Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Active euthanasia pros and cons
Objection to euthanasia 500 words
Objection to euthanasia 500 words
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Active euthanasia pros and cons
I sat waiting until my two friends James Rachels and Tom Beauchamp arrived at the café where we were meeting for an afternoon of coffee and discussion regarding euthanasia. They arrived, we placed our order, and we eased into conversation…
Rasel: So I was reading the American Medical Association’s official statement regarding euthanasia that states, “The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another--mercy killing--is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association. The cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient
…show more content…
Smith actually killed the child by physically pushing and holding his head under the water until the child was dead, while Jones went into the bathroom with the intent to kill the child but instead he saw the child slip, hit his head, and fall under the water and then just watched the child drown of his own accord without having to physically force the child to die. In both scenarios the men had nefarious plans with intent to kill the young child. Smith physically carried out the act, while Jones watched without providing assistance to save the child, and the end result was the death of the child. In this situation is Jones less culpable than Smith? I pose that there is no moral difference between the actions of these two men. It is clear to me that the AMA implies in its doctrine that there is a moral difference between killing (active euthanasia) and letting die (passive euthanasia). I think I prove with this case that there is no difference here from a moral standpoint, and if passive euthanasia is permissible, then active euthanasia should also be permissible. If a patient near imminent death is in unbearable pain and suffering, and the choice by the patient and his family is to end this suffering, according to the AMA the doctor can withhold further treatment and let the patient die. In some cases …show more content…
I have some issues with your method and conclusion. It is not very strong, and it does not take into account the AMA’s position based on the types of real life scenarios for which it was intended to address. Let me first address the strength of your argument based on the bathtub scenario. It is true that in your example there is no difference between the moral judgment placed on both Smith and Jones in that there actions were guided by the intent to end in the death of the young child. However, you would have us believe that this scenario proves that morality becomes irrelevant in all cases equally! That is definitely not the case. All you really demonstrate is that in similar cases like the one you describe, morality can be made irrelevant by removing key circumstances of a situation. In reality the AMA did not craft their statement as a universal absolute. The AMA based its decision of cases involving scenarios in which patient suffering, inevitable imminent death, and informed consent of patient and family are involved. This makes the case for justified versus unjustified situations. In your example both Smith and Jones committed unjustified acts with evil intent. You cannot compare your scenario to the cases that are the basis for the AMA’s position. The AMA makes a clear line against non-permissible unjustified killing and permissible justified letting die situations. They make a clear distinction between active killing and
The case had a many important questions to it. In one question: is physician-assisted suicide morally, ethically, legally correct, and/or fair to anyone?
Assisted suicide should be legalized nationwide in the United States, because every human deserves a peaceful death. Assisted suicide is when person that has been told they are terminally ill and won’t survive, they can go to a doctor and get prescribed a medication that results in death. It’s not murder, it’s giving the person a chance to say their good byes and leave this world when they are ready to go. Not making them suffer and go on when they don’t want to.
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...
Despite the fact that Jack Kevorkian wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger, doesn’t mean what he did was right. He had broken his words of honor as a doctor by creating a killing machine and let, counseled even, people to use it. Plunging his desperate and hopeless patients to doom by supporting the idea “to die with dignity”, whereas he himself when confronted with such position refused to die that way. Moreover, justifying suicide under any circumstances is inevitably not right. For these reasons, I therefore disagree with what Dr. Jack Kevorkian had done.
The AMA filed an amicus brief in the 9th Circuit case regarding doctor-assisted suicide. In this brief, the AMA stated, "There is, in short, compelling evidence of the need to ensure that all patients have access to quality palliative care, but not of any need for physician-assisted suicide ..." The AMA is keenly aware that doctors perform a crucial act of healing and saving life. Accepting a dual role of taking life, while at the same time protecting life, would undermine their credibility and the sacred trust that exists between a patient and doctor.
“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”.
Euthanasia is the fact of ending somebody’s life when assisting him to die peacefully without pain. In most cases, it is a process that leads to end the suffering of human beings due to disease or illness. A person other than the patient is responsible for the act of euthanasia; for example a medical provider who gives the patient the shot that must kill him. When people sign a consent form to have euthanasia, it is considered voluntary, involuntary euthanasia is when they refuse. When people are not alert and oriented they are not allowed to sign any consent including the consent to euthanasia. When euthanasia is practiced in such situation, it is a non-voluntary euthanasia. In sum, people who practice voluntary euthanasia in honoring other
In “The Morality of Euthanasia” by James Rachels, he believed that if the American Medical Association (AMA) accepts passive euthanasia, then active euthanasia should be permitted as well since passive euthanasia tends to cause more pain and suffering to the patient more than active euthanasia does, and both end with death. In “The Intentional Termination of Life” by Bonnie Steinbock, she does not argue against euthanasia, but instead, she focuses on the intention of doctors in the act of euthanasia. She believes that in certain cases of passive euthanasia, there could be other reasons to the act of removing or withholding treatment other than
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
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.
Medical workers and healthcare officials regard the practice with thoughts that clash just as much as the rest of society. Moreover, placing the ability upon a doctor is completely inadequate. Not only does it put the doctor in an uncomfortable position, an assisted suicide case can easily trickle into the category of murder. A Dutch doctor, Henk Prins, faced criminal charges when he ended the life of a terminally ill infant, despite his pure intentions and approval from numerous physicians who agreed with his action. He had consent from the baby’s parents as well as evidence that she would only have a couple weeks to live, noting that no operation would improve her condition. After the infant’s life was ended through drug administration, Prins was convicted of murder (Worsnop, 1995, para. 151-152). The murky water surrounding assisted suicide has made it difficult for the action to be carried out legally, forcing virtuous doctors behind bars. Many state laws prohibit physician assisted suicide under broad conditions. Furthermore, even if one’s actions are permitted by state law, they are not necessarily protected by federal law, which declares that, “the state’s law against physician-assisted suicide [is] unconstitutional” (Worsnop, 1995, para. 5). Doctors play a vulnerable role when it comes down to the details, and
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.
New York: New York University Press, 2012. Print. The. Kuhse, Helga. A. “Euthanasia.” A Companion to Ethics.
Two patients share a hospital room. By miraculous circumstance, they are both suffering identical cases of late stage terminal cancer, and both have expressed firmly that they don’t want their lives to be artificially extended. Patient A has contracted a hospital-borne infection, and will die quickly if this infection is not treated. This being the case, the doctors decide to take no action, allowing Patient A to die from the infection. This raises the question: what does this choice imply for Patient B? Should he be allowed to choose active euthanasia to combat his suffering? I will argue that there is no moral distinction between letting Patient A die and “killing” Patient B. I will do so by looking at each patient’s circumstances individually, then applying arguments about euthanasia to their cases, and ultimately bringing them back together to consider a verdict. While some may argue that there is a difference between killing Patient B and letting Patient A die, I assert that any such claims are based in irrelevant reasoning.
...art Two: Medicine Versus Euthanasia." Issues In Law & Medicine 27.1 (2011): 51-70. MEDLINE. Web. 4 Apr. 2014. This article tells a story about a child who dies due to negligence. The article discusses the way and importance of medicine. It also discusses the ethics of dying.