Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The debate surrounding euthanasia
Ethics on euthanasia
The debate surrounding euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The debate surrounding euthanasia
The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain. The financial burden that is caused by the medical treatments needed is a contributing factor for many patients hardship. Patients that have no health insurance must rely on public assistance, meanwhile those that carry insurance must have the resources to pay co-pays, deductibles, out of pocket maximums and/or up to a 20% portion of medical services. “Estimates show that about 27% of Medicare's annual $327 billion budget goes to care for patients in their final year of life” (Appleby, 2006). States like Washington and Oregon have legalized the “Death with Dignity Act”, which allows patients with a terminal disease the right of choice. Terminal illnesses are most commonly associated with cancer, HIV and/or organ disorders. These diseases are known to debilitate the patient and cause extreme amounts of pain. This decision should be made entirely by the patient, as they are the ones dealing with the effects of these terminal illnesses. We can all understand that families and outsiders object to Euthanasia as an option, but the pain factor m... ... middle of paper ... ... arise from accusations of a faulty Euthanasia. We live an ever-changing society that should not view Euthanasia as an unethical action, but as a way of help for suffering patients. Everyday their are thousands of hard working individuals that are diagnosed with a terminal illness and are now faced with decisions that must both be in the best interest for them and their families. This is neither an easy choice nor one that should be made without serious thought, but it should not be denied or penalized by society or government. It is a choice that must be made only by the patient in question with the input and understanding of their families. Many members of our society have worked very hard throughout their lives and if it is their desire to elect Euthanasia to spare them of the pain and the financial burden that a fatal illness would leave behind, then so be it.
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
There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death. Should these people continue to suffer even though they really are ba...
Terminally ill patients deserve the right to have a dignified death. These patients should not be forced to suffer and be in agony their lasting days. The terminally ill should have this choice, because it is the only way to end their excruciating pain. These patients don’t have
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.
Envision being diagnosed with end stage cancer. You are only given a few months remaining to live. Your doctor informs you of all the frightening and painful experiences lying ahead of you. As your health beings to deteriorate, your family no longer recognizes the person that you once were. Would you choose the path to suffering tremendous amounts of pain, or would you want to die peacefully? Euthanasia is an assisted death option for those who are diagnosed with an incurable disease. It is the permissive right of voluntary suicide, to prevent those who are terminally ill from suffering in vain. Some terminally ill patients suffer a great deal of pain, and do not wish to prolong their suffering. Euthanasia ensures that a person with a degenerative disease can end their own life with the assistance of the medical community.
Anyone can be diagnosed with a terminal illness. It doesn’t matter how healthy you are, who you are, or what you do. Some terminal illnesses you can prevent by avoiding unhealthy habits, eating healthily, exercising regularly and keeping up with vaccinations. However some terminally ill people cannot be helped, their diseases cannot be cured and the only thing possible to help them, besides providing pain relieving medication, is to make them as comfortable as possible while enduring their condition. Many times the pharmaceuticals do not provide the desired pain escape, and cause patients to seek immediate relief in methods such as euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending a life in order to alleviate pain and suffering, but is deemed controversial because many various religions believe that their creators are the only ones that should decide when their life’s journey should reach its end. Euthanasia is performed by medical doctors or physicians and is the administration of a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient on his or her express request. Although the majority of American states oppose euthanasia, the practice would result in more good as opposed to harm. The patient who is receiving the euthanizing medication would be able to proactively choose their pursuit of happiness, alleviate themselves from all of the built up pain and suffering, relieve the burden they may feel they are upon their family, and die with dignity, which is the most ethical option for vegetative state and terminally ill patients. Euthanasia should remain an alternative to living a slow and painful life for those who are terminally ill, in a vegetative state or would like to end their life with dignity. In addition, t...
“When a patient says, ‘Help me doctor,’ he is assuming that his doctor is on the side of his life.” This quote by Dr.Margaret Cottle , who is a palliative care physician , shows the mentality that most patients have when it comes to patient care. Euthanasia is a very controversial topic that has been debated on throughout the years. Whether it may be active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia, indirect or physician assisted the morals and reasoning behind each are controversial. Though some people may believe euthanasia may be justified in a critical situation and critical punishment, euthanasia should be prohibited because euthanasia weakens societies respects for the sanctity of life, euthanasia might not be in the person’s best interest, and euthanasia affects other peoples rights, not just the patients.
