Euthanasia, the process of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering, is a conflicting subject. I myself still have a hard time coming up with a definitive outlook on it. The readings in Chapter 3 have given me tons of insight on the issue. I didn’t completely disagree with any of the readings but the one that resonates with me the least is John Hardwig’s “Is there a Duty to Die? For, one I can understand wanting to die to prevent pain and suffering, but I believe the choice should be up to you entirely. In that sense, it’s not necessarily a duty to die but accepting that your time has come, or is near. With that said, Hardwick’s views start to conflict with mine when he says “There can be a duty to die before one’s illnesses …show more content…
Additionally, another statement that I find faint with my views is when the author says “A duty to die is more likely when the part of you that is loved will soon be gone or seriously compromised” “Or when you soon will no longer be capable of giving love” (Hardwick 185). What Hardwick means by these two statements is that the duty to die is especially prominent in dementing disease that impair someone’s ability to sanely express emotion. I find this unnerving because someone who is demented isn’t even the right mindset, literally, to make rational decisions on their own. This will more than likely leave a demented person’s life in the hands of the caregiver. For me “a duty to die”, or in my beliefs acceptance of one’s death shouldn’t be held in the power of somebody else. To wrap things up, I don’t believe someone should feel obligated to die, although inevitable, death, especially impending death is something that should be accepted on a personal level, and if that translates to a “duty” to die then that person has all the right to feel that …show more content…
Tracy’s father was faced with an unfortunate decision, and in his decision, I cannot condemn him for his actions. Now saying this I don’t believe what he did was particularly the right decision or particularly the wrong decision. As for his life sentence, it’s quite outrageous. My reasoning for this is because of his actual intentions and his mental rationale in doing so. He claims that he did it out of love and mercy, which I whole-heartedly agree with. With Tracy’s condition already being a significant trouble to live with and the fact that her surgeries brought her much pain and suffering is something that would be hard to bear. They claimed that she had the mental capacity of a four month old baby, so in that sense, it’s almost like watching an innocent baby constantly in pain. One part of the case says that Tracy’s mother believed that the many surgeries especially the one that removed her upper thigh bone were not surgeries but mutilations. I can see why her mother would think this. I can only imagine what it would be like to watch your loved one constantly be mutilated and going under the knife. Surgery and visits to the doctor alone can be stressful enough in itself, let alone ones that can be perceived as mutilations. Additionally the case states that Tracy had 5-6 seizures a day, which would imaginably be hard to watch and care for. Ultimately, I cannot in any way condemn Tracy’s
Despite euthanasia being depicted as unjust in terms of Kings definition I believe that ending a patient’s life in order to relieve pain and suffering is ‘just’ only if the patient has made the decision and doctors have done all they could. Besides, a happy death sounds a lot better than a painful death.
The thought of death is a scary one. However the scarier thought is “living” a life in pain and suffering from an incurable and terminal disease such as cancer or Alzheimer’s. Imagine your grandparent has recently been diagnosed with Stage 4 Lung cancer. Now the doctor will list off all the possible treatments and in your heart you want your grandparent to try everything to fight for their life. After hearing the doctor give the terrible news, your grandparent ask the doctor about some options but also mentions assisted death. Your mind floods with memories and arguments against it. Your grandparent explains how they have lived a full life, doesn’t want to put the family in debt from the medical bills along with the inevitable cost of a funeral and have
Terri Schiavo is a forty year old women who had a severe heart attack 15 years ago which resulted in brain damage. She had no living will so there is no legal document of what she would have wanted if she became brain damage and couldn’t function on her own but her husband, Michael Schiavo, says that after 15 years of being on a feeding tube she would have wanted to die. The question is should he have the right to remove the feeding tube? Anybody who knows me will know that my answer is no! The reason for that is because I am a Christian and I do not believe in terminating someone’s life. It’s my belief that as long as a persons heart is beating he or she stills has life in them.
