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. Philosopher, Ezekial Emanuel, asserts that the ethical belief in the 19th and 20th century in the United States are reminiscent of those today, both in terms of content and ferocity. Emanuel adds that interest in euthanasia arose historically and predictably from (1) economic recession or movements of Social Darwinism; (2) doctors who engaged in a struggle with society over their medical-authority and profession; and (3) terminating life-sustaining practices become part of standard medical practice, and there is a desire then to extend this to active euthanasia. Arguably, all three situations met by the end of the 20th century. The rise of managed care, the increase of health care costs, and the growing number of uninsured patients place economic and political pressures on individuals (and governments) to find a cost-containment resolution. Additionally, since the late 1970s, the medical profession has faced the dominating principle of patient independence as a challenge – first to medical paternalism and then extending even to the principle of beneficence. More so, the usage of the Internet and other global media has expanded the ability of patients to access an... ... middle of paper ... ...(Prometheus Books 1991). MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO, CATO MAIOR DE SENECTUTE (1873). Michigan v. Kevorkian, 447 Mich. 436 (1994). PLATO, DE RE PUBLICA, GR., AUSZ (Rick Barbaric 1976). Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS, BASIC WRITINGS OF ST THOMAS AQUINAS (Hackett Publ'g 1997). SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS, SUMMA THEOLOGICA (Hayes Barton Press 1999). SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS, TREATISE ON LAW (St Augustine PressInc 2009). Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). Secondary Sources CRAIG PATERSON, THE CONTRIBUTION OF NATURAL LAW THEORY TO MORAL AND LEGAL DEBATE CONCERNING SUICIDE, ASSISTED SUICIDE, AND EUTHANASIA (Universal-Publishers 2010). DAVID HUME, ON SUICIDE (Penguin UK 2005). PAUL CARRICK, MEDICAL ETHICS IN THE ANCIENT WORLD (Georgetown Univ. Press 2001). SUSAN M. BEHUNIAK & ARTHUR G. SVENSON, PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE (Rowman & Littlefield 2003).
These are four of the most controversial case of Euthanasia. Is that the case, does this little girl have the right to end her life due to her terminal illness. Valentina Maureira has been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis as a baby. Her disease has no cure and the genetic disease has severely debilitates patients by clogging their lungs and organs making it hard to breath. The disease mess with the lungs and organs by covering it up with a thick layer of mucus. Valentina Maureria has made a decision she wants to end her life since she will not have to bear with the pain and, “Her plea for euthanasia came after the death of another cystic fibrosis patient at her hospital a month ago” (8 most controversial case of euthanasia). It sad that Valentina
Mortality is an ever-fleeting moment in time, yet some believe the spirit and soul is eternal. The desperation of perishing flesh painted in detail Dudley Randall’s poem “To The Mercy Killers.” The focused principally on the allying functions of a mortal body during a state of no recovery. Randall presents to an audience a plea for mercy, and for the continuous gift of life. Randall’s poem strikes as a sore spot within humanity, euthanasia. The choice to exercise a person’s right to euthanasia due to a medical condition or a personal choice seems to strike a sensitive spot within most human beings. The notion of playing GOD in a sense seems ridiculous to some yet others may view euthanasia as a personal right. Who is to say which personal view is correct? The purpose of this essay is to broaden and present alternative views in which euthanasia maybe appropriate.
Dax Cowart was hospitalized after a gas explosion engulfed his car because he suffered stern burns. He was “burned so severely and [was] in so much pain that [he] did not want to live even the early moments following the explosion.” He repeatedly asked his doctors and family to end his agony. Dianne Pretty had a motor neuron disease that instigates a painful death. She wanted to have “a quick death without suffering, at home surrounded by [her] family.” 85-year old Mary Ormerod was starved of nutrients after she went into a coma. Her doctor and daughter made the decision to end her torment, however the doctor got suspended in doing so (BBC).
This essay explores the views of doctors, of the general public, and of the original Hippocratic Oath on the practices of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Considerable reference material is employed - from professional sources.
...volving the ethical and moral values that impact society today and in the course of time. Not only are doctors’ purposes being compromised with the proposition of active euthanasia, but also a religious and philosophical perspective. The exercise of assisted suicide would deteriorate the responsibility of the civil law and conclusively endanger its reason to protect and provide a just system. Even if one is not spiritually inclined or subject to moral or ethical conviction, the practice of physician assisted suicide promotes widespread abuse and influences society, climatically devaluing human life. It is not a question of terminally ill patients having the civil liberty to choose life or death; it is a matter of moral principle that upholds the community to a protective and answerable standard. It is not a humane option to negotiate ethical accuracy for autonomy.
“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”.
The protection of life has been a foundation for many laws and social mores and legalizing euthanasia cheapens that protection. A recent challenge to this idea came in a London lawsuit when two severely disabled men claimed their protected human rights were violated because they could not choose how and when to die. The British Court ruled that while the current laws did not support the rights the men claimed, “the ban on euthanasia is justified” (Cheng 1). In this lawsuit, the right to live won above the so-called right to die because a law that was enacted by the people of Britain was protected. Had the case won, the laws that British voters approved to protect life, would have been cast away. Similarly in the United States, many bills to promote euthanasia have died once voters were informed of the debate. Initiative 119, which would have legalized euthanasia in Washington in 1991, at first show...
