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.
My personal belief is that euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are almost always immoral. I believe that a person should embrace their last breath and let it happen naturally not by their own means. If a person's medical condition altered their appearance they should not be looked down upon or stared at. They should be treated with respect and compassion like every other person. I do agree though that there are some instance in which it is appropriate for a person to be taken off of life support or have their life ended.
Thus, according to these people, suicide is in principle morally permissible. For health care workers, the issue of the right to die is most prominent when a patient in their care is terminally ill, is in intense pain, and voluntarily chooses to end their life to escape prolonged suffering. In these cases, there are several theoretical options open to the health care worker. First, the worker can ignore the patient's request and care can continue as usual. Second, the worker can discontinue providing life-sustaining treatment to the patient, and thus allow him to die more quickly.
Many people see death is a bad thing. People don’t like it and they don’t want to hear about it. For many seriously ill and vegetative patients, death is a good thing for them. Death will end their suffering from pains and they can also die with dignity. Euthanasia traditionally means a “good death.” The term has traditionally been used to refer to the hastening of a suffering person’s death or “mercy killing.” The legalization of euthanasia is important for the patient because it would give dying people a choice to determine if they want to fight the disease or end their suffering.
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.
Euthanasia is a painless killing for people who suffer from a painful disease. People who are ill should have the right to commit suicide. Everyone should have their own option to end their lives because they’re the one who knows how much they could stand. An addition, people who are assisted by a doctor in ending their lives with medical treatment should have that legally available to them. Needless suffering will continue in the US if the laws are not changed to reflect the current changes in medical care.
“Euthanasia”, also known as “mercy killing”, comes from the two Greek words for “good death”. It is the practice of ending a person’s life (legally) who is suffering from a terminal disease or is in a severe state where they do not have the consciousness to take care of themselves. () In the novel “Of Mice and Men”, by John Steinbeck, George kills Lennie so that Lennie has a peaceful death by the hands of his best friend rather than have him suffer by the hands of someone else, a more “informal” way of euthanasia. Euthanasia has its pros and cons but is greatly debated because it can be seen as unhuman and often considered as murder. The formal role of a doctor for euthanasia when a patient is on the verge of death, as described by physician William Hunk, is “We dismiss all thought of cure, or the prolongation of life, and our efforts are limited to the relief of certain urgent conditions, such as pain.” () Many physicians in the 1800’s - 1900’s considered euthanasia as a part of their job by helping patients achieve a peaceful death.
The patient expects death, and any treatment is not going to do any good to the person. People who have this illness resort to an alternative called euthanasia. Euthanasia is when someone a physician or a family members assist the terminal ill to die by injecting such person with a drug or plugging out the chord that keeps the person alive. While supporters of this technique claim that euthanasia is humane and helpful, other people argue that euthanasia is morally wrong, and inhumane. Euthanasia should be legalize in the United States because it gives an alternative for people who suffer every day due to a terminal illness, but it should be the last resort a patient should take.
This quote essentially states that the intentional killing of one human being by another (in this case, active euthanasia) goes against the AMA and is therefore wrong. The cessation of necessary treatment to prolong the life of the body by the patient or the immediate family (passive euthanasia) when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent, however, is permissible. His second premise is that “active euthanasia is a more efficient and humane means to ending the patient’s suffering than passive euthanasia.” To defend this claim, Rachel gives the case of a patient with incurable throat cancer. This patient is sure to die in a matter of days even if treatment is continued. The patient does not wish to live on in agony and asks the doctor to cease treatment.
A choice has been made to let both patients die, as a response to their “competent and authoritative refusal of treatment” (Beauchamp 74). In Patient A’s case, he was lucky enough (in the most morbid way possible) to... ... middle of paper ... ...es out of mercy. Beauchamp puts it eloquently when he says “From a moral point of view, causing a person’s death is wrong when it is wrong not because the death is intended or because it is caused, but because an unjustified harm or loss to the person occurs” (Beauchamp, 76). The objection that killing Patient B is worse than allowing Patient A to die does not survive, because such a claim is based on the assumption that a killing would be unjust. The doctor and the patients have decided that death is preferable to life, and there is no injustice involved in any possible outcome from there on out.