The Ethical Dilemma of Euthanasia
An incredibly controversial issue clouds the minds of millions of people everyday as death confronts them. The problem revolves around the ethics of euthanasia. Should medical assisted suicide be outlawed in all situations or under certain circumstances, could it be considered ethical? Do humans violate nature’s course with science and advanced technology by playing God? Why should doctors and families witness their loved ones suffer when the solution of euthanasia promises a painless death? Authors Andrea E. Richardson and David Miller of the articles “Death with Dignity: The Ultimate Human Right” and “From Life to Death in a Peaceful Instant” reflect upon their experiences and feelings on these questions.
In “Death with Dignity: The Ultimate Human Right,” Richardson introduces the reader to the depressing story about his father. His father, a good family man, had been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, which kept him in the hospital for weeks at a time. For this man, the painful and paralyzing experience destroyed both his joints and internal organs. Richardson sneaks the idea of euthanasia into his introduction by saying, “For others-for those like my father- death is an event clearly visible on the horizon. It is an event that is forecasted, feared, and at times yearned for” (Richardson, 42).
Richardson then talks about the history of euthanasia by discussing the tribal ideals and medical techniques used thousands of years ago. “The discovery that certain berries had lethal effects was used as a means of humane euthanasia for people who were very ill or badly injured” (Richardson, 42). The author explains how medicine has evolved to the point where the...
... middle of paper ...
...ge a person’s fate.
Richardson supports his argument with various cases and concrete facts. He presents his case in both an interesting and informative manner because he didn’t just concentrate solely on his feelings of his father. Miller on the other hand focuses on his feelings towards his grandmother without supporting his cases with a sound argument. He makes his story too personal while ignoring the other side of the coin. This comes off as both arrogant and non-professional. Overall, these two articles support the pros of euthanasia, giving the reader a solid background to the ethical dilemma facing human beings today.
Works Cited
Miller, David. “From Life in Death in a Peaceful Instant.” The Humanist (May/ June 2000) 27
Richardson, Andrea E. “Death with Dignity: The Ultimate Human Right?” The Humanist (July/ Aug 2002) p. 42-43
This again shows the traumatic effects of residential schools and of cultural, psychological, and emotional upheaval caused by the intolerance and mistreatment of Aboriginals in Canada. Settlers not only displaced Aboriginal people from their land and their homes, but they also experienced emotional trauma and cultural displacement.
During the 19th century the Canadian government established residential schools under the claim that Aboriginal culture is hindering them from becoming functional members of society. It was stated that the children will have a better chance of success once they have been Christianised and assimilated into the mainstream Canadian culture. (CBC, 2014) In the film Education as We See It, some Aboriginals were interviewed about their own experiences in residential schools. When examining the general topic of the film, conflict theory is the best paradigm that will assist in understanding the social implications of residential schools. The film can also be illustrated by many sociological concepts such as agents of socialization, class inequality, and language as a cultural realm.
“To kill the Indian in the child,” was the prime objective of residential schools (“About the Commission”). With the establishment of residential schools in the 1880s, attending these educational facilities used to be an option (Miller, “Residential Schools”). However, it was not until the government’s time consuming attempts of annihilating the Aboriginal Canadians that, in 1920, residential schools became the new solution to the “Indian problem.” (PMC) From 1920 to 1996, around one hundred fifty thousand Aboriginal Canadians were forcibly removed from their homes to attend residential schools (CBC News). Aboriginal children were isolated from their parents and their communities to rid them of any cultural influence (Miller, “Residential Schools”). Parents who refrained from sending their children to these educational facilities faced the consequence of being arrested (Miller, “Residential Schools”). Upon the Aboriginal children’s arrival into the residential schools, they were stripped of their culture in the government’s attempt to assimilate these children into the predominately white religion, Christianity, and to transition them into the moderating society (Miller, “Residential Schools”). With the closing of residential schools in 1996, these educational facilities left Aboriginal Canadians with lasting negative intergenerational impacts (Miller, “Residential Schools”). The Aboriginals lost their identity, are affected economically, and suffer socially from their experiences.
