There have been numerous debates all around the globe as to whether or not the practice of euthanasia is ethical or unethical. People who are in pain and suffering are more likely to be pro-euthanasia. Those who never have to feel that level of pain and suffering that would drive a person to want to end their lives could never understand a person’s reason for considering this option. Fictional characters are used to express human suffering such as those found in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. There are several modern themes such as genetic engineering, cloning, the treatment of outcast and playing God highlighted in Shelley’s book, however the focus of this paper is on the less common theme of euthanasia involving the main character Dr. Victor Frankenstein. Euthanasia comes from the Greek word that means “good death” (“Euthanasia” Literary). In general, euthanasia refers to causing the death of someone to end their pain and suffering oftentimes in cases of terminal illness. Some people call this “mercy killings.” There are two types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive or voluntary euthanasia refers to withholding life saving treatments or medical technology to prolong life. For example, a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment. They also have the right to refuse resuscitation if they are in need to be placed on life support. Active or involuntary euthanasia refers to providing the means for someone to take their life or assisting with taking their life (“Euthanasia” Discovering). There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death. Should these people continue to suffer even though they really are ba... ... middle of paper ... ...ow point drives him to consider death as an alternative to suffering. This chapter helps to highlight some present day themes about the ethical issues of euthanasia such as the difference between active and passive euthanasia. Also whether or not a medical professional should assist in the process and under what circumstances. Discussion about euthanasia will probably continue in the future. This character brings some of the issues to light. Works Cited “Euthanasia.” Discovering Collection. Web. 2 May 2011. “Euthanasia.” Literary Reference Center. Web. 2 May 2011. Kiliff, Sarah. “The Compassionate Killers.” Newsweek. Web. 2May 2011. Rayner, Claire. “You Say Murder, I Say Euthanasia.” Literary Reference Center. Web. 2May 2011. Shelley, Mary. “Frankenstein.” Austin: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1916. “What the Doctor Did.” Newsweek. Web. 2 May 2011.
Meaning, "good death". But the word “euthanasia” today means taking action to achieve a good death. Euthanasia is often used by doctors; the doctor would prepare the patient a lethal dose of drugs and administer the drugs to them or the doctor injects the patient with lethal injections. There are two different forms of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is the hastening of a persons’ death by injections or a different form of assisted suicide while passive euthanasia is the withholding of treatment or medications that are currently keeping the patient alive (Barbuzzi, p.1, 2014). Informed consent from the patient is required for both passive and active euthanasia. . According to the Barbuzzi, informed consent is, “A patient’s expression of knowledge and acceptance of the risks, benefits, and alternative treatment options of a medical procedure and subsequent permission to a physician to perform the procedure” (Barbuzzi, p.1 2014).Suicide, self-deliverance, auto-euthanasia, aid-in-dying, assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, physician-assisted dying can all be justified by the supporters of the right to die movement for the following
There are a few key terms that may help you understand the issue better, as I explained above the term Euthanasia is Greek and means “good death”. There are different kinds of euthanasia, passive and active. Passive Euthanasia is when a doctor may without medical treatment that will result in a patient’s death, such discontinuing a feeding tube or having a do not resuscitate order. Active Euthanasia is taking specific steps to end a patient’s...
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 is defined as the act of killing someone who is terminally ill or those who are seriously injured in a reasonably painless way for reasons of compassion (Diaconescu). There are two types of administering euthanasia, which are Active and Passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is when the medical professionals or another person intentionally does something that causes the patient to die. An example of active euthanasia is killing a patient using lethal injection. Passive euthanasia is when the patient dies because the medical professionals don't do or stops doing something to extend the patient’s life or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive. An example of passive euthanasia are turning off life support machines, disconnecting fe...
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus, explores the monstrous and destructive affects of obsession, guilt, fate, and man’s attempt to control nature. Victor Frankenstein, the novel’s protagonist and antihero, attempts to transcend the barriers of scientific knowledge and application in creating a life. His determination in bringing to life a dead body consequently renders him ill, both mentally and physically. His endeavors alone consume all his time and effort until he becomes fixated on his success. The reason for his success is perhaps to be considered the greatest scientist ever known, but in his obsessive toil, he loses sight of the ethical motivation of science. His production would ultimately grieve him throughout his life, and the consequences of his undertaking would prove disastrous and deadly. Frankenstein illustrates the creation of a monster both literally and figuratively, and sheds light on the dangers of man’s desire to play God.
In today’s world of genetically engineered hearts and genetically altered glowing rats, the story of Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley, seems as if it could be seen in the newspapers in our near future. The discoveries seen in modern science, as well as in the novel, often have controversy and negative consequences that follow them, the biggest of which being the responsibility the creator of life has to what has been created. Victor Frankenstein suffers from a variety of internal and external conflicts stemming from the creation of his monster, which in return also experiences similar problems. Shelley uses these tumultuous issues to portray the discrepancies between right and wrong, particularly through romanticism and the knowledge of science.
The practice of euthanasia has long been accepted and considered merciful when applied to farm animals. The vet knows when to stop treatment and shoot the horse to prevent undue suffering and save money. Only when euthanasia is applied to humans does our certainty waiver. The issue becomes murky, and we do not know how to behave. On the farm, there is sadness at the lost of a fine animal but the farmer knows he has done the right thing. There is r...
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 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 is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.”(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life. These patients are incompetent to decide because they are either minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted when it is against the will of the patient (Gupta, Bhatnagar, Mishra). Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia means life-sustaining treatments are withheld and nothing is done to keep the patient alive. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician do something by giving drugs or substances that ends a patient’s life. (Medical News Today)
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.
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.
New York: New York University Press, 2012. Print. The. Kuhse, Helga. A. “Euthanasia.” A Companion to Ethics.
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.
Euthanasia is a medical procedure which speeds up the process of dying for people with incurable, painful, or distressing diseases. The patient’s doctor can stop treatment and instead let them die from their illness. It come from the Greek words for 'good' and 'death', and is also called mercy killing. Euthanasia is illegal in most countries including the UK . If you suffer from an incurable disease, you cannot legally terminate your life. However, in a number of European countries it is possible to go to a clinic which will assist you to die gracefully under some very strict circumstances.