Death is how a person chooses to view it as. It is a beautiful part of nature, while others fear it. It hurts to watch a loved one suffer through an illness. There is controversy determining whether it is moral to assist a patient’s death. Opinions of it being considered murder have risen.
The two authors, Andre and Velasquez, explain the duties and obligations of assisting death, and preserving life. Through the analysis of Andre and Velasquez’s article, and the evaluation of assisted suicide in terms of deontology and utilitarianism, it will be argued that assisted suicide is justifiable and morally right. In Andre and Velasquez’s article, they argue that assisted suicide is both right and wrong, which can be justified. Using deontology, they state that humans have the duty to eliminate the sufferings of fellow humans and to respect their dignity (Andre, and Velazquez). They explain that assisted suicide is a dignified way to die in order to preserve dignity and end suffering.
To be able to have control over the fear of death by having the ability to end life on your own terms is the greatest relief in many individual’s eyes. Terminally ... ... middle of paper ... ... moral issues of physician assisted suicide are controversial as it is compared to abortion and death row topics. Many argue is morally acceptable for a dying person who is choosing to escape the unbearable suffering through physician assisted suicide as it is seen as humane. Additionally, it is a physician’s job to lessen patients suffering, which justifies providing aid in the end of life wants for an individual. The arguments rely a great deal on the respect for individual self want, which recognizes the constitutional rights of competent people to choose the timing and manner of their death, when faced with terminal illness.
Natural and assisted suicide are both ethical for dying patients. Having a terminal diagnosis is a devastation situation to encounter, so giving these people the opportunity to end their life is a right that they
He justifies his reason for his position with the fact that illnesses are a part of life. Williams position of disregarding euthanasia is rational because a life is a valuable thing to waste or gamble with. J. Gay-Williams, author of the essay "The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia" defines Euthanasia as. "intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person. Whether the life is one's own or that of another, the taking of it is still Euthanasia."
In “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, author Rachels challenges the notion that there exists a moral difference between a doctor who deliberately terminates the life of a terminally ill patient or euthanizes him versus one who achieves the same result by simply withholding treatment. The first case is referred to as the “active” case while the second is referred to as the “passive” case. Such a notion, argues Rachels, is artificial i.e. choosing one case over the other is not better or worse in terms of morality. According to Rachels, the major deciding factor in determining the morality of a route of euthanasia is the physician’s intention.
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide 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. Callahan first goes on to state that euthanasia is different from suicide in that it involves not only the right of a person to self-determination, but the transfer of the right to kill to the acting agent (presumably a physician) as well.
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. According Richard Gula, active euthanasia is legally considered homicide (5). Another intervention and approach to euthanasia could be through the use of analgesic means. The use of morphine or other anesthetic medication could be used to allow the patient to die or hasten their dying process. I consider the latter procedure to be more humane than that of the other because it is morally wrong to kill a person, rather it's humane for someone to die naturally.
Judging from the analysis of the term, ‘mercy killing’ assumes... ... middle of paper ... ...qually wrong. Conclusion ‘Mercy’, ‘dignity’, ‘good’ and ‘self-determination’ are the moral basis that the advocates for euthanasia defend. How appealing they sound, their accounts are simply an attempt to escape from dying process, through which we still hold our existence. The argument of pro-euthanasia might suggest that we are able to control over our life and death without moral conflict because such values related to euthanasia can justify the action of killing. By contrast, I argue that euthanasia is fundamentally wrong because it involves killing.
Furthermore, I will be analyzing euthanasia from the egoist standpoint. The egoist view states that an individual’s motivation stems from that individual’s well-being. In other words, each case will be personal, without an overarching rule or code. In this standpoint, the ethicality comes down to the patient. If the patient requests for a mercy killing, then it is ethical, because in that patient’s particular case, he or she chooses to be free of his or her pain and