Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Euthanasia for terminally ill
Essays on ethics of dr.kevorkian
Religion and euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Euthanasia for terminally ill
The ethical and moral debate on Euthanasia has been going on for years. The ultimate question: Should Euthanasia be legalized or not? In my opinion, the practice of Euthanasia can be great and should be legalized. I believe that what Dr. Kevorkian and his practice was doing was the right thing.
Before moving forward, it is very important, appropriate, and necessary to say that religion should never play a part in the argument of Euthanasia especially dealing with it from a legal point of view. Not to bash on any one’s religion but there are so many different religions in this world, who is to say theirs is the right one. Not everyone is religious so why should we follow their “practices” especially when it comes to this very delicate topic about people choosing to end their life. Of course, for an individual to follow their own religion in a personal situation or personal opinion on Euthanasia is absolutely more than acceptable but when it is comes to handling it with the whole society, religion simply cannot play a bigger role than a personal opinion.
Since Euthanasia comes in several different forms, I am choosing to discuss about assisted suicide because this form of Euthanasia is the most relevant one to Dr. Kevorkian’s practices and was used for the majority of his cases. Assisted suicide is the suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of a lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose. If a terminal- ill patient is suffering throughout their remaining time spent on Earth, shouldn’t they have the freedom to have an option that allows them to end their life in a peaceful way that is over watched by a professional medical personnel such as a doctor or a nurse? However, let’s tak...
... middle of paper ...
...dled his patient’s cases very morally and ethically right.
Euthanasia is a delicate debate over moral, ethical, legal issues that has been going on for years. I honestly think, Euthanasia can be a good practice and should be legal. In my opinion, Dr. Kevorkian and his practice was performing a great service to those who were terminally ill and suffering greatly.
Works Cited
Trent, M. A., & Singer, p. (2005). Changing Ethics In Life and Death Decision Making. Ethics in the 21st Century (). New York: Pearson Longman
Section Four: Physician-Assisted Suicide And Capital Punishment: What Role Should Physicians Play?. (n.d.). PCRM.org. Retrieved May 11, 2014, from http://www.pcrm.org/search/?cid=2595
ProCon.org. (2014, April 17). State-by-State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide. Retrieved from http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000132
The discussion of physician-assisted suicide is frequently focused around the ethical implications. The confusion commonly surfaces from the simple question, what is physician-assisted suicide? Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as a circumstance in which a medical physician provides a lethal dose of medication to a patient with a fatal illness. In this case, the patient has given consent, as well as direction, to the physician to ethically aid in their death (Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue,
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns on both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
The Dr. Kevorkian case is important for medical ethics, because it brings up the issues of physician-assisted suicide and physician-assisted death. Physician-assisted suicide is where the doctor is assisting the patient in suicide, but the patient actually performs the act. Physician-assisted death, also known as euthanasia, is when the doctor does the act to bring about the patient’s death based on the patient’s request. This brings up the limitations of beneficence. Does a doctor have the right to end a patient’s life to relieve their suffering?
In 1999 a well known physician, Jack Kevorkian, was convicted of second degree murder. One might think that Kevorkian committed the terrible crime of murdering someone, but that is actually far from the truth. Kevorkian was convicted because of something a little unusual; he helped a patient with assisted suicide. Alexander Stingl, a sociologist and science historian, and M. Lee, authors of “Assisted Suicide: An Overview,” define assisted suicide as “any case in which a doctor gives a patient (usually someone with a terminal illness) the means to carry out their own suicide by using a lethal dose of medication.” Kevorkian was convicted because as of right now, assisted suicide is illegal in the United States with the exceptions of Oregon, Montana, and Washington. Huge controversy rose over this case because some feel assisted suicide is a civil right whereas others feel it is unnecessary. Assisted suicide is a practice that has long been debated.
The ongoing controversy about Physician assisted suicides is an ongoing battle among physicians, patients and court systems. The question of whether or not individuals have the “right” to choose death over suffering in their final days or hours of life continues to be contested. On one side you have the physicians and the Hippocratic Oath they took to save lives; on the other you have the patients’ right to make life choices, even if that means to choose death to end suffering. The ultimate question “is it ethical for a physician to agree to assisted suicides and is it ethical for a patient to request assisted suicide?
