Death is something almost everyone fears, but the people that aren’t afraid are the ones suffering from terminal disease and other life-threatening illness. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are very serious topics in the medical community, as supporters to legalization argue that it’s the right of the person to live or die, while on the other side opponents argue legalizing it me1ans that doctors will have the ability to kill patients and that the government approves it. Euthanasia is legal in multiple countries including Netherlands, Switzerland, and Canada. Physician assisted suicide is legal in a lot of countries including; Germany, Japan, and Switzerland. Euthanasia is widely conversed in the world and has been since it was first
Assisted suicide and euthanasia are phenomena developed in the past 20 years. They’re similar to each other because they both have to do with taking away another human being’s life. While assisted suicide is defined as the act of providing a drug prescription or lethal dosage to a patient by a physician and the person can decide when to take the dosage, euthanasia is the practice of killing a sick individual where a physician takes an active part on the process. PAS and euthanasia are legal in Belgium, Colombia, India, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Oregon, Washington , Montana and Vermont. For years a debate on assisted death has been going on. There are groups who believe it should not be charged as murder and there are others who believe it should. In this essay the reader will be introduced to some of the main reasons why a government pass a law to make them [PAS and euthanasia] legal.
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.
The field of medicine has come very far, however sometimes there comes a point where there is nothing more a doctor can do to save a patient. In that case, is it ethical for a doctor to help a patient end their life? When a doctor actively helps a patient end their live by giving them a lethal drug, it is called active euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide. There are many illnesses where people would want to request physician assisted suicide, some include; cancer, AIDS, ALS, Huntington’s disease, and other painful terminal illnesses (Lachman, 2010, p.123). Even though these diseases cause great suffering and lead to loss of autonomy, there is still a heated debate on whether physician assisted suicide should be allowed. Richard T. Hull
Course Title:
Date
Euthanasia
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.
The word “Euthanasia” originates from the Greek language and translated it means good “death”. Today, it is the act of ending another person’s life at their request, to minimize their suffering. There is much debate on whether this practice should be legal and the moral implications behind this choice. If you have the right to live, should you also have the right to choose how you die? Support for euthanasia has been dated back to the Ancient Greek and Roman cultures in 16th century. Today, only 42 percent of Americans support euthanasia and 22 percent are unsure (Ertelt, 2010). Back in the 1970’s, a movement known as the “Right to Die” Movement began to move towards legalizing euthanasia (Yount, 12). Currently legal assisted suicide is only allowed in four states across the United States and is against the law otherwise. Legal physician-assisted suicide, or euthanasia, should be a right for terminally ill patients as it provides the freedom of choice, is a humane way to allow the terminally ill to die without immense pain and suffering, and will lessen the financial burden for families and the healthcare system.
The right to die and euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, have long been topics of passionate debate. Euthanasia is simply mercy killing while the phrase “physician-assisted suicide” regards the administering or the provision of lethal means to aid in the ending of a person’s life. The right to die entails the belief that if humans have the governmental and natural right to live and to prolong their lives then they should also have the right to end their life whenever desired. Articles such as Gary Cartwright’s “Last Rights” and Margaret Somerville’s “The Role of Death” provide the life support for these two topics will likely never fade away. Both articles cover physician-assisted suicide and the right to die. Cartwright’s article is much more personal and easier for readers to relate to while Somerville’s article is very aggressive and tries to persuade the reader with exhaustive vocabulary and unproven facts and statistics.
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
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.
Someday, a loved one may be faced with tough times or a terrible tragedy that leaves them in pain and agony for the rest of their life. It may not happen today, tomorrow, or even next month, but it is always a good idea to have a well thought out plan. A terminal illness could strike at any minute such as Lou Gehrig’s disease, or a car accident could leave someone paralyzed and miserable for the rest of their life. Permitting euthanasia would give the people the right to die with dignity and give them the option to not have to go through the pain, suffering, and stressful effects of a terminal illness. The Hippocratic Oath has been a major road block in legalizing the euthanasia process. Even though the modern versions of the Hippocratic Oath are not the same as older versions of the oath, many doctors believe that euthanasia, along with other things related to euthanasia are against the oath.