Anyone can be diagnosed with a terminal illness. It doesn’t matter how healthy you are, who you are, or what you do. Some terminal illnesses you can prevent by avoiding unhealthy habits, eating healthily, exercising regularly and keeping up with vaccinations. However some terminally ill people cannot be helped, their diseases cannot be cured and the only thing possible to help them, besides providing pain relieving medication, is to make them as comfortable as possible while enduring their condition. Many times the pharmaceuticals do not provide the desired pain escape, and cause patients to seek immediate relief in methods such as euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending a life in order to alleviate pain and suffering, but is deemed controversial because many various religions believe that their creators are the only ones that should decide when their life’s journey should reach its end. Euthanasia is performed by medical doctors or physicians and is the administration of a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient on his or her express request. Although the majority of American states oppose euthanasia, the practice would result in more good as opposed to harm. The patient who is receiving the euthanizing medication would be able to proactively choose their pursuit of happiness, alleviate themselves from all of the built up pain and suffering, relieve the burden they may feel they are upon their family, and die with dignity, which is the most ethical option for vegetative state and terminally ill patients. Euthanasia should remain an alternative to living a slow and painful life for those who are terminally ill, in a vegetative state or would like to end their life with dignity. In addition, t...
Justice is something that we all as human being want to see fulfill, especially when we are the one that need it for us or our love ones. The family members of those who were killed by Susan Atkins and her companion will agree with it. The damage cause to their dears and the endless pain and suffering in effect from their death will support the decision take by the parole board in September 2, 2009 in the denial of a compassionate release due to Atkins’ health.
Euthanasia is a difficult ideal to understand, to lack the ability to place a value on someone’s life and to understand someone’s suffering at the sometime. Being pulled by both your heart and your soul at the same time.
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.
Suicide and assisted suicide is often viewed as the most logical choice when faced with these circumstances. As far back as the 16th Century, people have been arguing for the terminally ill to be aided in ending life by physicians who should not be held morally or legally to blame for assisting the individual. The beginning of the 21rst Century saw many bills supporting the use of euthanasia proposed in many Western legislatures with little to no success. The fact is that everyone is going to die, the only question that remains to be answered is when, how, and under what conditions. Supporters of euthanasia state that everyone should have the same degree of control in choosing the circumstances surrounding their death as they do in choosing the manner in which they live” (Economist.com, 1997) I agree with this assertion, everyone should be able to choose their own
“Michael Manning, MD, in his 1998 book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring?, traced the history of the word euthanasia: ‘The term euthanasia.originally meant only 'good death,'but in modern society it has come to mean a death free of any anxiety and pain, often brought about through the use of medication.” It seems there has always been some confusion and questions from our society about the legal and moral questions regarding the new science of euthanasia. “Most recently, it has come to mean'mercy killing' — deliberately putting an end to someone’s life in order to spare the individual’s suffering.’” I would like to emphasize the words “to spare the individual’s suffering”.
Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.
How it relates to healthcare: The child’s injuries proved severe, and Bedner faced a long prison sentence if convicted,but he didn’t face murder charges.As his critically ill daughter,C.B. remained on life support the hospital sought to exclude Bender from decisions regarding from life support. The girl eventually did die, but the case generated considerable public debate and stimulated a controversy among bioethics scholars .
The argument given in an article by Martin Beckford is that if people agree that some people are better off dead, then they must also agree that it is right to end their lives if the people are physically impaired [4]. This argument does have a true premise – acceptance of voluntary euthanasia does mean that it is better for someone to die.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their lifetime. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are suffering from euthanasia.
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.
Latimer did was morally wrong. But, when an individual is so severely disable with a poor quality of life and suffers from ongoing pain, one can then justify that it is morally right to assist with mercy killing. The morally wrong about this case was that Tracy did not have a choice in whether she wanted to live or die. It was all decided by her father that taking her life was the best solution for her. In other words, Mr. Latimer decided that Tracy would be better off dead instead of having another surgery. If the Supreme Court did not overturn Mr. Latimer conviction to second degree murder it would have set a bad precedent for people with disabilities. I agreed with The Council of Canadians with Disabilities that giving any lesser penalty will put thousands of people with disabilities in more danger of violence and death. Failure to be responsible for such crime against people with disabilities would be the wickedest form of discrimination. Tracy was placed on this earth for a purpose which we may not understand, but no one knew exactly what her wishes would have