Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical and legal issues euthanasia
Ethical and legal issues euthanasia
Ethical and legal issues euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical and legal issues euthanasia
Imagine you have someone that you love very dearly suffering from cancer or another fatal illness. Would you want them to suffer? Or would you want them to have choices about their end of life method. Did you know that five states in the USA and eight countries including Colombia, Mexico, and the Netherlands support Euthanasia. According to Euthanasia Statistics called “Static Brain” 54% of doctors support Euthanasia. 86% of the people polled support Euthanasia for those that are terminally ill and or on life support. Euthanasia, also know as mercy killing, is the act of putting a person or animal to death painlessly or allowing that person or animal to die by withholding extreme medical measures when the person or animal is suffering from …show more content…
This helps the patient communicate to make their own choices for their health. A living will is usually created long before they become ill so therefore it is not a document for euthanasia. People create living wills so that they can have a written document that shows their wishes if they become terminally ill. In the case study of Claire Conroy, she was terminally ill with heart disease, hypertension, diabetes and her left leg was gangrenous to the knee. She had bed sores, couldn't speak, urinated through a catheter and lost control of her bowels. If she had a living will she would have been able to die a peaceful way using euthanasia. This living will would have assisted her family in making difficult decisions and respected her human rights. This living will, had it been written before she got ill, would have encouraged Claire and her family to have an open discussion about death. Instead the courts argued over her end of life decisions and she died a painful death before the courts could render a decision. I think everyone should have a living will so that they can communicate with their caregivers and be medically prepared in case of an
The Hippocratic Oath states that “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel”. Euthanasia is where someone intentionally kills a person whose life is felt not to be worth living. It is definitely a controversial topic with many opinions on whether or not it should be legalized.
As we get older and delve into the real world, it is important to start thinking about end-of-life care and advance directives. Although it is something no one wants to imagine, there is an absolute necessity for living wills and a power of attorney. Learning about the Patient Self-Determination Act and the different legal basis in where you live is important because it will help people understand why advance care directives are so important. Although there are several barriers in implementing advance care directives, there are also several actions that healthcare professionals can take to overcome these obstacles. These are also important to know about, especially for someone going into the medical field.
Euthanasia has always been defined as easy and gentle death especially in cases of painful and incurable illness. It has also been referred to as mercy killing of those considered hopelessly ill, incapacitated or injured patients. It is a matter of life and death. To medical practitioners the dilemma remains: prolong
Suffering in pain and knowing that there is no hope is a horrible thing to experience as we live. Lying on a hospital bed in misery and grief because of a condition or illness that is hopeless is completely depressing to anyone. Euthanasia is one of the most controversial issues in society due to the difference in people’s point of views about dying. Although the lives of many patients can be saved with the latest breakthroughs in treatments and technology, we are still unable to find treatment for all diseases, and these patients have to go through painful or treatments that have greater risk than benefits only to prolong their life with little or no chance of full recovery. These patients struggle with physical and emotional pain for the reason that they feel like they are worthless because they can’t move or decide rationally. Euthanasia should be an option to certain terminal ill people because it allows them to choose whether they want to die or live a painful life.
Our values, opinions and beliefs depend on what culture, religion and the society we come from. People who are against view euthanasia as murder and that we must respect the value of life. Those who are in favor of euthanasia believe that doing such act eliminates the patient’s pain and suffering. Also, the right to die allows the person to die with dignity. Euthanasia may involve taking a human’s life, but not all forms of killing are wrong nor consider as murder. It depends on the underlying reasons and intentions. If you value a person’s life and the cause of death is for the patient’s benefit and not one’s personal interest, then euthanasia is permissible.
Euthanasia has been a topic of debate for a long period of time. Individuals opinion and viewpoints involve around the absolute worth of human life. For many years suicide has been seen to be unethical to society and the idea of asking a doctor to help end a person’s life sends a confusing message. Euthanasia can be classified into passive and active. Passive euthanasia is when the doctor stops doing something that will keep the patient alive. Active euthanasia is when the doctor does something that will cause the patient to die. There are two types of of euthanasia voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is the consent of the patient and involuntary is the consent by another person because the patient is unable to do it themselves. Voluntary and active euthanasia is more of a controversial issue and is confounding legally and morally. I believe that a terminally ill person should have the option of euthanasia because it will increase their happiness while decreasing their suffering.
