When someone we love dies we feel pain, loss, but at least, as Christians, we know he is in a better place. But when someone we love is feeling pain, all what we want is to stop it, at any cost. Because of that, now that we have the technology for prolonging life, the word euthanasia started appearing. Euthanasia, from the Greek “well death”, is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. The fact that we are able to make life longer does not mean that we can make it batter, when the quality of life expected is just of incredible pain, death may seem a better choice. Now that euthanasia is under the lights of press and legislation, choices that were personal a hundred of years ago are made public …show more content…
The Journal of Death and Dying defines euthanasia as < the synonym of the phrase mercy killing that involves either assisting in the commission of suicide or administrating painless and merciful death to a patient that is hopelessly ill> (Journal of Death and dying, 2015). What that “hopelessly” ill means is that there is nothing more for those people in this world, nothing more than pain for them and their families. Letting them go and find peace is an act of mercy and respect for their dignity. In the same article previously quoted we read that (Journal of Death and dying 2015) ; once again we see how euthanasia is a solution and not a condemn for people in pain. For a better understanding, we can look at a case of 1992 in which Dr. Cox had Mrs. Boyes as a patient. The 70 years old lady was suffering pain and agony: she used to scream if anyone tried to approach her and she was no more able to think rationally for more than a couple of minutes because of her pain. She used to ask for death every day, more than once. After years of care and with no hope of improvement, Dr. Cox broke the law and ended her life with an injection of potassium chloride. He was processed and condemned for helping his patient at the best of his capacity. Euthanasia was the last choice for …show more content…
In 1936 king George V was mumbling and cursing and his doctor decided that his dignity and quality of life were being damaged. In accord with the king he administered an injection of cocaine and morphine and ended his life. Nobody questioned that choice but if somebody was to do the same thing now the press would never let him free and the doctor would be probably sued. < In the past physicians could hasten death in special circumstances without the knowledge of their peers, and sometimes without even knowing with certainty whether their actions actually served to actually accelerate the process of dying, the regularity process is now strict enough that such actions cannot easily escape legislation> (Euthanasia and distinctive horizons and moral reasoning) . The way in which the law system may get to much involved in such personal choices is evident in the Englaro case. On January 18 Eluana Englaro is involved in a car accident. She is left completely paralyzed from the neck down and in a vegetative state due to her brain damages. The family started asking for the removal of life support arguing that Eluana had declared to family and friends her will previously. After a fight of 17 years her father finally obtained the removal of life support. In this case the Italian legislation tried to make the choice instead of the family. Eluana’s father had to look at her
Assisted suicide should be legalized nationwide in the United States, because every human deserves a peaceful death. Assisted suicide is when person that has been told they are terminally ill and won’t survive, they can go to a doctor and get prescribed a medication that results in death. It’s not murder, it’s giving the person a chance to say their good byes and leave this world when they are ready to go. Not making them suffer and go on when they don’t want to.
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...
First of all, we were not in charge of our birth, we had no input of when we wanted to be born, is only fair that we don’t decide our death. I believe God creates life, He and He alone should decide when and how a person should dye. Only when the time come. I think is unethical to kill someone just because their quality of life is not up to people’s standard. Who are we to decide who should live or die. God the creator creates, let him decide when a person should die. I promise you God does not need our health in that matter. Euthanasia is a serious topic; It goes against the standards of traditional medicine. First, doctors have to take the Hippocratic Oath to become a practicing physician. The Hippocratic Oath says do whatever you can to save people’s life, on the contrary, Euthanasia is basically just killing them if they want to die and avoid the suffering. Second, euthanasia is not always applied to terminally ill patients either. People who have been in serious accidents, or who have debilitating diseases often consider using euthanasia as a resolution to their suffering. I believe the act of euthanasia is against the principles of Beneficence, Non-maleficence, and Life Preservation. By virtue, Beneficence tells us to be good and be kind to others, also do things to benefits others, preventing people from harms or anything
Euthanasia is the act of ending a person’s life through lethal injection or through the removement of treatment. Euthanasia comes from the Greek word meaning “good death.” When a death ends peacefully, it is recognized as a good death. In modern society, euthanasia has come to mean a death free of any pain and anxiety brought on through the use of medication; this can also be called mercy killing, deliberately ending someone’s life in order to end an individual’s suffering. Anything that would ease human suffering is good. Euthanasia eases human suffering. Therefore, euthanasia is good. Because active euthanasia is considered as suicide or murder, it is a very controversial issue and therefore, illegal in most places. Although there are always
“Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window […] the variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames.” This was said by American author David Foster Wallace who died by suicide in September of 2008. Most people do not want to die, dying is absolutely terrifying but for some, it becomes a choice between leaping out the window and sailing down to a quick death at your own hands and getting caught in the building and waiting for the
“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”.
