Combining with the theory of psychological hedonism, not granting euthanasia to those terminally ill patients would produce severe consequences. If “pleasure is the only thing that has value” (Lawhead 465), then the human pain and suffering has detriments and should be avoided as possible. For those terminally ill patients, the constant suffering is undoubted and undeniable. If we use Bentham’s method for calculating happiness to calculate the pain those patients encounter and experience, the result is astonishing. Let’s take this 14-year-old Chilean girl as an example, she is genetically inherited with cystic fibrosis which damages multiple organs of human bodies. Such ailment not only constantly produces the serious bodily pain, …show more content…
When stating that our legislation permits people’s rights to live and survive in the way they want, it is contradictory to see that the same legislation suddenly deprives the right and freedom that humans end their lives in the way they want. The lives belong to individuals themselves, and it should be up to individuals themselves to decide how to terminate their lives, cause, after all, they are the ones who live their lives and feel their pains, and other people couldn’t experience the same. Government has neither the rights nor corresponding authority to interfere with individuals’ choice about their deaths. However, those statements and moral principles are fundamentally dependent on individuals who should contain a clear and rational mentality and cognition about themselves and their own health status. Thus, my approach, here, varies a bit because it is necessary to protect those terminally ill patients from the harm that’s been done and manipulated by the unwise, unreasonable emotions and sentiments. It is hard to argue and confirm that those patients are entirely clear about their own health because they have great possibility of being fooled and controlled by the emotional desire to escape the contemporary and unbearable pains. It is indeed patients’ rights to determine how they are going to terminate their lives, but it is also society or government’s rights and jobs to help those patients make wise and responsible decisions about death, because people could not regret nor revive after
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...
Death is not a concept that is well grasped or understood but we all know the cycle of life, we live and we die. We do not know how and we do not know when, our fate is laid out for us, we just learn to accept it because it is just how it goes. Some are lucky enough to live a healthy life with few to none complications and some find themselves fighting for their lives because of a terminating illness or severely injured from any type of accident. In an act of pain, torture, agony and knowing there is no hope for survival why can it not be you that has the upper hand in deciding when it is time to say goodbye.
In the context of euthanasia, helping someone end their suffering may be viewed as doing more good than harm. This is said to be in line with the moral view that no patient be allowed to suffer unbearably, out of compassion and mercy (Norval and Gwyther, 2003). However, it can be argued that a further step in beneficence is the “duty to prevent harm to others” (Pellegrino and Thomasma, 1987), which falls under the principle of non-maleficence. Thus appropriate and optimal palliative care should be the right approach instead of euthanasia. Euthanasia advocates also set forth an argument based on distributive justice to support active voluntary euthanasia. The “rule of rescue” questions whether it is ethical to engage in expensive treatment of terminally ill patients to prolong their lives for a short period when medical funding is limited and gradually decreasing (Gabriel, 2011). This preferential treatment compromises the objectives of the medical profession and is morally unacceptable. The terminally ill patients who are already vulnerable should not be left to feel that they are a burden. They should be treated equally and should not be seen as depriving someone else of a prior right to those resources. Finally, as Beauchamp and Childress note, “the most vital consideration which binds all the four principles together is the character of the doctor who has to treat and care for his patients”
“It’s Over, Debbie” an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, written by an anonymous person, sparks a heated debate concerning the nature of euthanasia. The article is written from the perspective of gynecology resident’s. After analyzing the patient’s condition, he gives her a twenty milligram dose of morphine sulfate. This amount of dose is not concerned lethal; however, given the patient’s underweight body and medical condition was enough to kill her. The problem arises in determining whether this was active or passive euthanasia. Due to the ambiguous wording of the article, the answer can vary from reader to reader. For example, the anonymous author describes how the nurse gave the resident hurried details,
Death. This is not a topic that many people are comfortable discussing. It is such an uncomfortable topic to discuss because regardless if death is brought upon through natural death, murder, suicide, or even euthanasia, it brings upon such a wide variety of emotions to those affected that I believe no one can grow accustomed to. Stemming from this, we get into the debate of euthanasia vs. murder vs. suicide, and the ethics behind the three. Before considering the differences between the them, we should first be able to define ethics and morals. Nowadays, these two terms can be considered very similar, and are said to be the sort of principles that decide a person’s behavior and actions. Ethics and morals play a big role when discussing these topics, as people are quick to argue that euthanasia and murder can be considered the same. Through this paper, I will argue their differences, and how most aspects of euthanasia can be considered morally different and better than murder. Additionally, my perspective of how suicide compares and differs to these two will also be introduced.
