Euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide or Mercy Killing, gives rise to controversial debates, and people challenge euthanasia for its moral and legal bases. Some argue that patients should have the rights to end their unendurable sufferings and to die with dignity. Some, in the countries that have already legalized euthanasia, argue whether euthanasia should extend to children. Some, however, argue that legalizing euthanasia can cause a “slippery slope” that leads to murder and should not extend to anyone. In my opinion, assisted suicide should be legalized, but only to terminally ill patients competent to give consent, not including children and disabled people. The idea of extending the euthanasia law to children may have dangerous consequences, …show more content…
A euthanasia advocate, Dr. Philip Nitschke, argues in his CNN news article “Euthanasia: Hope you never need it, but be glad the option is there,” that society sees children and people with Alzheimer 's as those who cannot make decisions by themselves. He also strongly supports the statement of "a peaceful death is everybody 's right" in Belgium. However, simply avoiding unknowable prediction of suffering by ending lives that may have a fruitful future does not solve the problem. Children and disabled will consider themselves as burdens of their families and likely to end their lives for the family to be better off. Their impulsive decisions may cause irretrievable consequences. Stephen Hawking, as an example, suffered from motor neurone disease (ALS) ever since the age of 21. This form of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) slowly weakened him and paralyzed him, causing him to be confined in the wheelchair for more than 50 years, unable to talk or move. If he chose to end his suffering when he first diagnosed with the illness, his legend will never exist, and his contributions to the fields of cosmology, general relativity and quantum gravity would never be …show more content…
The legalization of physician-assisted suicide will make the procedure more regulated. In The Economist article, “Time to Die”, the author shares his story of a deceased intimate acquaintance who died by physician-assisted suicide in a state where physician-assisted suicide considered illegal. The author’s personal experience of illegal practice of euthanasia gives him credibility for talking about the issue of physician-assisted suicide. He argues that many practice of euthanasia takes place underground and difficult to keep tract and regulate. People who oppose euthanasia because they fear that legalizing this practice will cause poor people to choose euthanasia instead of medical treatment. However, the author provides the “report on end-of-life decision-making” of Netherland, where “euthanasia under clear ‘precautionary conditions’ has been legally tolerated”. The Dutch government published the data in 2012, and the data appears that “legalization has not led to an increase in cases”. In 2001, before the law was passed, euthanasia accounted for 2.6% of death in Netherland; however, in 2005, when the law has already passed, the percentage fell to 1.7%. Although the percentage of the practice went back up in 2010, the cases of explicit request of euthanasia dropped greatly as the author points out. Also, the legalization benefits the patients and their family since the doctors can now
Euthanasia is a word whose roots can be traced back to Greece where it meant good death. It encompasses various dimensions, from active where something is introduced to cause death, to passive where treatment or supportive actions are withheld. It also varies from voluntary euthanasia where one consents to it, to involuntary where a guardian can give consent and doctor assisted in which the doctors prescribes the medication and a third party or patient administers the prescription to cause death. Wishes for premature death have significantly contributed to the long debate regarding the role of this practice in the current health care. The debate however cuts across dynamic and complex aspects like ethical, legal, health, human rights, economic, religious, social, spiritual and cultural aspects of the enlightened society (Math & Chaturvedi, p. 889). Here, this intricate issue is argued from both sides of the ongoing debate and also the plight of the caregivers and the victims.
In discussions of euthanasia, a controversial issue has been whether euthanasia is morally wrong or not. Many people, the U.S. Government included, believe that euthanasia is not permissible when it is considered active. According to Warren’s view, however, euthanasia may not be morally wrong in some cases. Therefore, they disagree on whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. In this paper, I will use Warren’s view on moral personhood to see what her verdict of euthanasia and assisted suicide might be. After that, I will use real life cases to see what Warren’s verdict is in a real life situation of euthanasia. Finally, I will raise two possible objections to her view.
Controversy around physician assisted suicide partially comes from the lack of knowledge surrounding it. Euthanasia, also known as voluntary active euthanasia is where the physician intentionally ends the patient’s life at the patient’s request and with their full informed consent (Emanuel, 2015). Nowhere in the United States is this legal. Passive euthanasia is when life-sustaining treatments are terminated such as respirators and artificial nutrition (Emanuel, 2015). Palliative sedation is considered ethical and involves administering drugs that pose a risk of death (Emanuel, 2015). There are numerous terms used to describe death and physician’s involvement so it is important to distinguish between the different terms to better educate patients.
Doctors become very powerful, when they can perform euthanasia on patients. In the Netherlands, there are a reported 4,000 cases of involuntary euthanasia, since 2012. This is disheartening because it is legal in this country. There are 900 cases a year reportedly in the United
Should euthanasia be allowed or not? It has become a very controversial issue nowadays. Velleman and Hooker have different perspectives on euthanasia, and whether there should be laws permitting voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Although there are well-reasoned arguments on both sides, I would strongly agree with Hooker's argument that there should be a law permitting voluntary euthanasia when it is for the wellbeing of the person and that each individual should be able to make their own decision.
