The term euthanasia was originally coined to mean “good death,” this today can be looked at as the understanding of a death without pain and suffering. Euthanasia calls on the ethical principles of beneficence which is the duty of alleviating suffering, and non-maleficence which is the duty to prevent or avoid harm. Just like these two terms can be interpreted to fit specific needs; the term and understanding of euthanasia can be coined to do the same. The most recent term that is passed around for euthanasia is mercy killing. Euthanasia is the process of assisted suicide to that of someone who is in too much pain, or medically deteriorated beyond fix. The Pro-Life Alliance defines it as: 'Any action or omission intended to end the life of a patient on the grounds that his or her life is not worth living’ (Glossland, 2012.) The …show more content…
Although physician-assisted suicide is legal in some states, euthanasia is illegal throughout the United States. There are three classifications of euthanasia. One is passive euthanasia, which is the withdrawal of medical treatment with the intention to hasten an ill person’s death. Another is physician-assisted suicide, which involve a doctor knowingly and intentionally providing a person with the knowledge or means to commit suicide. This can include counseling about, prescribing, or supplying lethal doses of drugs. The last kind of euthanasia is active euthanasia or the intentional act of causing death of a patient experiencing great suffering. Another controversial piece to euthanasia is non-voluntary euthanasia. Most people, who are candidates for lack of a better phrase, are either in a coma, too young, senile, cognitively impaired, brain damaged or mentally disturbed. Euthanasia comes down to really what the medical definition of death is. According to Robert M. Vetch from the Yale University Press
Euthanasia comes from the Greek word that means “good death” (“Euthanasia” Literary). In general, euthanasia refers to causing the death of someone to end their pain and suffering oftentimes in cases of terminal illness. Some people call this “mercy killings.”
According to the book titled “Euthanasia: a Reference Handbook” by McDougall and Gorman, the Merriam Webster dictionary defines euthanasia as “ an easy death or mercy killing.” Suicide is also defined as “the act of killing oneself purposely” (McDougall, Gorman and Roberts). Thus, physician Assisted suicide is the act of taking one’s life with the aid of a doctor (McDougall, Gorman and Roberts). Euthanasia is a very disputable matter, some regard it as a human right while others deem it unethical. One of t...
Voluntary euthanasia is defined as the act of killing someone painlessly, especially to relieve suffering from an incurable illness, with their consent (Collins English Dictionary, 2013). The morality and legal aspect of voluntary euthanasia has been a debate for many years. Voluntary euthanasia is a significant ethical dilemma that impacts nursing practice and other professionals in the healthcare field. With the utilization of ethical principles and theories, voluntary euthanasia can be deemed appropriate in some situations, but still can be a moral dilemma to those involved. This paper will discuss four people’s opinions about euthanasia that come from four different backgrounds as well as the group’s opinion about euthanasia.
Euthanasia is the act of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics of England defines euthanasia as a deliberate intervention undertaken with the intention of ending a life, to relieve suffering(Harris, NM. 2001)., in the Netherlands euthanasia is defined as the termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient(BBC,2011).
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
Any discussion that pertains to the topic of euthanasia must first include a clear definition of the key terms and issues. With this in mind, it should be noted that euthanasia includes both what has been called physician-assisted "suicide" and voluntary active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide involves providing lethal medication(s) available to the patient to be used at a time of the patient’s own choosing (Boudreau, p.2, 2014). Indifferently, voluntary active euthanasia involves the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. Physician-assisted suicide is felt to be easier psychologically for the physician and patient than euthanasia because
These are four of the most controversial case of Euthanasia. Is that the case, does this little girl have the right to end her life due to her terminal illness. Valentina Maureira has been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis as a baby. Her disease has no cure and the genetic disease has severely debilitates patients by clogging their lungs and organs making it hard to breath. The disease mess with the lungs and organs by covering it up with a thick layer of mucus. Valentina Maureria has made a decision she wants to end her life since she will not have to bear with the pain and, “Her plea for euthanasia came after the death of another cystic fibrosis patient at her hospital a month ago” (8 most controversial case of euthanasia). It sad that Valentina
In high school, I distinctly remember the week or so that my AP Biology class spend discussing ethics in science. The liveliest debate that grew out of these classes was about a topic that is so controversial it seemed to cause even the quietest students to take a strong stance on one side or the other. This topic was euthanasia. Whether we were talking about taking a patient off life support or about physician assisted suicide, it was clear that each member of the class had very distinct views on this topic. Throughout the nation and around the world, people continue to have very distinct views on euthanasia. When making decisions on this topic, religious officials rely on long standing Christian beliefs and moral values. The Roman Catholic Church’s stance on euthanasia can be traced far back to the teachings of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and has continued to develop throughout history. In this essay I will argue that the Roman Catholic Church’s strong opposition to euthanasia is based on the ideas of many influential historical figures and has had an impact throughout the world.
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
In the essay “The Morality of Euthanasia”, James Rachels uses what he calls the argument from mercy. Rachels states, “If one could end the suffering of another being—the kind from which we ourselves would recoil, about which we would refuse to read or imagine—wouldn’t one?” He cites a Stewart Alsop’s story in which he shares a room with a terminally ill cancer patient who he named Jack. At the end of the recounting, Alsop basically asks, “were this another animal, would not we see to it that it doesn’t suffer more than it should?” Which opens up the question of, “Why do humans receive special treatment when we too are animals?” We would not let animals suffer when there is a low chance of survival, so why is it different for us humans?
The world is full of people, some of which are suffering every day from pain. Even with the advancements that have been made with medicine, it’s not enough to cure many diseases or to heal a person’s pain. Euthanasia is commonly referred to as a “mercy killing”. It is the intentional act of putting a person to death quietly and painlessly who has an incurable or painful disease, it is intended to be an act of mercy. According to (ANA, 2013), Euthanasia is the act of putting to death someone suffering from a painful and prolonged illness or injury.
Euthanasia is the process of killing a patient with the intention of relieving their suffering and pain. It is also commonly known as mercy killing, and many often do not agree with it most especially in cases where a terminal illness is not inclusive. While euthanasia has been legalized in certain states in the United States such as Oregon, a lot of opposition has arisen as to whom so legible to receiving this treatment.
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.
Euthanasia is a medical procedure which speeds up the process of dying for people with incurable, painful, or distressing diseases. The patient’s doctor can stop treatment and instead let them die from their illness. It come from the Greek words for 'good' and 'death', and is also called mercy killing. Euthanasia is illegal in most countries including the UK . If you suffer from an incurable disease, you cannot legally terminate your life. However, in a number of European countries it is possible to go to a clinic which will assist you to die gracefully under some very strict circumstances.
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.