Death is certainly one of the most sensitive topics to discuss. With advancement in technology and medicine, death seems to be slightly delayed and life prolonged; some are lucky enough to temporarily evade death and survive naturally fatal accidents. But this raises a certain question: what if a person wanted to die? According to the Pew Research Center (2013), “overall average life expectancy in the U.S. at present is 78.7 years.” The Pew Research Center surveyed 2,012 adults if they would “choose to undergo medical treatments to slow the aging process and live to be 120 or more…56% say ‘no’…[while] 68% think that most other people would.” In fact, the surveyed adults median ideal lifespan is 90 years. What does this mean? We cannot conclude exclusively that people want to die young, but people certainly do not want to live long. Interestingly, when asked if medical advances that prolong life are generally good, 63% of Americans agree, and 54% believe “medical treatments these days are worth the costs because they allow people to live longer and better-quality lives.” But what options does the American have when their lives are lengthened, yet quality of life is spiraling down? What options does the American have after the best of hospice and palliative has failed to treat an unendurable and unbearable pain? One answer to this is euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of mercy killing, meaning that the euthanized patient has a dignified and painless death. Euthanasia comes in many forms, and knowing the difference is vital. Euthanasia can be active, passive, indirect, voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary (BBC, n.d.). Respectively, the first three types refer to the person administering euthanasia, while the last thr... ... middle of paper ... ...le, that a doctor let an otherwise healthy patient die who was suffering from a routinely curable illness; this would count as an intentional killing, even though it was done passively.” (Fieser, 2011) On a much more minor scale, it is similar to insulting someone by not shaking his or her hands. To reiterate, Rachels point is to allow active euthanasia not only because there’s no difference between that and passive euthanasia, but also because active euthanasia is more merciful than the latter. According to Fieser, there are also four main arguments opponents of euthanasia have: Wrongfulness of Intentional Killing, Slippery Slope, Possible Recovery, and No Assurance of Voluntariness (2011). In Wrongfulness of Intentional Killing arguments, opponents of euthanasia claim that euthanasia is essentially killing. Killing has been looked down upon throughout century
Euthanasia is divided into two separate classifications consisting of passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Traditionally, “euthanasia is passive when a physician allows her patient to die, by withholding or withdrawing vital treatment from him…euthanasia is active when a patient's death results from his physician's killing the patient, typically by administering lethal medication” (Varelius, 2016). While active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide share many of the same characteristics, they differ in the role for committing the final act, resulting in the death of the patient. A third party, consisting of either a family member or the physician, is responsible for “pulling-the-plug” in active euthanasia. On the other hand, in physician-assisted suicide, it is ultimately up to the patient to commit the final death-inducing act. Varelius suggests that the separation of passive and active euthanasia can be explained by the involvement that the physician partakes in their patients’ death
Another reason a patient may opt to euthanasia is to die with dignity. The patient, fully aware of the state he or she is in, should be able choose to die in all their senses as opposed to through natural course. A patient with an enlarged brain tumor can choose to die respectively, instead of attempting a risky surgery that could leave the patient in a worse condition then before the operation, possibly brain-dead. Or a patient with early signs of Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease may wish to be granted euthanization before their disease progresses and causes detrimental loss of sentimental memories. Ultimately it should be the patient’s choice to undergo a risky surgery or bite the bullet, and laws prohibiting euthanasia should not limit the patient’s options.
There are two types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive or voluntary euthanasia refers to withholding life saving treatments or medical technology to prolong life. For example, a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment. They also have the right to refuse resuscitation if they are in need to be placed on life support. Active or involuntary euthanasia refers to providing the means for someone to take their life or assisting with taking their life (“Euthanasia” Discovering).
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.
The purpose of this essay is to inform readers clearly and coherently enoughof the terms and issues in the euthanasia debate that they can make sense of the euthanasia question. Descriptions are in relatively simple, non-technical language to facilitate learning.
“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”.
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
The debate on whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalized has been a controversial topic. Euthanasia is defined as ‘a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering’ [1]. Voluntary euthanasia refers to the patients who understand the terms in the consent and sign up under consciousness, while involuntary euthanasia is performed against patient's wishes and some people may regard it as a murder [1].
“Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.”(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life. These patients are incompetent to decide because they are either minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted when it is against the will of the patient (Gupta, Bhatnagar, Mishra). Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia means life-sustaining treatments are withheld and nothing is done to keep the patient alive. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician do something by giving drugs or substances that ends a patient’s life. (Medical News Today)
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.
Much like the word itself, Active euthanasia is the involvement of killing an individual by Active means, for instance, using lethal injections. This is also identified as mercy killing. According to the American Bar Association, “proponents of Active euthanasia often point to the fact that pain control through the administration of narcotics may in fact hasten a patient's death” (American Bar Association, 1992 p. 1). There are also different forms of Active euthanasia named voluntary Active euthanasia and involuntary Active euthanasia. Voluntary Active euthanasia is known as physician assisted suicide. In this case, patients chose their death due to their medical state. Involuntary Active euthanasia occurs when a medical patient does not give the consent of wanting to die. On the contrary, Passive euthanasia, is the act of withdrawing or withholding treatment that is given to an ill patient. For example, a patient is taken off of life support by having the “plug”...
There are two types of euthanasia; involuntary and voluntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is when the decision of the...
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.
Each form of euthanasia also has a set of arguments that accompany them. Some of the common pro euthanasia arguments are the right choice. The patient should be able to be given the option to make the decision to die and to do with dignity. The quality of life argument is another. This is when only the patient knows what it is like to have persistent unstoppable suffering, and pain. Even with pain relievers it is not enough. With the pro arguments comes the cons. The most common cons are guilty, slippery slope to murder, competence, and what the doctor’s role is in all of
Euthanasia, otherwise known as mercy killing or good death, is used to help end the suffering of a patient in an irreversible state of health, like severe cases of Lou Gehrig’s disease or severe burn victims. Many believe that it is immoral to go against natural survival instincts, while others wish to legalize it to help end the pain of those suffering. The main argument over euthanasia is whether or not it should even be allowed to exist within the medical and legal worlds. Euthanasia has caused many controversies and lawsuits that will continue until euthanasia is fully denied or accepted by society.