Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical implications of euthanasia
Ethical implications of euthanasia
Abstract for assisted suicide
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical implications of euthanasia
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide
There has been much debate over euthanasia and assisted suicide with
no agreement in sight. Currently Oregon is the only state that allows
euthanasia and assisted suicide in the United States. Like all
questions involving the projection of personal beliefs upon the fate
of an entire population, this is an issue that may never be resolved.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are methods people may take to end
their lives either on their own with lethal prescriptions from
physicians, or under the care of a doctor or assistant with various
methods, lethal injection and the "pulling of the plug" on life
support machines being the most common. An assisted suicide would be
granted only to a person "who is terminally ill, and who feels that
their life is not worth living because of intractable pain, and/or
loss of dignity, and/or loss of capability and who repeatedly and
actively asks for help in committing suicide and who is of sound mind
and not suffering from depression". [Robinson]
Conservative religious groups, and some medical associations and
disability groups are the most common protesters of assisted suicide.
Many fundamentalist religions believe that it violates the natural
desire to live, it harms other people, and ultimately, that life is a
gift from God and should only be taken by God. [Robinson] Some
disability groups fear that assisted suicide may lead to more cases of
people being killed against their will in order to fulfill society's
desire for a disability-free population. Medical associations often
disagree because their goals are often to extend and prolong life as
long as possible. Th...
... middle of paper ...
...g. To rule out the
option completely is taking away a personal human right.
As with most ethical squabbles, the debate over legal euthanasia is a
personal one. The desire is strong, in government and religion, to
decide the fate of it's people based on individual position. It seems
that personal choice is the only resolution to the debate over
euthanasia. Those opposed to assisted suicide would not choose to have
one and would respect the choice of others to live or end their lives
as they so choose. Assisted death is not something to be taken lightly
or to be used often. Strict laws to govern the use are necessary. In
conclusion, a quote by Derek Humphrey, a euthanasia advocate,
describes the necessary conditions for euthanasia. He said,
"Euthanasia should always be voluntary, justified, legal, and rare."
[Gray]
Currently, Oregon is the only state that has legalized assisted suicide. The Oregon statute, which came into e...
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.
Physician-assisted suicide is legal in three of the fifty states in America: Oregon, Montana, and Washington. Getting approval for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon is a long process with many guidelines and restrictions. The patient must be terminally ill, with little hope for treatment and less than six months to live. It is required that they are a resident of Oregon, and at least 18 years of age. They must also be able to communicate their own wishes. Once the initial decision is made by the patient, he or she must make two oral requests for a prescription of lethal drugs to their attending physician, or the doctor that has initial care of that patient. These two requests should be made no less than 15 days apart, and a the patient must sign a written request in the presence of at least two witnesses. Once the forms are signed, the attending physician, as well as another consulting physician, will review the patient’s case and verify the diagnosis and prognosis. If either of the two physicians believes the patient is being influenced by a psychological or psychiatric disease, they must refer the patient for a psychological examination. If the patient is declared mentally fit to make this decision, the attending physician has an obligation to offer alternatives to the Death with Dignity Act, including hospice care, comfort, and pain management. Should the patient decide to proceed with physician-assisted suicide, the attending physician is required to recommend that the patient notify their next-of-kin of their request for lethal drugs, although it is not required (Oregon 1).
didn't want to wake me. Then he would begin to howl, like a dog. When
Today's society is now introduced to one of the most controversial issues; assisted suicide. Just like in other controversial arguments, there are many people that feel that it is wrong for people to ask their healthcare provider to end one's life; while others feel that if the person is terminally ill and has given their will to die, that they can be assisted in suicide. Though both sides are reasonable many people believe that people should not take part in helping someone take their own life, assisted suicide should be legal because, it plays a factor of conquering one’s feelings, gives an option to those whom are terminally ill or in immense pain, and every human
The Oxford English Dictionary defines euthanasia as “the action of inducing a gentle and easy death” (Oxford English Dictionary). Many people around the world would like nothing more than to end their lives because they are suffering from painful and lethal diseases; suffering people desperately seek doctors to help them end their lives. Many people see euthanasia as murder, so euthanasia is illegal in many countries. Euthanasia is an extremely controversial issue that has many complex factors behind it including medical costs, murder and liberty rights. Should people have the rights to seek euthanasia from doctors who are well trained in dealing with euthanasia?
Although society has a strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when a person is terminally ill and has a strong desire to end life. Lastly, legalization of assisted suicide would promote open discussion. These arguments make it hard to go along with the arguments against assisted suicide. Religious believers feel that we should trust the medical experts to
Smith, Cheryl. "Should Active Euthanasia Be Legalized: Yes." American Bar Association Journal April 1993. Rpt. in CQ Researcher 5.1 (1995): 409.
The topic of euthanasia and assisted suicide is very controversial. People who support euthanasia say that it is someone 's right to end their own life in the case of a terminal illness. Those in favor of this right consider the quality of life of the people suffering and say it is their life and, therefore, it is their decision. The people against euthanasia argue that the laws are in place to protect people from corrupt doctors. Some of the people who disagree with assisted suicide come from a religious background and say that it is against God’s plan to end one 's life. In between these two extreme beliefs there are some people who support assisted suicide to a certain degree and some people who agree on certain terms and not on others.
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.
Assisted suicide brings up one of the biggest moral debates currently circulating in America. Physician assisted suicide allows a patient to be informed, including counseling about and prescribing lethal doses of drugs, and allowed to decide, with the help of a doctor, to commit suicide. There are so many questions about assisted suicide and no clear answers. Should assisted suicide be allowed only for the terminally ill, or for everyone? What does it actually mean to assist in a suicide? What will the consequences of legalizing assisted suicide be? What protection will there be to protect innocent people? Is it (morally) right or wrong? Those who are considered “pro-death”, believe that being able to choose how one dies is one’s own right.
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 very controversial topic in the world today. Euthanasia, by definition, is the act of killing someone painlessly ,especially someone suffering from an incurable illness. Many people find euthanasia morally wrong, but others find people have control over thier own bodies and have a right to die. A solution to this problem is to have the patient consent to euthansia and have legal documentation of the consent.
Euthanasia, according to the dictionary, means the killing of a person who is suffering from an incurable disease. Lately, it had been a huge debate over whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. Personally, I believe that euthanasia should be legalized if it is voluntary. I have three reasons for my argument.