Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on morals of euthanasia
Introduction
Euthanasia continues to be a subject of ethical debate. It is defined as the administration of lethal drugs by someone other than the person concerned with the explicit intention of ending a patient’s life, at the latter’s explicit request (Quaghebeur, de Casterle, & Gastmans, 2009).
An unprecedented number of people in the United States today live well into their late adult years. Improved medical and public health practices, increasing life expectancies, and the “graying” of the baby boom generation have all contributed to this phenomenon (Moulton, Hill, & Burdette, 2006). Euthanasia has been and always will be a topic of debate in the United States because Americans are living longer. Oregon, Washington, and Montana are the only three states who have legalized assisted suicide in the United States. The opinion of people is not only based on morals but religious beliefs are also being taken into consideration. Religion, faith, belief, and more generally, ideology and world view, entail more than just participation in rituals or the acceptance of certain doctrines. As religion and world view are expected to have repercussions on every aspect of life, it can be assumed that religious and ideological convictions will influence the professional attitudes and practices of medical professionals (Gielen, van den Branden, & Broeckaert, 2009).
Euthanasia has become more of a social concern. Euthanasia is being compared with birth control and abortion. Euthanasia is an attempt to control death while birth control and abortion are attempts to control birth. With advances in life-sustaining technologies and continuous increase in medical costs, euthanasia, or the right to end one’s life, when all hope of recove...
... middle of paper ...
... EUTHANASIA AND PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE. Nursing Ethics, 16(3), 303-318. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Lavi, S. J. (2007). Euthanasia as Public Policy: The Euthanasia Society of America. In, Modern Art of Dying (pp. 99-125). Princeton University Press. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
MING-LIN CHONG, ALICE, and FOK SHIU-YEU. 2009. “Attitudes Toward Euthanasia: Implications for Social Work Practice.” Social Work in Health Care 48, no. 2: 119-133. SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2011).
Moulton, B., Hill, T., & Burdette, A. (2006) Religion and Trends in Euthanasia Attitudes among U.S. Adults, 1977-2004. Sociological Forum, 21(2), 249-272. Doi: 10.1007/s11206-006-9015-5.
Quaghebeur, T., de Casterle, B., & Gastmans, C. (2009). NURSING AND EUTHANASIA: A REVIEW OF ARGUMENT-BASED ETHICS LITERATURE. Nursing Ethics, 16(4), 466-486. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
The word Euthanasia comes from the Greek and means “good death” (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp) and in the range of this paper, it will be called physician assisted suicide or “active” euthanasia. The definition of “active” euthanasia is ending one’s life yourself or with aid of a doctor. It can be done in various different ways; however, the most common form is with a combination of drugs, usually given by a physician. ( http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp) The reason Physician Assisted Suicide (or PAS) is an important issue in this country and around the world is that there are many people out there suffering from debilitating, incurable and intensely painful diseases that would like to end their lives with dignity and without suffering. (Leo & Lein, 2010, The Value of a Planned Death)
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 terms of the effects that euthanization has society, there are many benefits. The most beneficial aspect of this technology is that it is comforting for family and friends to know that their loved one is no longer suffering from intolerable pain. Although euthanasia is used for all ages, parents have specifically spoken out by saying that “the best parents are the ones who let their children go” (Braw). In today’s society, instant gratification is a priority; people will go to any extent to make a loved one to get what he or she wants. The nature of today’s society is to view an immediate death as an instant resolution to life’s problems. This concept is specifically demonstrated in Belgium; euthanization acts as a way to not only put patients out of their misery but also “to maintain the right population balance” (Frederich). Scholars idealize Belgium as a model for future societies because it has proven to be successful; Euthanasia will likely be used to control the population of overpopulated
Euthanasia has always been defined as easy and gentle death especially in cases of painful and incurable illness. It has also been referred to as mercy killing of those considered hopelessly ill, incapacitated or injured patients. It is a matter of life and death. To medical practitioners the dilemma remains: prolong
"Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide: All Sides." [On-Line]. Available: http://www.relgious tolerance.org/euthanas.htm #beli Downloaded: November 6, 1997
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.
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...
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
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 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.
Euthanasia is a sensitive topic and its sensitivity brings the world to a division. The two sides are those who support the issue and those who are not in favour. The side that supports the idea can argue that...
Euthanasia is one of the most recent and controversial debates today (Brogden, 2001). As per the Canadian Medical Association, euthanasia refers to the process of purposely and intentionally performing an act that is overtly anticipated to end the person’s life (CMA, 1998)
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.
Larson, Edward J. “Legalizing Euthanasia Would Encourage Suicide” Euthanasia- Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wesseker. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1995. 78-83. Print.
Keown, J. (2002). Euthanasia, ethics, and public policy: An argument against legislation. New York: Cambridge University Press.