Life is viewed as a beautiful and fascinating experience, but once this wonderful appearance of life is taken away from you, the will to live diminishes. Although we would all love to live a long and healthy life, many people are unable to do so when diagnosed with a terminal illness. As the illness begins to take over your body and brings only pain and suffering, death, what most of us fear, sometimes looks a lot more peaceful than life. When someone is terminally ill, I believe that everyone should have the right to die when they no longer can live. In some states, these people are able to make the choice of ending his or her suffering by choosing euthanasia. The English medical word euthanasia comes from the Greek word eu meaning “good”,
We are not God or nature, so we cannot have the power to decide the fate. This tends to be a strong religious perspective since euthanasia consists of the same act as suicide does and this is a sin, therefore the person will never go to heaven. Also another issue when it comes to religion is that the Doctor allowing this to happen gives an injection that basically kills another human being, so for some people this is murder and also a sin. It is a common belief that the person could change their mind after the injection is made, there would be no going back, their freedom would then be taken from them in that moment and they would lose control over their life. For many other people it is also deemed unnatural, we cannot decide what Mother Nature has in store for us, meaning we cannot choose and alter our fate. Our body must die on its own when the time comes and when it is meant for our bodies to
Euthanasia, according to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, is the act of intentionally ending a person’s life so as to help relieve suffering or pain. It can also be described as physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia is illegal in most places, however, there are a few states in the U.S. that allow it along with a few other countries around the world. The states it is legalized in are Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Vermont. Countries outside the United States that have it legalized are Belgium, Colombia, India, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, and The Netherlands (NEWHEALTHGUIDE.org). The debate whether euthanasia should be legalized or not is active due to some believing that it is cruel and not right while others believe it is fine due to different
Euthanasia is an extremely controversial topic in today’s society. It is defined as the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent undue pain and suffering (Webster Dictionary). There are two main types of euthanasia; voluntary and involuntary. Involuntary is without consent from the patient; while voluntary euthanasia has the patients consent. While euthanasia is illegal in the United States, it is still in practice in many other countries. In this paper I will argue that it is morally wrong for someone to kill a person, even it is on medical terms.
The idea of euthanasia is something that elderly people today face almost every day. I believe that it should be up to the human being suffering, whether or not they want to suffer any longer. As people grow old, they become weaker and more dependent on others naturally. Plus adding a fatal sickness to the scenario and things must seem hopeless. Nobody should have to endure such pain and agony just to save their loved ones the pain of letting them go. We do not let an animal suffer to any extent, as soon as things seem hopeless; we put them to sleep. Not that we should kill anyone at the first sign of illness, but there are many elderly people in convalescent homes just waiting for the day their pain will end. And why do we let these people suffer, because we believe it is morally wrong to kill a human being. But in this scenario I believe it is morally right to grant the wishes of the person in agony...
Lastly, I support the idea of legalizing euthanasia because the patients own their bodies, and they can do anything with it. Even though the doctor is the one who put the patient to death in a process of euthanasia, the patient is the one who makes the decision to be “killed”, and therefore, euthanasia is a type of physician-assisted suicide, which is not any of other people business.
If the palliative and hospice care were good enough and available to everyone in need of it, thoughts of euthanasia in terminally ill patients would be nearly nonexistent. It is best for a patient and his or her family or friends to be with each other until the end. With enough support from everyone, no matter how much pain, the patient should be set for the rest of his or her life. Palliative care also follows most religions, which means that there would be no reason for anyone to turn it down. If any important steps are taken to help out with the world’s euthanasia problem, palliative care should be one of the first plans put into
When it comes to discussing accountability for an action, it is common for one to argue whether or not there is a moral difference between doing an action and allowing that same action to happen. Some argue that there is a very clear difference between the two, while others argue that the distinction between the two depends on the agent in question’s relationship to the sequence of events that brought about an outcome. It seems that one cannot be responsible for the outcome of something they are not involved with; but it can be also be argued that allowing an event to occur bears the same moral responsibility as doing that action, because they both bring about the same result. So, is there a clearly defined line between doing and allowing that provides us with a morally right and wrong answer? One popular example of doing vs allowing that is still being debated today is whether or not Euthanasia, or “mercy killing” is right or wrong, and how it differs from the practice of withdrawing medical treatment to bring about a patient’s death. It can be argued that actively killing a patient through euthanasia is morally equivalent to withdrawing medical care and allowing a patient to die, since both sequences of events bring about the same result. Although it is popular to believe that actively acting with the intention to kill another person is always wrong, it can argued that euthanasia is not wrong, and sometimes is right, because it allows for a patient to maintain their dignity, die a peaceful death, and put an end to their pain and suffering.
"Mercy Killing" as Euthanasia is also known, has been outlawed within the United States. The definition of mercy killing is where someone is terminally ill with a disease, and an accomplice helps to end the misery of that victim's life. In my opinion, this decision should be a live and let live decision. If and only if the victim agrees ahead of time before the pain starts to end it, then they should live their life the way they want to; if that includes ending it the way they want to, so be it. Atop this highly controversial topic are many illnesses which have led to the popularity of Euthanasia. Among those are Cancer, Aids, and Alzheimer's. There is a very slim need for the use of Euthanasia today in my opinion.