I'm not afraid of being dead. I'm just afraid of what you might have to go through to get there” (Pamela Bone). The sense of dying or losing a loved one is a conception that has plagued any family member at some time or another. How will one deal with the struggle of burying their loved one, the bills, and not waking up and seeing them or calling them every day? More so, will that person be in the pain when they leave their physical form? Euthanasia, or assisted suicide, gives a person the chance the take the ending of their life into their own hands and make, an otherwise undefined, decision of how he/she would want their final moments to be. In this paper I plan to display that based on the utilitarian perspective, Rachels’ writings, and contemplating human rights constructed from a governmental outlook, that euthanasia is just and morally acceptable and should be considered in a reasonable means of expiry when an entity is plagued with chronic mental, emotional, or physical pain.
James Rachel’s explains in his 1986 work The End of Life: Euthanasia and Morality that when death is the only escape from chronic and overbearing pain, it is justifiable to partake in or help someone achieve, assisted suicide (Rachels 312). What types of things cause ‘chronic and overbearing’ pain? Cancers, end-stage diseases, physical traumas, mental and emotional overwhelming pain; most people think that these types of abnormalities will affect older individuals, and for most situations, that is true. Yet, what can be done for the eight year old that is suffering from a neuromuscular disease? She has the mentality and emotional response of a toddler and she has never developed fully to enjoy life. Now she has come into the hospital and is only ‘liv...
... middle of paper ...
..., why does suicide appear weak? Is it because it is easier to view someone as weak than see that society has shaped us to seeing that in ending our own pain we are taking initiative into our own hands and therefore responding against the conformity that we have been conditioned to feel? If that is the case, then are we really more than property value to the government; one that appears to fall into a negative cognition of the overall appearance of the rest of the country in morale and happiness.
Works Cited
Ebrahim, Nargus. "The Ethics of Euthanasia." The Australian Medical Student Journal. 3.1
(2012): 73-75.
Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral
Philosophy. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.
Rachels, Stuart, and James Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 7th ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.
Any discussion that pertains to the topic of euthanasia must first include a clear definition of the key terms and issues. With this in mind, it should be noted that euthanasia includes both what has been called physician-assisted "suicide" and voluntary active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide involves providing lethal medication(s) available to the patient to be used at a time of the patient’s own choosing (Boudreau, p.2, 2014). Indifferently, voluntary active euthanasia involves the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. Physician-assisted suicide is felt to be easier psychologically for the physician and patient than euthanasia because
Euthanasia is a word whose roots can be traced back to Greece where it meant good death. It encompasses various dimensions, from active where something is introduced to cause death, to passive where treatment or supportive actions are withheld. It also varies from voluntary euthanasia where one consents to it, to involuntary where a guardian can give consent and doctor assisted in which the doctors prescribes the medication and a third party or patient administers the prescription to cause death. Wishes for premature death have significantly contributed to the long debate regarding the role of this practice in the current health care. The debate however cuts across dynamic and complex aspects like ethical, legal, health, human rights, economic, religious, social, spiritual and cultural aspects of the enlightened society (Math & Chaturvedi, p. 889). Here, this intricate issue is argued from both sides of the ongoing debate and also the plight of the caregivers and the victims.
One position within the debate for physician assisted suicide is that it should not be legalized. Many defenders cite the issue of pain for this stance. They believe that the amount of suffering that a terminally ill patient is going through is deluding their minds. They also linked this distress towards clinical depression, the root that they say are causing them to want to ...
Euthanasia has been a very polemic subject in American society. Its objective is to conclude the life of a person at their own request, a family member, or by the determination of a health care professional to avoid unnecessary suffering. There is a lot of moral and ethics involved in euthanasia, exist a big difference between provoke death and allow death. The first one rejects life, the second one accepts its natural end. Every single intentional act of provoke the death of a person without consent is opposed to ethics and is punishable by law. One of the biggest moral controversies in the XXI century is the fact that some people agree in the autonomy humans have to determine the moment of death. The moral and legal implications are huge and the practical benefits are also enormous. This is a touchy and controversial issue and my goal on writing this paper is to remain on favor of euthanasia. I will elaborate later on my reasons to believe and support euthanasia, but first let’s examine the historical perspective of this moral issue.
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
The right of someone to take their own life has been a topic of debate since the time of Romans. In this paper euthanasia will be discussed including the history, current legislation, reasons for, reasons against, and the authors opinion on the topic. With an aging population, increasing lifespan, and an increasing rate of cancers euthanasia will become a larger topic of discussion in the years to come.
Every day, millions of people are being diagnose with terminal illnesses or being seriously injured in accidents. Sometimes, those illnesses and accidents become long and agonizingly painful deaths. Although medication could briefly ease the pain, the long-term agony that the patient has to deal with is ceaseless. Undoubtedly, the human life has an enormous value and is for that reason that it should be preserved in all the possible ways. Nevertheless, when the terminal illness comes to its last stage, or the damage caused for an accident is too much to handle and the only option left is death, shouldn’t it be the patient’s decision to end its suffering and pain in a dignified way? Or in cases where the patient has an impediment to decide, shouldn’t the family have the option to give their loved one an end to its suffer? As part of a free society, euthanasia should be considered as a legal and humane option for patients suffering from terminal diseases and victims of accidents, mainly because is every human right to die in a decent way.
In the essay “The Morality of Euthanasia”, James Rachels uses what he calls the argument from mercy. Rachels states, “If one could end the suffering of another being—the kind from which we ourselves would recoil, about which we would refuse to read or imagine—wouldn’t one?” He cites a Stewart Alsop’s story in which he shares a room with a terminally ill cancer patient who he named Jack. At the end of the recounting, Alsop basically asks, “were this another animal, would not we see to it that it doesn’t suffer more than it should?” Which opens up the question of, “Why do humans receive special treatment when we too are animals?” We would not let animals suffer when there is a low chance of survival, so why is it different for us humans?
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.
In Sullivan versus Rachel’s on euthanasia I will show that James Rachel’s argument is logically stronger than Sullivan’s argument. I will present examples given by both authors regarding their arguments and also on their conclusions about it. I will explain both of the author’s logical strengths and weaknesses in their arguments. I will give the examples given by both authors on how they prove their arguments to be true and later I will decide whose argument is stronger based on their strengths and weaknesses. I will give one of Rachel’s main strong arguments and one of Sullivan’s very weak arguments. I will also show if both of the author’s premises follow from the conclusion. And at the end I will give my opinion on my personal reasons on whose I think makes more sense in presenting their arguments.
Pain and suffering is one reason people support euthanasia. “Pain-relief treatment could or even would shorten life”. (32) Yet, it is justified if the purpose is to comfort and relieve pain. Providing adequate amount of pain-relief treatment is also a way to extend life. It lessens the patient’s distress psychologically and physically. (Somerville) Going beyond the limit by overdosing the patient will poison the body and hastens death. In this case, it is unacceptable because its intention is to kill a person’s life and not to comfort.
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,
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.
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.
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.