...d to a person’s suffering. People from all over the world have completely different opinions about assisted suicide. Many people believe that euthanasia is a very effective way of ending a person’s grief. Many people are fighting against the law. The law against assisted suicide is unjust and should be illuminated. The government should have no say in whether a person’s heart stops beating because of their agony. Euthanasia should be up to the sick individual and the government’s decision to place a law should be withdrawn. But euthanasia has to be done in an ethical manner and humanely. Restrictions should be placed around euthanasia and should be done in a very delicate and specific way. It should be understood that euthanasia should only be used under extreme circumstances and to ease a person’s pain. A person’s torturous life can easily come to a gentle close.
Suicide and assisted suicide is often viewed as the most logical choice when faced with these circumstances. As far back as the 16th Century, people have been arguing for the terminally ill to be aided in ending life by physicians who should not be held morally or legally to blame for assisting the individual. The beginning of the 21rst Century saw many bills supporting the use of euthanasia proposed in many Western legislatures with little to no success. The fact is that everyone is going to die, the only question that remains to be answered is when, how, and under what conditions. Supporters of euthanasia state that everyone should have the same degree of control in choosing the circumstances surrounding their death as they do in choosing the manner in which they live” (Economist.com, 1997) I agree with this assertion, everyone should be able to choose their own
“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”.
Currently, physician-assisted suicide or death is illegal in all states except Oregon, Vermont, Montana and Washington. Present law in other states express that suicide is not a crime, but assisting in suicide is. Supporters of legislation legalizing assisted suicide claim that the moral right to life should encompass the right to voluntary death. Opponents of assisted suicide claim that society has a moral and civic duty to preserve the lives of innocent persons. There is a slippery slope involving the legalizing assisted suicide. Concern that assisted suicide allowed on the basis of mercy or compassion, can and will lead to the urging of the death for morally unjustifiable reasons is understandable. However, legalization can serve to prevent the already existent practice of underground physician-assisted suicide if strict laws to ensure that the interests of the patients are primary are installed and enforced. When a patient asks for assistance in dying, their wishes should be respected as long as the patient is free from coercion and competent enough to give informed consent. The intent of this work is to examine the legalization of assisted suicide in Oregon and the Netherlands and to argue that assisted suicide is morally and ethically acceptable in theory despite some unintended consequences of its implementation.
Mercy killing, also known as euthanasia or assisted suicide, is the end of life of an extremely incapacitated individual’s existence so as to calm them of their agony. Anyone who experiences it generally has a hopeless condition. Such as someone with a terminal ill disease that is not curable. For example, a patient with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or metastasize cancer in its final stage. Be that as it may, there are different occurrences where few individuals need their life to be finished. This process is solely based on the individual’s request and some cases carried out by relatives, specialist or in a couple of cases, the courts. “The moral concern of willful euthanasia is tied into the centrality of life, reason behind accommodating treatment and the patient capability to pick when treatment or life ought to end” (Baillie et al., 2013 p 168). Therefore, addressing the decisions and concerns behind euthanasia is a debatable topic that requires a continuous analysis of this issue.
The will of a patient who is very ill to wish death rather than continue to suffer and be in pain should be one’s own choice. Some people who struggle with life just feel more at peace knowing euthanasia is an option.However an advanced illness that causes pain that cannot be tolerated by the patient can be a liable reason for euthanasia . Many opponents who have been a part of assisted suicide have thought many patients are poor, very old, or mentally ill but surprisingly it’s the patients who are better educated and well-off who are wishing for death. After euthanasia was legalized in Belgium in 2002 there were 347 cases and in Switzerland they ranged from 300 to 350 a year but numbers continue to rise because people are traveling from countries where it...
...nd want to die.’ “So I killed him, for I knew he couldn’t live.” This is a form of active euthanasia used in the bible.(NLT Bible) (faithfacts.org)
The popular desire for assisted dying is beyond question, the main arguments is the right to die with the help of a doctor, at the time and in the manner of your choosing. Ending a human life is wrong because life is scared and the endurance of suffering confers its own dignity. For the legalization of doctor assisted suicide, dying is the first step on a slippery slope where the vulnerable are threatened and also where premature death becomes a cheap alternative to palliative care.
The act of euthanasia may be justifiable, in that it gives those in pain an escape from their lives, however, it places a lot of power in the patient’s healthcare provider. Medical professionals are more pessimistic in patients’ diagnosis and rate their live value lower than it actually is (Pawlick and DiLascio 2). The negative diagnosis of these medical practitioners makes the patient feel especially drawn to euthanasia as a solution for the problem they may possess. Furthermore, the legalization of euthanasia would “cause society to devalue all life,” in that it makes everyone, not just patients, feel that euthanizing those who have medical issues is a better way to fix problems within our society, rather than treating them (Wekesser 64). Those against legalization say that the open availability for someone to end their life could lead to people feeling “more driven toward, or even forced” to be euthanized due to their emotional, rather than physical, pain (Lee and Stingl 1). During times of hardship such as a terminal illness, one often feels that their life is decreasing in value under the circumstances of the effective suffering their situation causes to the family and loves ones around them. It is therefore easier to end their life in a way that puts ease on the family and loved ones, in a
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.