The creation of the Residential Schools is now looked upon to be a regretful part of Canada’s past. The objective: to assimilate and to isolate First Nations and Aboriginal children so that they could be educated and integrated into Canadian society. However, under the image of morality, present day society views this assimilation as a deliberate form of cultural genocide. From the first school built in 1830 to the last one closed in 1996, Residential Schools were mandatory for First Nations or Aboriginal children and it was illegal for such children to attend any other educational institution. If there was any disobedience on the part of the parents, there would be monetary fines or in the worst case scenario, trouble with Indian Affairs.
“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”.
For generations prior to the European arrival, aboriginal people practiced a strict culture in their native land now known as Canada. However, the early settlers conveyed the notion that their lifestyle was upon the highest accomplishment of mankind. Aboriginal people were seen as savages and incompetent of surviving in modern society. In resolution, the Canadian government issued an aggressive school system in the 1880’s that would “culture” the Aboriginal children. This system was managed by churches, whose purpose was to educate the child by adapting them into the mainstream Canadian society. This nonetheless, became a very serious issue that questioned Canada’s democracy and the basic civil rights that came along with it. In addition, this destructive system left a long range of impacts. Residential schools undermined Aboriginal culture causing a profound displacement of aboriginal people even to this day.
“Making the Grade,” which was published in the Salt Lake Tribune in September of this year, is an article arguing the negative sides of the No Child Left Behind Act. Through this article, a majority of the discussion regarded the budgeting involved with NCLB. This article calls No Child Left Behind a “one-size-fits-all formula for improving education in America” (Making the Grade). According to President Bush, the NCLB Act is “’the cornerstone’ of his administration” (Salt Lake Tribune). Like with any legislation, however, come both positive and negative sides.
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 school we are always taught about the lighter parts of Canadian History, but only until recently have Canadian students been taught about the darker parts of our history. Residential Schools were included in these dark parts of Canada’s history. In the 19th century, the Canadian government believed that Residential Schools were responsible for educating and caring for the country’s aboriginal people. The goal of these schools was to teach the aboriginal children about Christianity and Canadian customs, in hopes of them passing these practices on towards their own children and it would eventually be adopted into the aboriginal culture. The Canadian
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
In defense of this position philosopher Tom Regan has argued that sentience should be the basis by which rights endowed (The Rights…). He argues that there are many humans who lack the ability to reason but still maintain their human rights, therefore our standards for rights are not based on reason but sentience which includes these humans and animals as well. Regan also states “Inherent value, then, belongs equally to those who are the experiencing subjects of a life,” supporting the claim that animal lives have value on their own (The Case for Animal Rights). The antithesis of this non-moral belief is that since animal do not have the capacity for reason they do not have rights and are only valuable in the ways in which they are useful to humans. Carl Cohen supports this view and says “Rights arise, and can be intelligibly defended, only among beings who actually do, or can, make moral claims against one another.” (The Case for…) Cohen argues that since animals are not moral agents they have no moral rights. He also argues against Regan that humans without the ability to reason are still included in having rights because they are not the
The Progressive Era remains an important time in our society’s history. A time when the middleclass came together to make changes that would affect generations of Americans. This was an era when journalist, photographers, artists and civic minded people who called for reform in politics and government. This was a time when reformers demanded safe working conditions and regulation of big business for men, women and children. This was an era when progressive officials that expanded the role of government to aid society in cleaning up the cities and an era when environmental concerns overcame big business. A time when women made a big difference in child and health issues not to mention the women’s suffrage movement. Progressive reformers instituted many of the programs and policies that we enjoy today as a nation.
Bell, Andrea L., and Katie A. Meinelt. "A Past, Present, and Future Look at No Child Left Behind." Human Rights. 38.4 (2011): 11-14. MAS Complete. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
Initiated in 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 intended to prevent the academic failures of educational institutions and individual students, as well as bridge achievement gaps between students. This act supports the basic standards of education reform across America; desiring to improve the learning outcomes of America’s youth. No Child Left Behind has left many to criticize the outcomes of the Act itself. Questions have risen concerning the effectiveness of NCLB, as well as the implications to America’s youth.
Robert Matz; Daniel P. Sudmasy; Edward D. Pallegrino. "Euthanasia: Morals and Ethics." Archives of Internal Medicine 1999: p1815 Aug. 9, 1999 .