Braddock and Tonelli. “Physician-Assisted Suicide.” Ethics in Medicine University of Washington Medical School. 2008. .
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been a hot topic of debate for quite some time now. Some believe it to be immoral, while others see nothing wrong with it what so ever. Regardless what anyone believes, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal for physicians and patients. Death is a personal situation in life. By government not allowing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights! Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the power to save the lives of family members and other ill patients. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal however, there should be strict rules and guidelines to follow and carry out by both the patient and physician. If suicide isn’t a crime why should euthanasia and assisted suicide? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal and the government should not be permitted to interfere with death.
According to West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, between 1990 and 1999, a well-known advocate for physician assisted suicide, Jack Kevorkian helped 130 patients end their lives. He began the debate on assisted suicide by assisting a man with committing suicide on national television. According to Dr. Kevorkian, “The voluntary self-elimination of individual and mortally diseased or crippled lives taken collectively can only enhance the preservation of public health and welfare” (Kevorkian). In other words, Kevor...
Euthanasia is an unnatural way to die. It is assisted suicide. ¨Shouldn’t it be called murder?¨ No because it’s the person’s way to decide if they want to die, but doctors should have regulations. They shouldn’t be euthanized if they are just depressed. They should use it if it is an incurable disease and the person is in a lot of pain and suffering. To be honest, it is illegal for a reason. If it was legal in all 50 states there would be alot of euthanizations in the united states. Its unnatural because doctors prescribe medicine for you to die. And instead of living
Although Dr. Jack Kevorkian was ultimately incarcerated for murder, his practices of euthanasia sparked interest in the idea of physician-assisted death. The general consensus of the public was his actions were malpractice due to the possibility of his patients not actually wanting to die. Assisted suicide arose from the remnant of Dr. Kevorkian’s infamy. In 1994, Oregon passed a law called Death with Dignity, which legalized assisted suicide. Although many people found the law to be a social breakthrough, the implications that have arisen exemplify how assisted suicide is too complex to be legalized.
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.
The voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral. It is morally right for a person to seek euthanasia because it is their freedom or autonomy to control their own lives. It ends the suffering of the patient without harming other people. Furthermore, it prevents the person to suffer by giving him/her lethal injection or medication that prevents a person to die slowly with pain. On the other hand, the arguments against euthanasia are not sound. A thorough assessment will protect patient who request euthanasia for the benefits of others. A patient who seek for euthanasia does not use him/herself as means, but as ends to respect his/her own humanity. Furthermore, God as a benevolent will not allow a person to suffer which endorse the purpose of euthanasia – to end suffering. Therefore, voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized in the United States.
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 had become a big debate in our society and the world. Many people ask, what is Euthanasia? “Euthanasia is a deliberate intervention or omission with the express intention of hastening or ending and individual’s life, to relieve intractable pain or suffering” (Sanders & Chaloner, 2007, p. 41). Thus the meaning of euthanasia is having the right to die if you are terminally ill, suffering and/or suffering a great amount of pain. Many people do not agree with the use of euthanasia, but if humans can put down animals why cannot we use euthanasia on humans? Back in ancient Greek and Roman times, the word euthanasia meant “good death”. Also it was allowed because many people did not live to long ages. When the times began to change so did people’s views on euthanasia, due to the new religion of Judeo-Christian Belief. Because life and death were giving to us by God, euthanasia goes against his wishes. If they practice in the act of euthanasia because of their beliefs they would be committing a sin and end up going to hell. (Yip,2009,p.1)
Lastly, I support the idea of legalizing euthanasia because the patients own their bodies, and they can do anything with it. Even though the doctor is the one who put the patient to death in a process of euthanasia, the patient is the one who makes the decision to be “killed”, and therefore, euthanasia is a type of physician-assisted suicide, which is not any of other people business.