The apparent conflict between these beliefs arises from the fact that death may constitute the ultimate pain relief. Certain caveats attach to both beliefs. For example, killing in self-defense or to save others’ lives is acceptable, (1) and inflicting pain through medical interventions in order to cure or restore function is also acceptable. (2) In general, however, both beliefs dispose me, as Peirce would put it, (3) to distinct plans or habits of action: avoidance of killing and provision of pain relief. In health care, the commitment never to kill implies that euthanasia is wrong, and the commitment to alleviate pain demands actions that may hasten the dying process.
The life of a human being is a gift. To treat it in any other way would be degrading life’s inherent worth. Many different moral dilemmas are associated with human euthanasia. The extreme ends of the controversial subject suggests, by the advocates, that euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, is a type of mercy killing. On the other end, such assistance, or methods, are considered as a form of murder.
In addition to this, choosing the manner of death could be included as an aspect of right to life but interests of the state and society will justify interference with it, as seen in the case of Pretty v UK. To suggest to produce a single definition of death with medical intervention is impossible and perhaps undesirable given that there is appropriate justification for all of the approaches advocated. The legal definition of death comes from the case of Airedale NHS Trust v Bland which established that brain stem death was the definition of death for the purposes of medical law. Ford argues that the right to die embodies a critical paradox of personhood, which consists of consciousness, self awareness and the ability to engage with others. Harris, however, argues that there is no personhood paradox because the criteria is set out from capacities which make it possible for the person to value their own existence.
Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) and euthanasia raise ethical questions about the medicalisation of death (J Hardwig, 2006; Kavanaugh, 2000) and whether it is worse to kill a patient, or to let them die through omission of treatment (Kavanaugh, 2000). All have the same outcome – the death of the patient – the ethical dilemma arise when considering how the patient’s death occurred (Rachels, 1975). Allowing a patient to die from the cessation of bodily function can be a distressing process and can extend the suffering of that patient (Brock, 1992) However, ending a patient’s life prematurely appears to contradict the medical profession’s objective, namely the Hippocratic Oath, and has further reaching consequence in the community. The increasing ability to prolong life has created an effect termed ‘the medicalisation of death’ (J Hardwig, 2006; Stringer, 2007). In ‘The Hour of Our Death’, Aries (Aries, 1981) discusses the changing conceptions of death as more often a patient is perceived as being surrounded by tubes and machines instead of in more comfortable surroundings when they die.
Euthanasia today can be described as a physician or others ‘killing’ of a suffering patient in attempt to accelerate death and relieve pain. In the game of life and death: life is the most obvious answer one would think. However, this is not always the case. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is an extremely controversial topic of today. It has the minds of society wondering if death solves some of the most extreme medical problems.
Euthanasia is a premeditated action attempted by a health expert with the objective of ending one 's life to alleviate agony. Voluntary euthanasia is when a terminally ill patient assents to end their life, whereas involuntary euthanasia takes place when a suffering individual does not consent nor request to end their life. These patients are incompetent to choose in light of the fact that they are either a minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions. The imperative issue with euthanasia is the fact that it manages the deliberate closure of a life. The tension with euthanasia lies between the ethical obligation to diminish suffering, especially in terminally ill patients who settle on a cognizant choice to end their life, and the forbidding against association by doctors and other health experts in the ending of a life.
The types of euthanasia are active, passive, voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary, and indirect. Active Euthanasia is when a person directly and deliberately causes the patient’s death while passive euthanasia is when a person does not directly take the person’s life but allows death to happen. Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient requests to end his or her life while non voluntary euthanasia is when the person that will die does not make the decision but a appropriate person makes the decision on their behalf. Involuntary euthanasia is when a perso... ... middle of paper ... ...anasia and physician assisted suicide as morally wrong while proponents argue that it allows a person to die with dignity. My personal belief is that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are almost always immoral.
Euthanasia is very controversial in the sense, many argued that it is assisted suicide and could be a cover for outright murder. Others have also argue that, in hastening the dying process of a patient is not apparently the way to relieve suffering. In contrast, regardless of a patient’s medical condition, euthanasia is against medical ethics, is against most religions, and it is not the ultimate answer to end suffering patients. Physicians and doctors have a code of ethics that’s guide their practices. Euthanasia is a direct violation of the medical oath which states that Physician-assisted suicide, like eu... ... middle of paper ... ...during the time of a terminal illness that people have a unique opportunity to reflect on the way they have lived their lives, to make amends for wrongs done, to provide for the future security of loved ones and to prepare mentally and spiritually for their own death.
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.
Although modern medicine has become increasingly innovative, the ethics of medical practice are a commonly debated topic in the world of medicine. A particularly difficult situation to ethically work through would be the argument on physician assisted suicide, also known as active euthanasia. Assisted suicide involves a patient who consults a physician to obtain a drug prescription or knowledge of a lethal dosage when the physician is aware of the intent of the patient to kill oneself. In modern times, the Hippocratic Oath is able to provide a valuable view that does not condone physician assisted suicide from an ethical standpoint. From ancient to modern periods, suicide has been an ongoing dilemma with varying professional opinions on how to ethically handle it.