The Bill of Rights state in the eighth amendment, “ nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”, so would it be considered cruel inflicted punishment to deny a person with a terminal illness and a few agonizing months to live the right to end their suffering sooner? A health care professional takes an oath to preserve life and wellness so assisting a person with suicide would jeopardize their ethical and moral duty to their profession. Also, take into consideration if it is appropriate that assisted suicide holds up the health professional ethical principles of beneficence, and autonomy for the patient. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Humans can not choose they way they were bought into this world, so shouldn’t the way you exit be your decision not the government; especially when you are dying of a terminal illness slowly?
Euthanasia also known as physician assisted suicide is a practice of ending life to relieve pain or incurable diseases with the help of a physician. Whether or not euthanasia is justified is a very serious moral issue. The practice of physician assisted suicide can be optional. As long as it is a person’s own decision, euthanasia is justified in some cases. Every person should have the right to end their life just like some other legal rights.
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. This right, however, is temporary and restricted to killing the patient only. It is not clear why this temporary transfer makes euthanasia wrong, for if this is wrong, then letting a patient die (in the case where the patient already has the assistance of life-supporting equipment) is also wrong, if there is no distinction between killing and letting die. So, we must return to this argument after addressing Callahan's claims of a distinction between killing and allowing to die. The argument for the distinction is based on the cause of death.
What would be the consequences of accepting this perspective? Let us examine the facts. Accepting a "right to suicide" would create a legal presumption of sanity, preventing appropriate mental health treatment. If suicide and physician-assisted suicide become legal rights, the presumption that people attempting suicide are deranged and in need of psychological help, borne out by many studies and years of experience, would be reversed. Those seeking suicide would be legally entitled to be left alone (Sullivan) to do something irremediable, based on a distorted assessment of their circumstances, without genuine help.
Death is a personal situation and decision in life. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the power to save lives and by the government interfering and not legalizing it they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal for patients; however, there should be strict rules and guidelines to follow. If suicide isn’t a crime why should euthanasia and assisted suicide?
The applied moral issue of euthanasia, or mercy killing, concerns whether it is morally acceptable for a third party, such as a physician, to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in intense pain. I will go further into the facts of this in my paper. The euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die. Staunch defenders of personal liberty argue that all of us are morally entitled to end our lives when we see fit. Thus, according to these people, suicide is in principle morally permissible.
It has the minds of society wondering if death solves some of the most extreme medical problems. If a patient finds himself or herself terminally ill and in excruciating pain, they should have the option to partake in assisted suicide to end their misery. Some insights support Euthanasia and some reject the concept. This issue is important to society because people want the right to end their lives when facing terminal, or life threatening, illnesses. In my opinion, certain forms of euthanasia should be considered legal.
Why shouldn’t I have the same barriers protecting me from moments of suicidal fantasies as everyone else has?” (Mattlin). This stresses the danger, as a society, that is posed to those with terminal conditions who want to live. Assisted suicide though seems to almost encourage ill people to end their lives. This is emphasized in the article “Assisted Suicide: A Right or a Wrong? ", explaining that if assisted suicide is legalized on the basis of compassion and mercy that society could start assisting “and
According to James Rachels, “both passive and active euthanasia are permissible.” (Luper and Brown, p.347). He gives a doctrine from American Medical Association quoting,” mercy killing is contrary to which the medical professional stands” (Luper and Brown, p. 347). He makes arguments against the doctrine as to why it would be rejected. One, a physician should let the patient end his life if he wants to so that the patient does not have to endure the suffering. However, Rachels says in that situation it’s better for the physician to kill the patient, rather than letting one die because using lethal injections can be painless and quick, whereas, letting one die can be a slow and painful process (Luper and Brown, p. 348).
Should terminally ill patients have the right to a physician-assisted suicide simply to protect their civil liberties? Or is this option just a devised method opposing the purpose of doctors and physicians and the morals of civilization playing the role of a scapegoat and devaluing human life? Although on the surface, physician-assisted suicide for patients in critical condition appears to be a plausible remedy, when further inspected, a practical perspective arises saying this so-called final solution is morally and ethically wrong considering the responsibility of medics, society, and law makers. Doctors’ and physicians’ technical ambition is purely to treat patients that they encounter. This common knowledge contributes to the obvious position that stands against physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia.