“Euthanasia”, also known as “mercy killing”, comes from the two Greek words for “good death”. It is the practice of ending a person’s life (legally) who is suffering from a terminal disease or is in a severe state where they do not have the consciousness to take care of themselves. () In the novel “Of Mice and Men”, by John Steinbeck, George kills Lennie so that Lennie has a peaceful death by the hands of his best friend rather than have him suffer by the hands of someone else, a more “informal” way of euthanasia. Euthanasia has its pros and cons but is greatly debated because it can be seen as unhuman and often considered as murder.
The formal role of a doctor for euthanasia when a patient is on the verge of death, as described by physician William Hunk, is “We dismiss all thought of cure, or the prolongation of life, and our efforts are limited to the relief of certain urgent conditions, such as pain.” () Many physicians in the 1800’s - 1900’s considered euthanasia as a part of their job by helping patients achieve a peaceful death. Although, recently there has been more and more cases where physicians try to get rid of their dying patient by giving them certain medication that the doctors knew would be deadly. The most relevant case in today’s world is abortions involving euthanasia. Infants born with a slim chance of survival and severe deformities may be killed by being given medication in lethal doses to “ease them quietly out of their life.” ()
The first effort to legalize euthanasia in the United States was made by a legislator in Ohio in 1906. A bill was shown to the state, and if the bill was to pass, a physician in the U.S. would have the right to suggest a “painless death to any...
... middle of paper ...
...ould ultimately be up to the patient to decide the value of life and death for him/her. On the other hand, those who oppose euthanasia say that if euthanasia was legalized, the right to die would be abused and ultimately changed into a “right to kill”. The main complication when euthanasia is being considered is that sometimes it is not clear if a terminally ill patient really wants to die. Some argue that it is unbearable for the patients to know that they are on their deathbed, leading to a pro-euthanasia statement by Dr. Maisie M, that “maintaining life support systems against the patient's wish is considered unethical by law as well as medical philosophy. If the patient has the right to discontinue treatment why would he not have the right to shorten his lifetime to escape the intolerable anguish? Isn’t the pain of waiting for death frightening and traumatic?”
In the United States, euthanasia should be legalized. In the year of 1992, Chris Docker wrote about an elderly woman going through the last painful stages of her life. Docker shared that “Mrs. Boyes' was so ill that she "screamed like a dog" if anyone touched her… when she repeatedly requested to die, Dr. Cox finally gave her an injection of potassium chloride, bestowing on her the boon of a peaceful death so many of us feel we are entitled to” (Docker). This unfortunate situation is presented to many doctors across the US. With euthanasia currently being illegal, they cannot provide proper care for their patients. Euthanasia can spare many people of their undesirable agony they face close to their passing. Too many people are suffering from a terminal illness and wanting to be put out of their misery; therefore, euthanasia should be made legal and enforced nationwide.
Physician-assisted suicide was legalized in the United States in June of 1997, but can be found throughout history, dating back to ancient civilizations (Friend, 2011; Lachman, 2010). Many ancient civilizations, to include the Greeks, believed that individuals had the right to voluntarily end their life instead of suffering (Friend, 2011; Lachman, 2010). Ending suffering was seen as an honorable death and physicians administered the poison at the individual’s request (Friend, 2011). In the fifteenth century, the act of euthanasia was considered immoral by members of Christianity and by doctors who studied the Hippocratic Oath (Friend, 2011). Many groups of people participated in religion and respected the knowledge of physicians; therefore, euth...
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.
Euthanasia is a subject that has been discussed, accepted, and rejected for several centuries. It is a subject that is difficult to digest much less discuss in the public forum, or even with one’s own family or physician. Society should not rush into a hasty decision, but as a society a joint decision needs to be made about the legalization of euthanasia. A compromise, legalizing euthanasia would allow terminally ill patients to have an active role in and/or a choice of how and when to end their life. When it comes to the possibility of living a life that is expected to involve extreme pain and suffering until death, one would think the answer
... D. Simmons, Birth and Death: Bioethical Decision Making (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983) p.113. Paul D. Simmons, Birth and Death: Bioethical Decision Making (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983) p. 113. Ann Wickett, The Right To Die: Understanding Euthanasia (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1986) p.114. Samuel Gorovitz, Drawing The Line: Life, Death, and Ethical Choices in an American HospitalÄ (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) p.10. Samuel Gorovitz, Drawing The Line: Life, Death, and Ethical Choices in an American Hospital (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) p.10. Samuel Gorovitz, Drawing The Line: Life, Death, and Ethical Choices in an American Hospital (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) p.17. Samuel Gorovitz, Drawing The Line: Life, Death, andEthical Choices in an American Hospital (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) p.21. Ann Wickett, The Right To Die: Understanding Euthanasia (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986) p.107. Ann Wickett, The Right To Die: Understanding Euthanasia (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986) p.117. Thomas W. Case, Dying Made Easy (New York: Neal Bernards Inc., November 4, 1991) pp.25-26.
