Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Moral and ethical implications of euthanasia
Moral and ethical implications of euthanasia
Controversial topic of euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Euthanasia: Whose Life Is It?
Imagine a body slowly and excruciatingly being broken down by an unseen and uncontrollable invader. Now imagine that there is a law preventing anyone from ending that suffering. Welcome to the argument over euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as "the act or practice of killing out of mercy." Euthanasia technically exists in four categories: active, passive, voluntary, and involuntary. Passive euthanasia is the act of removing all treatments and forms of life support intended to prolong life or cure illness, and allowing the patient to die of natural causes. Active euthanasia consists of an outside force actually causing the death of the patient, or hastening the death with the use of drugs and other tools. When the patient is fully competent and capable of making this life or death decision on his or her own, it is considered voluntary euthanasia. If the decision is made for the patient, due to him or her being rendered incapable of this sentient conclusion, it is labeled as involuntary euthanasia. For the past several decades, this has been a major issue, making its way from activist groups to the Supreme Court. The debate over euthanasia was ignited publicly in 1988 with an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine about an experience in committing active euthanasia. The act of euthanasia, in either passive or active form, is acceptable in only one nation in the world. Even there, in the Netherlands, it is permitted in only certain cases as specified and supervised by the legal system, and has yet to be fully legalized. Euthanasia should be legalized because it is a personal choice.
The argument over euthanasia is complex and multi-faceted; particularly dealing with the responsibility of those involved in the act. Many people, in the argument against euthanasia, claim that if euthanasia were made legal in the United States, physicians would abuse that law. They say that insurance companies would place pressure on the doctors to encourage this choice in their patients to save costs. Another claim is that the physicians may shrug off their responsibility to their patients and choose the quick and easy way out while charging a hefty cost.
In the previous study, the authors stated that there are various studies about the telecommuting include references to corporate attitudes toward telecommuting, motivation, productivity, supervision and employee satisfaction.
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
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
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
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
One area of moral dilemma that requires our attention is regarding euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of ending life in order to relieve pain or suffering caused by a terminal illness. Euthanasia can further be divided into two subcategories active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is the process of deliberately causing a person’s death. In passive euthanasia a person does not take any action and just allows the person to die. In many countries, the thought of euthanasia is morally detestable. However, many doctors find nothing wrong with allowing a terminally ill patient to decide to refuse medication. This decision is a form of passive euthanasia the doctor did not actively cause the patient’s death, but he did nothing to prevent the patient’s death. Failing to act and directly acting is not the same as not being responsible for the consequences of an event.
The debate on whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalized has been a controversial topic. Euthanasia is defined as ‘a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering’ [1]. Voluntary euthanasia refers to the patients who understand the terms in the consent and sign up under consciousness, while involuntary euthanasia is performed against patient's wishes and some people may regard it as a murder [1].
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 ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
Throughout the United States there are over eleven million people working at home at least part-time. In cities such as New York, federal legislation put into effect required a decrease in the amount to commuters that drive the city's streets during rush hour. Forced to make changes, Merrill Lynch decided to give the telecommuting program a try. Merrill Lynch started a program where potential telecommuters working at the firm, go through an extensive training course by taking a two-week stint in a simulation lab where they are isolated from co-workers and managers just as they would at home. Some people find it more productive while others realize that telecommuting is not for them. Most telecommuters will find the job comfortable if they themselves are self-motivated and focused.
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.
GIS is an emerging method of data storage and interpretation. GIS is, simply put a database. It is many tables of data organized by one common denominator, location. The data in a GIS system is organized spatially, or by its physical location on the base map. The information that is stored in the database is the location and attributes that exist in that base map, such as streets, highways, water lines, sewers, manholes, properties, and buildings, etc. each of these items don’t just exist in the database, the attributes associated with the item is also stored. A good example of this would be a specific sewer line, from and arbitrary point A to a point B. Ideally, the sewer line would be represented graphically, with a line connecting the two points or something of the like. When one retrieves the information for that line in particular, the attribute data would be shown. This data would include the size of pipe, the pipe material, the upper invert elevation, the downstream invert elevation, the date installed, and any problem history associated with that line. This is the very gist of what a GIS system is.
The workplace today goes beyond just the walls and ceilings that surround an office environment or office building. According to the International Telework Association and Council, 44.4 million Americans worked from home at least part of the time in 2004, up 7.5% from just on year earlier (Earthweb, 2005). Though it may be very convenient to work from home, the choice can bring its own set of problems. There are financial reasons, efficiencies, and even managing time are just a few to name that bring about many challenges and issues that any remote employee would face in that type of work environment.
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.
What is telecommuting, and why would anyone want to either be employed by or employ others to work from their home? The telecommuting employees are “Salaried employees of an organization replace or modify the commute by working at home or a location closer to home than the regular workplace, generally using ICT to support productivity and communication with the supervisor, co-workers, clients, and other colleagues.” (Hoang, Nickerson, Beckman, & Eng, 2008) and according to studies 47 percent of telecommuting workers report that they are more productive while working from home due to a lessening of stress and increased satisfaction in their career - while their employers glean the benefit of saving 63 percent of the cost of absenteeism and save thousands of dollars annually over traditionally employed workers. (Potter, 2003) While some may say that in order to function properly in a workplace you have to be in the workplace, with minor adjustments in technology on both the employer’s and employee’s part telecommuting has become a proven, viable way for businesses to function profitably while their workforce remains able to reduce the stress of commuting on their personal and family lives.