffering from endless pain.
The fear associated with death is powerful, but even more so is the fear of living an unfulfilling life full of pointless suffering. This spurs the belief for those in such situations that we as bodied people have the power to control our fate. Many movements involved with Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) have started internationally with that phrase in mind. Euthanasia is defined as, “The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease, or is in an irreversible coma.” Christopher Docker defines PAS as, " ... the provision by a doctor, consciously and legally, to a patient who has completely requested it, of the means for that patient to end his or her own life." (Docker 8) These groups focus on the question of why should we endure untreatable suffering, especially when modern technology does nothing to alleviate the pain. Terminally ill patients should have the right to choose a merciful release.
In review, euthanasia is performed when the pain is too much for the patient. It is, overall, the patient’s life—their right and their choice. Everyone deserves to die compassionately, knowing that they will slip away painlessly. Everyone deserves to have a choice, especially when it comes to the manner of their death. If euthanasia is not legalized, many people will debilitating illnesses may take their lives in much more horrific ways. If they want the suffering to end badly enough, it is simply done one way or
Euthanasia has been a very polemic subject in American society. Its objective is to conclude the life of a person at their own request, a family member, or by the determination of a health care professional to avoid unnecessary suffering. There is a lot of moral and ethics involved in euthanasia, exist a big difference between provoke death and allow death. The first one rejects life, the second one accepts its natural end. Every single intentional act of provoke the death of a person without consent is opposed to ethics and is punishable by law. One of the biggest moral controversies in the XXI century is the fact that some people agree in the autonomy humans have to determine the moment of death. The moral and legal implications are huge and the practical benefits are also enormous. This is a touchy and controversial issue and my goal on writing this paper is to remain on favor of euthanasia. I will elaborate later on my reasons to believe and support euthanasia, but first let’s examine the historical perspective of this moral issue.
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.
Euthanasia is a sensitive topic and its sensitivity brings the world to a division. The two sides are those who support the issue and those who are not in favour. The side that supports the idea can argue that...
The world is full of people, some of which are suffering every day from pain. Even with the advancements that have been made with medicine, it’s not enough to cure many diseases or to heal a person’s pain. Euthanasia is commonly referred to as a “mercy killing”. It is the intentional act of putting a person to death quietly and painlessly who has an incurable or painful disease, it is intended to be an act of mercy. According to (ANA, 2013), Euthanasia is the act of putting to death someone suffering from a painful and prolonged illness or injury.
Because passive euthanasia is accepted by the American Medical Association in cases where it is clear the patient has no reasonable hope of living without the aid of a machine, passive euthanasia is not as controversial as active euthanasia. This paper will focus on the controversial morality issues regarding active voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the ending of a persons life by lethal injection with or without the patients consent. Unless oth...
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.
Among other moral issues, euthanasia emerged with modern medical advancement, which allows us ever more control over not only our life but also death. Euthanasia is an especially sensitive issue because it deals with the death and the killing of a person. In this paper, I argue that euthanasia is wrong by responding to the claims implied in other terms which euthanasia is expressed exchangeably and understood by and large; ‘mercy killing’, ‘dying with dignity’, ‘good death’, and ‘doctor assisted suicide’.
Euthanasia is a word that comes from ancient Greece and it refers to “good death”. In the modern societies euthanasia is defined as taking away people’s lives who suffer from an incurable disease. They usually go through this process by painlessness ways to avoid the greatest pains that occurs from the disease. A huge number of countries in the World are against euthanasia and any specific type of it. One of the most important things being discussed nowadays is whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. This essay will focus on comparing positive and negative aspects of euthanasia in order to answer to the question whether euthanasia should be legal or not.