The topic of euthanasia is one that has become highly controversial during the last several decades. The argument develops greater contentiousness when concerning the life, or lack their of, of terminally ill and persistent vegetative state patients. To further perpetuate the dilemma, one must consider in which specific circumstance euthanasia becomes morally justified for these patients?
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
Euthanasia is an action that result in the death of a person. There are four types of euthanasia, such as voluntary active euthanasia, nonvoluntary active euthanasia, voluntary passive euthanasia, and nonvoluntary passive euthanasia. Among the four types of euthanasia, voluntary active euthanasia or VAE is the most controversial ethical issue in the United States. It is the killing of a competent patient who decided to end his/her suffering by ending his/her life with the help of the physician. VAE is illegal in the Unites States; however, it is morally just. Voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral on the basis of Immanuel Kant’s human dignity, the utilitarian’s Greatest Happiness Principle, and James Rachel’s view of active euthanasia.
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
The subject of Euthanasia is a heated battle, in which lines have been drawn between warring social, religious and political groups. Many people want this controversial institution erased from the volumes of lawful medicine, but others say that we should be able to choose our fates in extreme cases. Neither the lawmakers of the country nor the people have been able to find a solution to this debate without causing an intense opposition, and the possibility for an end to this war of ethics seems very far in the distance.
People who are against euthanasia claim that it is unethical and morally wrong to take someone’s life away. According to the article “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified,” euthanasia is a nice word that replaces the word murder (Doug). The author claims that people will use “terminal illness” to murder people without their consent. People that are on a vegetable state and cannot depend of themselves are force to accept the decisions of others. Euthanasia can be done to a patient if the person in charge is willing to go through the process. Since the patient cannot say or do anything, it is unsure if the person in charge is doing it for dark reasons. It is not just adults, infants can also be euthaniz...
Since euthanasia is a divisive subject, a variety of interpretations occurs. First, people that are in favor of euthanasia agreed that it is depressing to see a terminally ill person going through excruciating pain. Also, every human being deserves a dignified and peaceful death. The West’s Encyclopedia of American law, illustrates that a person or physician that cause the death of a patient is acting with compassion and mercy (Phelps, Lehman 237). In addition, people that agree with euthanasia believe that seeing a person experiencing constant misery and pain because of heath issue should have the to die with dignity. In this society where the protection human rights is in a debate on both sides, people that are in favor with euthanasia,
Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from a disease that can't be cured or a permanent disease. Usually a person who chooses Euthanasia should suffer from an incurable disease, or it would be called suicide. In many cases it is carried out by the patients request, but sometimes the patient is s...
Rachels states “The maintenance of life by artificial means is, in such cases, sadly pointless.” (107). Even though such statement may seem blunt, he mentions how both science and religion could agree seeing how both the Pope and the American Medical Association don’t oppose letting people die as much as they oppose killing. Rachels begins to constructs the practical consequences of the traditional view by presenting the three options to physicians can perform when dealing with terminal ill suffering patients. First case involves active euthanasia in which the physician provides the means for the transition into death usually by a lethal injection. The second option involves passive euthanasia in which the physician stop treating the patient so the disease eventually kills the patient. The third option involves continuing to treat the patient in order to sustain life. Rachel may accept passive euthanasia as he states “But the view which makes option two the top choice is a 'moderate' position that incorporates the worst, and not the best, of both extremes” (Rachels, 108). Yet even though Rachels may accept the passive euthanasia rather than actively killing or prolonging a life of suffering, he argues how both are morally equivalent. Rachels uses Dr. Anthony Shaw as a supporter of his view. Dr. Shaw supports the morality of letting infants die. They rather accompany the dying in their final moments than be the cause for their death in active euthanasia or be the intervening individual prolonging a life of
Euthanasia is described as, “Intentionally making someone die rather than allowing that person to die naturally. Put bluntly, euthanasia means killing in the name of compassion[...]In euthanasia, one person does something that directly kills another. For example, a doctor gives a lethal injection to a patient”(IAETF 1). While euthanasia advocates believe that American citizens should have the right to die, anti-euthanasia advocates believe that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide defies nature and could be harmful to those who cannot defend themselves, such as disabled people. Due to the complexity of euthanasia, it is a morality issue, stemming from the question of whether or not doctors should be able to kill their patients in the name of compassion. Campaigns such as Right to Die - a