Euthanasia-A Critique was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on June 20, 1990. Peter A. Singer and Mark Siegler are the two authors of this article. Singer is a graduate of the University of Toronto Medical School and holds a master’s in public health from Yale University. He is assistant professor of medicine and associate director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Toronto. Siegler got hi medical degree from the University of Chicago. He is the director of the Center of Clinical Medical Ethics at the university. He has written more then 100 articles and six books. The two authors believe that the medical community should rethink the move towards the use of euthanasia. Singer and Siegler discuss cost containment and what it entails, such as insurance. The expense of hospital stays and the cutting down on nursing staff at hospitals affects it. Many trauma centers are also closing down. They bring up the social injustice of euthanasia and how the poor and elderly will be affected. The minorities, uninsured and others could be taken advantage of by health care providers. Other problems are aroused when ethics come into the picture. The authors talk about the Hippocratic oath, religion, and people’s ethical traditions.
Runkle 2
When dealing with euthanasia issues arise, one of them is cost containment. When hospitals and doctors run tests it cost money, many tests are expensive and have to be repeated often. Health insurance can be expensive and many people choose either not to get insurance or can’t afford it. When people don’t have insurance it costs all of the taxpayers and hospital to cover the expense. This would encourage doctors to perform euthanasia on patients that are not paying for themselves just to get rid of them. Not having to spend money on patient’s medicine will keep cost at minimum along with long hospital stays with patients being kept alive with machines costing a lot of money everyday. There are many trauma centers closing throughout the country making health care shortages. This leads to over crowding and the possibility of doctors involuntarily killing patients to make room is the hospital.
Many groups of society will be targeted for euthanasia. Some of the groups are the uninsured, poor, elderly, minorities, and mentally disabled. Doctors would target these individuals because there less desirable role on society. Most doctors would not think is this way but they are out there.
Bibliography:.. Bernard, Neal, Ed. & Co. d. a. a. a. a. a. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone.
In addition to lawfulness it is unethical. Doctors should not be given Legislative power to administer death since it can cause a slippery slope. For example, euthanasia is allowed in Netherlands for twenty three years and doctors have went from killing terminally ill who asks for it, to killing chronically ill who asks for it, and to newborn babies who are born with birth defects at their parents request. Furthermore, euthanasia might become the cost effective way treat people with terminal illness. For example, the patient might request euthanasia bec...
Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.
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
“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”.
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 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
Doctors prefer to never have to euthanize a patient. It is a contradiction of everything they have been taught for a doctor to euthanize someone, because a doctor’s job is to do everything in their power to keep the patient alive, not assist them in suicide. The majority of doctors who specialize in palliative care, a field focused on quality of life for patients with severe and terminal illnesses, think legalizing assisted suicide is very unnecessary. This is due to the fact that if patients do not kill themselves, they will end up dying on a ventilator in the hospital under the best possible care available, with people around them trying to keep them as comfortable as possible. Legalized euthanasia everywhere has been compared to going down a slippery slope. Officials believe that it could be done over excessively and the fear of assisted suicide numbers rising greatly is a great fear. This is why euthanasia is such a controversial subject worldwide. But, even though it is a very controversial subject, euthanasia is humane. Every doctor also has a say in whether or not they choose to euthanize a patient or not, leaving only the doctors who are willing to do this type of practice, for euthanizing patients. Medicine and drugs prescribed by a doctor for pain or suffering can not always help a person to the extent they desire, even with the help of doctors
Euthanasia has been an ongoing debate for many years. Everyone has an opinion on why euthanasia should or should not be allowed but, it is as simple as having the choice to die with dignity. If a patient wishes to end his or her life before a disease takes away their quality of life, then the patient should have the option of euthanasia. Although, American society considers euthanasia to be morally wrong euthanasia should be considered respecting a loved one’s wishes. To understand euthanasia, it is important to know the rights humans have at the end of life, that there are acts of passive euthanasia already in practice, and the beneficial aspects.
Over the course of this paper, I will give a brief history, background, and address many of the arguments that are opposed to and for euthanasia. These arguments include causation, omission, legal issues, the physicians involved, the slippery slope that might potentially be created, autonomy rights, and Christianity.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their lifetime. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are suffering from euthanasia.
Robert Matz; Daniel P. Sudmasy; Edward D. Pallegrino. "Euthanasia: Morals and Ethics." Archives of Internal Medicine 1999: p1815 Aug. 9, 1999 .
First of all, euthanasia saves money and resources. The amount of money for health care in each country, and the number of beds and doctors in each hospital are limited. It is a huge waste if we use those money and resources to lengthen the lives of those who have an incurable disease and want to die themselves rather than saving the lives of the ones with a curable ailment. When we put those patients who ask for euthanasia to death, then the waiting list for each hospital will shorten. Then, the health care money of each country, the hospital beds, and the energy of the doctors can be used on the ones who can be cured, and can get back to normal and able to continue contributing to the society. Isn’t this a better way of using money and resources rather than unnaturally extend those incurable people’s lives?
People believe physicians should be able to aid in this process because they have valuable knowledge on how the body works, “… knowledge that can be used to kill or to cure” (Callahan 74). This argument contradicts the moral meaning of medicine. Indeed, the word "medical" comes from the Latin word “mederi,” which means "to heal." Medicine is understood to heal, cure, or comfort people, not kill. As a matter of fact, in the International Medical Code of Ethics and the American Nurses Association’s Code of Ethics fully states that the act of euthanasia violates their role and shall not be performed. Just because of the mere fact that physicians have the knowledge and medical equipment to kill does not indicate a physician should be permitted to perform euthanasia. Dan Brock states, “… permitting physicians to perform euthanasia, it is said, would be incompatible with their fundamental moral and professional commitment as healers to care for patients and to protect life” (77). Dan Brock also raises the question, if euthanasia became a common practice that was performed by physicians, would we eventually fear or lose trust in our physicians?