Our modern world is full of diseases that are often incurable, making people’s life a living torment, stealing the sense of living and encouraging a person to give up on everything. Even though the medical advances that are offered today are being developed to save a patient’s life or relieve their pain they fail to do so. There is a controversy between two groups those who believe euthanasia should be allowed and those who strongly believe it should be prohibited. Those against euthanasia see a doctor who performs it as a murderer, their believe’s foundation is that there is nobody else other than god who should end a life. ““eu” means good and “thanathous” means death” (Boudreau, et al. 2) Physicians should be allowed by law to prescribe
Is it Against the Law to Help Someone Else Commit Suicide? . (2013). Retrieved from FindLaw: http://healthcare.findlaw.com/patient-rights/is-it-against-the-law-to-help-someone-else-commit-suicide.html#sthash.2Rg28YAQ.v2hYML0G.dpuf
In the discussion of physician assisted suicide, one controversial issue has been whether or not it should become legal across the United States. On one hand, some oppose that it is not right for individuals to take their own life, with a physician 's help. On the other hand, if you are terminally ill and in a lot of pain, you should have the right to end your life with the help of a physician or someone else 's help. My view of the topic is that I am for allowing those people who are terminally ill to end their life to quit their suffering. However, people someone should check to see if the law is safe. If the law is not safe, then they should take the time to make it safe. Maybe there needs to be some arrangements that need to be fixed or adjusted.
Once people decide to end their lives they give up. They give up on fighting for themselves and others that love them. At times they may not even be in the right state of mind when they make these decisions. When people know that they have a terminal illness they tend to go through depression. They think that they have nothing else to live for, but it is just a stage that they are going through. There are certain factors that are dangerous and lead people to end their lives. There are people that want euthanasia to be legalized but they do not understand the consequences that come with that legalization. Once euthanasia is legalized vulnerable patients could be talked into suicide and doctors could take that decision for them. Euthanasia should not be an easy way out to get rid of a patient’s pain.
Euthanasia is the fact of ending somebody’s life when assisting him to die peacefully without pain. In most cases, it is a process that leads to end the suffering of human beings due to disease or illness. A person other than the patient is responsible for the act of euthanasia; for example a medical provider who gives the patient the shot that must kill him. When people sign a consent form to have euthanasia, it is considered voluntary, involuntary euthanasia is when they refuse. When people are not alert and oriented they are not allowed to sign any consent including the consent to euthanasia. When euthanasia is practiced in such situation, it is a non-voluntary euthanasia. In sum, people who practice voluntary euthanasia in honoring other
Euthanasia refers to the idea of a person having an assisted and painless death. Also referred to as “mercy killing”, euthanasia has recently been legalized for children - people under the age of 18 - in Belgium. The most debated point, in my opinion, should be whether or not a child has a deep enough understanding of the gravity of their decision. A child suffering from a minor illness that has a possibility of being cured may still make the on-the-spot decision to end their life there and then, without giving it a second thought. Although their parents might disagree with them, the decision will still be entirely theirs, and the child might not make a logical decision.
The topic of euthanasia and assisted suicide is very controversial. People who support euthanasia say that it is someone 's right to end their own life in the case of a terminal illness. Those in favor of this right consider the quality of life of the people suffering and say it is their life and, therefore, it is their decision. The people against euthanasia argue that the laws are in place to protect people from corrupt doctors. Some of the people who disagree with assisted suicide come from a religious background and say that it is against God’s plan to end one 's life. In between these two extreme beliefs there are some people who support assisted suicide to a certain degree and some people who agree on certain terms and not on others.
James Rachels, author of The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality (1986) supports euthanasia from the argument from mercy. It is his opinion that euthanasia is acceptable when death is the sole answer to inescapable pain and suffering. It is difficult and perhaps inconceivable to comprehend the awful pain that terminally ill patients endure. For the most part, our conscious reaction is to avoid talking or thinking about it. This being said, Rachels believes the argument is simple, the argument from mercy states euthanasia is justified as it provides a resolution to that. It means acting on our compassion to putting an end to the person’s suffering, hence committing mercy killing. Rachels provides an example into the sad dying journey of the
The most common argument for Euthanasia, is the idea of quality of life. This term was first created in the 1970’s as a term used to describe, the general welfare of a individual. This was gradually adopted as a term to describe a persons overall existence. This ideology, has practically become the argument used to morally justify the killings of hundreds upon thousands of unborn babies, who have genetic defects such as down syndrome and the international starving of brain damaged adults and terminally ill patients. To Christian, this argument has no meaning as we were all created in the image of God and it is believed that each human has a purpose to serve. They see each human as having its own intrinsic worth and to destroy any life, whether a young born child or an elderly person is the murder of a potential. The Christians also mock the quality of life argument as they believe that it is a biased opinion and we have no grounds or framework to judge by. The book of Job, argues against the quality of life argument. In this book, Job claims that suffering is part of being human along with happiness, sadness and anger. This points that if you are suffering, you should live through it and it will make you a stronger person. Paul says in Corinthians 2, For when I am weak then I am strong. He says this when he is trying to describe how he appreciates his “problem/thorn in his flesh” because although he wanted God to take it away he realises that it helps to make him a stronger person and a good Christian, because it reminds him to be humble. It is based upon this that he refuses to take his own life. The Christian sees a good life in respects to a persons response, to a particular situations, whereas the humanists will see only in terms of suffering and pain experienced.