The topic of assisted suicide has been a controversial topic across North America. Although both supporters and critics have expressed very different and logical views on the matter, competent terminal patients should be given the right to decide when they want to end their overall suffering. Euthanasia in Canada distinguishes between active and passive euthanasia. Active, is the act of intentionally killing a person to relieve pain. While withholding or taking away life-preserving procedures such as water and food, is passive. Over the last few years, Canada, more specifically Ontario has gained permission by provincial courts to end their life ahead of the federal government 's new law. In 2015, The judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada
I am writing to you today with both the interests of the public, and my own interests, on the topic of Euthanasia becoming legalized in British Columbia. In a 2013 poll conducted by Life Canada the findings were that in British Columbia 63% of Canadians believed that Assisted Suicide be brought into place, and 55% believed that Euthanasia should take action, although some hesitated because of the numbers of non-consensual Euthanasia deaths in Belgium. Having Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide legalized would not only be able to help the terminally ill and physically disabled decide how they wish for their life to end, but the legalization would also save a lot of time, money, and resources in hospitals and palliative care facilities. Although some laws such as section 241 of the Criminal Code would need to be reviewed, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide could potentially end some people’s suffering, and save money and resources for the province.
Euthanasia in a controversial topic that does not get enough attention. It is literally a life or death situation. The legalization of Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted-Suicide is plea of all terminally ill patients for freedom. It gives those patients the right to die with dignity and to end all the pain and suffering that comes with dying from a disease. Why should people’s loved ones be forced to go through all the pain if it can all be ended with one treatment? Many people ask: what is euthanasia? Why would a person want to end their life? How would that person’s family feel about the procedure? These are all common questions that have answers; people just do not do research to find their answers. Euthanasia is not a bad thing; it’s the process of helping a person become free of pain and suffering.
Merriam-Webster defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” As a globally issues, euthanasia is always in controversial. Swanton,D argued that euthanasia protects the rights of individuals and the freedom of religious expression. Additionally, Sydeny,D outlines europe’s increasing acceptance of euthanasia which may mean that euthanasia is a preferable choice for people. Conversely, Fagerlin, A PhD from University of Michigan Medical School and Carl E. Schneider, JD from University of Michigan Law School suggest the great distortion of living wills if euthanasia is allowed. What is
The fear associated with death is powerful, but even more so is the fear of living an unfulfilling life full of pointless suffering. This spurs the belief for those in such situations that we as bodied people have the power to control our fate. Many movements involved with Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) have started internationally with that phrase in mind. Euthanasia is defined as, “The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease, or is in an irreversible coma.” Christopher Docker defines PAS as, " ... the provision by a doctor, consciously and legally, to a patient who has completely requested it, of the means for that patient to end his or her own life." (Docker 8) These groups focus on the question of why should we endure untreatable suffering, especially when modern technology does nothing to alleviate the pain. Terminally ill patients should have the right to choose a merciful release.
On the flip side of this coin, there are those people who are pro-life and against the option of euthanasia becoming legalized across the board. Connecticut was featured in the news recently on the issue of euthanasia as proponents for the bill tried to have it passed but it was shot down and once again unsuccessful. Maybe these people who are against it feel this way because there is nothing really in place to prevent its misuse by patients and doctors alike. What happens if we embrace death with dignity and inadvertently contribute to the premature deaths of patients due to misdiagnoses of illnesses? Everyone knows about the famous Dr. Kevorkian who was the angel of death by assisting over one hundred patients to their death in the name of mercy. All doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to preserve life and do whatever is necessary to hold true to this oath. Maybe our society as a whole need to try to remember why we look to those in healthcare to make us better. All healthcare professionals essentially make a promise to preserve life and make a patient look forward to a healthy outcome. Maybe we need to revisit this instead of leaning towards a patients attempt to reevaluate why they should live.
In review, euthanasia is performed when the pain is too much for the patient. It is, overall, the patient’s life—their right and their choice. Everyone deserves to die compassionately, knowing that they will slip away painlessly. Everyone deserves to have a choice, especially when it comes to the manner of their death. If euthanasia is not legalized, many people will debilitating illnesses may take their lives in much more horrific ways. If they want the suffering to end badly enough, it is simply done one way or
to over turn the law. Also Kevin Andrews was strongly not in favour and with
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because
‘Mercy’, ‘dignity’, ‘good’ and ‘self-determination’ are the moral basis that the advocates for euthanasia defend. How appealing they sound, their accounts are simply an attempt to escape from dying process, through which we still hold our existence. The argument of pro-euthanasia might suggest that we are able to control over our life and death without moral conflict because such values related to euthanasia can justify the action of killing.