The cultural connotations of euthanasia involve a speedy and merciful death done for the benefit of the person being euthanized. Many associate the term with phrases like “mercy killing” implying that it is for the benefit of the subject and not to their detriment, furthermore this phrase suggests that the act of euthanasia itself is an act of charity. In her paper Euthanasia Phillipa Foot sets out to discuss the major philosophical implications associated with the act of euthanasia and whether or not they can be morally justified in certain circumstances, and goes on to discuss the tremendous societal impact of a fully legalized and widely accepted practice of euthanasia. She first begins by addressing the commonly held definition of euthanasia, …show more content…
Foot believes that a system of routine euthanasia could potentially lead to widespread abuse and injustice, and the perversion of the idea that an act of euthanasia is for the benefit of the one suffering, and may be instead performed as an act to reduce any potential societal burden (Foot 109). She showcases an example of one such abuse in the case of infants with Down’s syndrome born with intestinal blockage not being operated on, despite the fact that with this procedure children with Down’s syndrome can live a relatively normal life with a decent standard of “goods” (Foot 109). She also fears that those who are dependent upon others would begin to see themselves as burdens on their families and would desire to be dead rather than continue to inconvenience others. She writes: “Many people want, and want very badly, to be rid of their elderly relatives and even of their ailing husbands or wives.” (Foot 111). She believes that it would be incredibly difficult to devise proper legal safeguards against this kind of abuse and so it is better to allow but not encourage some forms of euthanasia, so as to prevent the formation of complacency to it within
Bibliography:.. Bernard, Neal, Ed. & Co. d. a. a. a. a. a. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone.
In this essay I will be analysing the morality of voluntary active euthanasia (VAE). I will focus on the argument that if such an act is considered morally acceptable, it can only lead down a slippery slope in which society becomes grossly unrecognizable in terms of the value of life. This essay will examine the strengths and weaknesses of this argument and the moral principles which underpin it to determine whether or not it remains a convincing argument to VAE.
Euthanasia has been a very polemic subject in American society. Its objective is to conclude the life of a person at their own request, a family member, or by the determination of a health care professional to avoid unnecessary suffering. There is a lot of moral and ethics involved in euthanasia, exist a big difference between provoke death and allow death. The first one rejects life, the second one accepts its natural end. Every single intentional act of provoke the death of a person without consent is opposed to ethics and is punishable by law. One of the biggest moral controversies in the XXI century is the fact that some people agree in the autonomy humans have to determine the moment of death. The moral and legal implications are huge and the practical benefits are also enormous. This is a touchy and controversial issue and my goal on writing this paper is to remain on favor of euthanasia. I will elaborate later on my reasons to believe and support euthanasia, but first let’s examine the historical perspective of this moral issue.
James Rachels opinion on euthanasia is that he is for it, however only active euthanasia. Active euthanasia is defined as “taking any direct action designed to kill the patient.” While passive euthanasia is “withholding treatment and allow a patient to die.” (pg.203) Which makes sense into why Rachels and myself would be more into AE rather than PE because it is a more humane way for people to die. Nonetheless Rachels way of pursuing people into euthanasia is well represented but he seems to skew away from the actual meaning of euthanasia and the American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines.
I am writing my paper to a group of middle class college students. Majority of who are African American, and a teacher of Asian descent. My class is made up of about twenty student’s ages ranging from 18-33. The majority are females, and only 4 males. Most of the students in my class are from inner city Baltimore, and a couple are out of state. Also, majority of my class are working-class, not many are just students. In addition, we also have students that are also parents.
“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”.
The famous dystopian novel, Brave New World by well recognized author Aldous Huxley is a very accurate description of society today. This novel was banned in many Countries, including Ireland and Australia in 1932 for good reason. This novel has many debatable motifs, one of the most underlying motifs is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, or euthanasia. In this dystopian novel, Aldous Huxley creates a world called the World State.In the World State, people use Euthanasia for anyone who is no longer useful to the society. At 60 years old, people are no longer of use to society. In Brave New World, everyone undergoes “mental euthanasia,” because they are constantly fed
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
In Sullivan versus Rachel’s on euthanasia I will show that James Rachel’s argument is logically stronger than Sullivan’s argument. I will present examples given by both authors regarding their arguments and also on their conclusions about it. I will explain both of the author’s logical strengths and weaknesses in their arguments. I will give the examples given by both authors on how they prove their arguments to be true and later I will decide whose argument is stronger based on their strengths and weaknesses. I will give one of Rachel’s main strong arguments and one of Sullivan’s very weak arguments. I will also show if both of the author’s premises follow from the conclusion. And at the end I will give my opinion on my personal reasons on whose I think makes more sense in presenting their arguments.
.... Palliative care also focuses on the life quality improvement of the patients, allowing them to recover the dignities of life before death. In all these cases, it is ruled out that any case of euthanasia is morally justifiable due to the aforementioned reason. However, when the patient himself shifts his interest from his own to others, especially the poor and needy, voluntary euthanasia will become sacrificial euthanasia, as viewed by others. In this case, euthanasia is neither akin to murder nor suicide. Instead it is a form of charity towards others, while abandoning one's own interest for the sake of others. This sacrifice holds a high view of the sanctity of life as it tries to help the life of others but is still not enough to push euthanasia into an acceptable mode. Euthanasia is taking the lead on a very dangerous road that society has decided to embark on.
Euthanasia is the medical practice of ending one’s life in order to preserve their dignity and relieve extreme pain when quality of life is low. There are several methods of euthanasia of which people choose from. These methods include active, passive, voluntary, involuntary, indirect and assisted euthanasia. As of now, only a few countries have legalized euthanasia. The countries most known for the legalization of it are Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. In a recent news article titled “Why I Support Assisted Dying”, a Canadian poll revealed that 26 % of physicians would be willing to actually participate in assisted dying and that if euthanasia were legalized, more and more medical professionals would agree with it (Morris, 2013). In this specific article, there is some light shed on the issue in comparison to others which often put a negative spin on the issue. In instances where palliative care is not enough, physician assisted euthanasia is proposed by the article. Due to many of the negative stigmas attached to the matter at hand, many see euthanasia as a social problem which should not be carried out. However, there are plenty of reasons to rectify such attitudes. From a sociological perspective, a functionalist would argue that euthanasia should not be a social issue and should be legalized. Euthanasia is an alternative anyone should have the right to exercise to end one’s own suffering, maintain dignity and pride until the very end, and to free up medical funds that could be used towards saving other lives.
In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die. I plan to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of both active and passive euthanasia.
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.
How a society treats its weakest, most in need, most vulnerable members best tests its moral and ethical tone. To set a present and future moral tone that protects individuals in general and society, upholds the fundamental value of respect for life, and promotes rather than destroys our capacities and opportunities to search for meaning in life, we must reject euthanasia (Miller et al. [37]).
In the following essay, I argue that euthanasia is not morally acceptable because it always involves killing, and undermines intrinsic value of human being. The moral basis on which euthanasia defends its position is contradictory and arbitrary in that its moral values represented in such terms as ‘mercy killing’, ‘dying with dignity’, ‘good death’ and ‘right for self-determination’ fail to justify taking one’s life.