Introduction Active euthanasia can be defined as the practice of injecting a patient with a lethal dose of medication with the primary objective of ending the patient’s life. According to Keown active euthanasia is “the intentional termination of a patient’s life by a doctor who thinks that death is a benefit to that patient. Euthanasia then is not simply a doctor doing something which he foresees will shorten the patient’s life, but doing something intending to shorten the patient’s life” (397). The medical professional (doctor) will inject the patient with a lethal dose of medication so that the patient can die slowly. In this case the immediate cause of death of a patient is not their disease but something done to the patient to cause his or her demise.
Therefore, by not killing the patient, the physician and caregivers are causing suffering to that patient. In certain circumstance I would agree that the intention of the killing, for being to relieve suffering, absolves the physician or caregivers of guilt normally associated with the act of killing. ... ... middle of paper ... ...ing people to be killed instead of aiming to heal. Personal judgements regarding others choice to die of natural causes or to be euthanized should be reserved, especially if the patient is choosing to no longer be a burden on their loved ones because this too is a valid reason in some circumstance. We all die in an innumerable amount of ways and our autonomous decision to choose Active Euthanasia or PAS should be respected as should our choice to refuse euthanasia.
Euthanasia should be legalize in the United States because it gives an alternative for people who suffer every day due to a terminal illness, but it should be the last resort a patient should take. People who are against euthanasia claim that it is unethical and morally wrong to take someone’s life away. According to the article “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified,” euthanasia is a nice word that replaces the word murder (Doug). The author claims that people will use “terminal illness” to murder people without their consent. People that are on a vegetable state and cannot depend of themselves are force to accept the decisions of others.
This also means an ordinary human right such as nutrition or hydration cannot be with held to induce death. The injury or disease must be the cause of death not the act of the withdrawing the life support system. Active euthanasia is the direct and intentional killing of someone when given consent or consent can’t be given. Active euthanasia usually takes the form of a lethal dose of medication to ensure a painless death. Active euthanasia has been requested by people suffering from diseases and syndromes that have reduced their quality of life to a point at which that believe that death is a better option than living in their pained and often vegetative state.
It has the minds of society wondering if death solves some of the most extreme medical problems. If a patient finds himself or herself terminally ill and in excruciating pain, they should have the option to partake in assisted suicide to end their misery. Some insights support Euthanasia and some reject the concept. This issue is important to society because people want the right to end their lives when facing terminal, or life threatening, illnesses. In my opinion, certain forms of euthanasia should be considered legal.
Euthanasia is a painless killing for people who suffer from a painful disease. People who are ill should have the right to commit suicide. Everyone should have their own option to end their lives because they’re the one who knows how much they could stand. An addition, people who are assisted by a doctor in ending their lives with medical treatment should have that legally available to them. Needless suffering will continue in the US if the laws are not changed to reflect the current changes in medical care.
According to James Rachels, “both passive and active euthanasia are permissible.” (Luper and Brown, p.347). He gives a doctrine from American Medical Association quoting,” mercy killing is contrary to which the medical professional stands” (Luper and Brown, p. 347). He makes arguments against the doctrine as to why it would be rejected. One, a physician should let the patient end his life if he wants to so that the patient does not have to endure the suffering. However, Rachels says in that situation it’s better for the physician to kill the patient, rather than letting one die because using lethal injections can be painless and quick, whereas, letting one die can be a slow and painful process (Luper and Brown, p. 348).
This raises the question: what does this choice imply for Patient B? Should he be allowed to choose active euthanasia to combat his suffering? I will argue that there is no moral distinction between letting Patient A die and “killing” Patient B. I will do so by looking at each patient’s circumstances individually, then applying arguments about euthanasia to their cases, and ultimately bringing them back together to consider a verdict. While some may argue that there is a difference between killing Patient B and letting Patient A die, I assert that any such claims are based in irrelevant reasoning. First, let’s consider the reasoning behind the patients choosing to forego extraordinary treatment for their cancer.
Untimely Death Death, is it okay to let a suffering person die, or should doctors give them a lethal injection to end their suffering? Many people have different views on this situation, but I believe that it is the patients decision because the patient knows how much pain they are in, and if they can not take it any longer. In the essay "Active and Passive Euthanasia" James Rachels wrote that he thinks that it is a better choice morally to withdraw life support, and let a person die, rather than ending a persons life through other means. I do not believe that if a patient is about to die, and that patient makes a request to withhold treatment that the doctor should withhold it. To me that is going to make the patient suffer even more than he already is, so I believe that the doctor should either continue giving the patient their treatment, or ask if they would like to have their life terminated with a lethal infection.
The argument of anti-euthanasia proponents is that euthanasia is immoral because life must be preserved and protected. However he preservation of life is subject to the self-determined choice of the person rather than the doctor 's choice. Like murder infringes on a person 's right to life by violate the element of choice in the persons death. Therefore a murderer will be executed because of taking away an innocent person’s life. For a physician to deny the person his right to die when under intense pain and suffering is effectively, imposing them to live a life without what they believe is their dignity, a life of suffering and eventual could be ended if the patient choose to do so.