First of all, voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary because alternative treatments exist. It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slowly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Meticulous research in palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available.
“If you don't get what you want, you suffer; if you get what you don't want, you suffer; even when you get exactly what you want, you still suffer because you can't hold on to it forever. Your mind is your predicament. It wants to be free of change. Free of pain, free of the obligations of life and death. But change is law and no amount of pretending will alter that reality” (Socrates ). Death. The means to an end. Game over. Do we as humans have a choice in the matter of choosing life or death, or is that all left up to a higher power? Which is a highly debatable question that has no exact answer. Where should we draw the line in deciding who has that right, the patients, after all it is their life, the family or should it be up to the doctors, the ones who have to partake in ending one’s life? When searching for the solution a person must contemplate their beliefs and the many perspectives of people who could possibility sway his/her choice. In doing so, patients religion, values, and traditions come into play. The main reason behind the argument is , what is suicide? "suicide is death caused by self-directed injurious behavior with any intent to die as a result of the behavior"(CDC). Conversely the option of death should be granted to a patient who is suffering from severe injuries or a situation involving a predicted death, unless otherwise stated in their wishes beforehand.
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
Euthanasia is a way that can help those who do not want to suffer or those who want it to be over quickly and with no pain. Does everyone have the right to die? “Many believe that killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die” (Rachels, 229). Many will say that God created us, and we should not take the easy way out, but rather was die slowly. Others believe that it is up to the person who is in pain whether they want to take an easy way out by an injection. In this paper I will discuss Passive Euthanasia and Active Euthanasia and James Rachels and Bonnie Steinbocks opinions on the subject. There will also be personal experiences as well as which between Passive and Active Euthanasia I believe has a stronger argument.
There are two methods of carrying out euthanasia, the first one is active and the second one is passive. Active euthanasia means the physicians deliberately take actions which cause the death of the patients, for example, the injection of sedatives in excess amount. Passive euthanasia is that the doctors do not take any further therapies to keep the ill patients alive such as switching off the life supporting machines [1]. This essay argues that the legalization of the euthanasia should not be proposed nowadays. It begins by analyzing the problem that may cause in relation to the following aspects: ‘slippery slope’ argument, religious view, vulnerable people and a rebuttal against the fair distribution of medical resources. This essay concludes that the legalization of the voluntary euthanasia brings more harm than good.
... greater pain and anguish for longer periods of time than my father did, I believe euthanasia is the only compassionate form of relief we can provide. I believe it is morally important to allow an individual to die with respect for his or her dignity, while respecting his or her autonomy. Because of these reasons, euthanasia is morally justified when administered under strict controls.
Euthanasia can be defined as “bringing about the death of another person to somehow benefit that person” (Pojman). The term implies that the death is intentional. Because there are several different types of euthanasia, it is difficult to make a blanket statement concerning the morality of euthanasia. This paper discusses the particular morality of the passive and active forms of involuntary, nonvoluntary, and voluntary euthanasia. I believe that voluntary passive euthanasia is morally acceptable, while all other forms of euthanasia are ultimately immoral.
An individual may ask questions along the lines of it is estimated that we spend approximately 20-30% of insurance money to the terminally ill. According to the online article, “The Cost of Keeping The Terminally Ill Alive,” by physician Richard Meyer, “Last year, Medicare paid 55 billion dollars just for doctor and hospital bills during the last two months of patient’s lives.” This means that more of our money is, almost in a sense, wasted on a patient in their last two months of life, instead of going into something more significant such as infrastructure, education, and food which would be more of a long term thing as all of those ideas can be implemented and last for years and years--more than just two months. In addition, Meyer strengthens his argument by explaining that “most of the bills are paid for by the federal government with few or no questions asked.... Modern medicine has become so good at keeping the terminally ill alive by treating the complications of underlying disease that the inevitable process of dying has become much harder and is often prolonged unnecessarily.” What physician Meyer is trying to explain is that, just because doctors and hospitals have the technology to keep individuals alive for a prolonged period of time, and because the federal government has the money needed to pay for the doctors, to build these hospitals, and to