The applied ethical issue of euthanasia, or mercy killing, concerns whether it is morally permissible for a third party, such as a physician, to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in intense pain. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words eu (‘well’) and thanatos (‘death’). It means a painless and gentle death. But in modern usage, it has come to imply that someone’s life is ended for compassionate reasons by some passive or active steps taken by another person. 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, euthanasia is in principle morally permissible. Two additional concepts are relevant to the discussion of euthanasia. First, voluntary euthanasia refers to mercy killing that takes place with the explicit and voluntary consent of the patient, either verbally or in a written document such as a living will. Second, non-voluntary euthanasia refers to the mercy killing of a patient who is unconscious, comatose, or otherwise unable to explicitly make his intentions known. (Downing 1969) In these cases it is often family members who make the request. It is important not to confuse non-voluntary mercy killing with involuntary mercy killing. The latter would be done against the wishes of the patient and would clearly count as murder.
The practice of euthanasia has many names: “mercy killing”, “assisted suicide”, or “physician assisted suicide,”and according to Medina, euthanasia is defined as purposefully killing or allowing the death of terminally sick or injured person with the idea or goal of relieving their pain and suffering(Medina).
Euthanasia is the process of killing a patient with the intention of relieving their suffering and pain. It is also commonly known as mercy killing, and many often do not agree with it most especially in cases where a terminal illness is not inclusive. While euthanasia has been legalized in certain states in the United States such as Oregon, a lot of opposition has arisen as to whom so legible to receiving this treatment.
There are two different types of euthanasia: active and passive. Passive euthanasia involves withholding medical treatment from a patient whose chances for surviving are nonexistent. This method mostly applies to a patient who is living of a machine. In order to stop the person's suffering the family decides to remove life support equipment. Another example that would be considered to be passive euthanasia is stopping medications. In other words passive euthanasia allows nature to take its course. This is the most popular form of euthanasia because it is legal.
* Passive, indirect or negative euthanasia: ambiguous. Can be the decision by patient, parent or guardian and physician to withhold or withdraw extraordinary means of sustaining or prolonging life, such as deciding against high-risk surgery for a patient dying of cancer or kidney failure. When the intent is not to cause death but rather to reject extraordinary treatment, this results in the acceptance of death or continued life, whichever occurs, but it is not true euthanasia. The terms "passive," "indirect" or "negative euthanasia" should not be used since they play into the hands of euthanasia advocates by confusing legitimate actions with euthanasia, thereby desensitizing people to the fact that euthanasia is killing. More importantly, passive euthanasia is sometimes defined by others as the withholding of lifesaving treatment with the intention and result of causing the patient's death. This is the equivalent to active, direct euthanasia.
There are many different point of views on Euthanasia and whether or not it should be legalized. Many believe that since it is our bodies and our lives, we have the right to choose when we no longer want to live. On the other hand, there are great amounts of people who believe that euthanasia is considered murder and is not ethical. “One thing on which we all agree is that there is a true national crisis that surrounds the way Americans are dying” (Dr. Ira Byock.) The purpose of this paper is not to support either side, rather this paper will discuss what euthanasia really is, the past of euthanasia, and both the positive and negative sides of euthanasia.
Death. This is not a topic that many people are comfortable discussing. It is such an uncomfortable topic to discuss because regardless if death is brought upon through natural death, murder, suicide, or even euthanasia, it brings upon such a wide variety of emotions to those affected that I believe no one can grow accustomed to. Stemming from this, we get into the debate of euthanasia vs. murder vs. suicide, and the ethics behind the three. Before considering the differences between the them, we should first be able to define ethics and morals. Nowadays, these two terms can be considered very similar, and are said to be the sort of principles that decide a person’s behavior and actions. Ethics and morals play a big role when discussing these topics, as people are quick to argue that euthanasia and murder can be considered the same. Through this paper, I will argue their differences, and how most aspects of euthanasia can be considered morally different and better than murder. Additionally, my perspective of how suicide compares and differs to these two will also be introduced.
“Introduction to Frankenstein”
The ethical debate concerning biotechnological exploration into genetic cloning has created a monster in itself. A multitude of ethical questions arises when considering the effect of creating a genetically engineered human being. Does man or science have the right to create life through unnatural means? Should morality dictate these technological advancements and their effects on society? The questions and concerns are infinite, but so to are the curiosities, which continue to perpetuate the advancement of biotechnological science.
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.
Imagine being debilitated and in crippling amounts of pain for years on end Although this topic represents a difficult moral and ethical minefield, if proper safeguards are in place, where people must select their preferences regarding euthanasia before the occurrence of an incapacitating disease and extremely severe consequences for people who try to abuse the system of euthanasia, then we can eliminate all the relevant arguments presented by the opposition. This means that there are no logical reasons as to why we shouldn’t respect a person’s right to their own life, and to do with it what they please.