Indeed, three benchmark ancient texts constitute the authority for human institutions of western civilization which prohibit the practice of euthanasia. The ancient legal code of Hammurabi, the Mosaic texts of the Judeo-Christian ethical tradition and The Hippocratic Oath handed down from ancient Greece, all have provisional language forbidding the practice of active euthanasia. Thus, organized disciplines of modern society, namely organized medicine, as well as the judicial and legislative bodies, which were constituted upon the ethical traditions of Western Civilization by longstanding convention, forbid the practice of active euthanasia on moral and ethical grounds. Quite simply, one human being shall not kill another. This is the command that has been handed down to humanity, so many millennia ago.
For many years the topic of euthanasia caused a mixed reaction in society and it still does. Attention to the issue of euthanasia has increased with the development of social progress, and in particular with the technology to sustain seriously ill people. Relevance of this topic is difficult to overestimate, first, because it is associated with the most expensive a person has - his life, and secondly - because of poor knowledge of the euthanasia problem, lack of underlining it in the writings of scholars-lawyers. Doctors, psychologists, lawyers, religious figures and politicians constantly lead numerous debates upon this issue. However, euthanasia’s practice still has not found a clear common answer to the question of its justification.
The cultural connotations of euthanasia involve a speedy and merciful death done for the benefit of the person being euthanized. Many associate the term with phrases like “mercy killing” implying that it is for the benefit of the subject and not to their detriment, furthermore this phrase suggests that the act of euthanasia itself is an act of charity. In her paper Euthanasia Phillipa Foot sets out to discuss the major philosophical implications associated with the act of euthanasia and whether or not they can be morally justified in certain circumstances, and goes on to discuss the tremendous societal impact of a fully legalized and widely accepted practice of euthanasia. She first begins by addressing the commonly held definition of euthanasia,
An incredibly controversial issue clouds the minds of millions of people everyday as death confronts them. The problem revolves around the ethics of euthanasia. Should medical assisted suicide be outlawed in all situations or under certain circumstances, could it be considered ethical? Do humans violate nature’s course with science and advanced technology by playing God? Why should doctors and families witness their loved ones suffer when the solution of euthanasia promises a painless death? Authors Andrea E. Richardson and David Miller of the articles “Death with Dignity: The Ultimate Human Right” and “From Life to Death in a Peaceful Instant” reflect upon their experiences and feelings on these questions.
Everyone, at some point in their life, will grapple with the grievous reality of a loved one dying. Doctors and medical practitioners will do all they can to comfort and help those who are terminally ill, but their efforts will only postpone the inevitable. Modern medical advances have facilitated the use of life-support machines and intubation, but these advances have also facilitated the controversial introduction of euthanasia and physician-assisted dying. A number of pro-choice advocates have recently suggested that euthanasia is the gentlest, easiest, and quickest way to end one 's life with dignity. By focusing on these appealing prospects, however, many people do not adequately take into account what I consider to be important constituents
...day’s society and will continue to be for centuries. This brings together both moral and ethical issues that everyone has different perspectives that are instilled at young ages. In this paper I have argued that: Health professionals should aim to improve health and suffering and not kill because it becomes overbearing, If hospitals had good palliative care then euthanasia wouldn’t be necessary, A patient who is in the process of dying isn’t in the right state of mind to make a decision such as ending their life, If euthanasia becomes legal, it doesn’t allow research to find cures for chronic illnesses, Euthanasia gives too much power to the doctors, Euthanasia destroys societal respect for life, and Giving the doctors this much power essentially leads to a variation of murder. Therefore, it is morally wrong for someone to kill a person; even it is on medical terms.
Despite one’s medical condition, euthanasia should not be an end of life choice. But what is euthanasia or doctor-assisted suicide? Euthanasia is defined as "the bringing about of a gentle and easy death for a person suffering from a painful incurable disease," while Suicide on the other hand, is "the intentional killing of oneself." Doctor-assisted suicide combines both of these definitions with the idea of a physician helping a terminally ill patient to die. Doctors can perform euthanasia by giving a patient a lethal injection or by prescribing a lethal dose of drugs (“Euthanasia”). Active euthanasia is actually taking proactive measures to help a person die. Opposite active euthanasia which is defined as "allowing to die," and is used to describe a decision to withhold treatment, remove life support, etc. from a patient who may be in a coma or vegetative state (Issues and Controversies).
What exactly is Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide? Euthanasia is the practice of ending a human being’s life with the support of a physician or other third party in response to an untreatable patient suffering from severe pain and exhaustion over a course of time. Euthanasia is sometimes known as, mercy killing or assisted suicide. However, there are many classifications of Euthanasia and it has been legal in five states of the U.S, as of 2017; Washington, Oregon, Montana, Colorado, Vermont, and California. It has also been legalized in Canada, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Japan and Columbia have too, legalized this practice, but under strict and defined circumstances. Although physician-assisted suicide seems like the definitive answer for patients that are heavily suffering from terminal illnesses, it is morally wrong and ethically erroneous. The topic of Euthanasia has always been a controversial one because it holds both, moral as well as ethical claims. So, in other words, should Euthanasia be legalized? Should people have the option to end their lives and basically play God? This essay will focus on the claims against Euthanasia and