Euthanasia has been a long debated subject consisting of many opinions and believes. For this paper I will be providing my rationale on why I am for legalization of active voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill clients in Canada. Active voluntary euthanasia should be legalized because it respects the individual’s choice, it allows individuals to flourish in their passing, and reduces the individual from further suffering. These are all important components of bioethics, and are all good reasons why euthanasia is not a negative thing. Active voluntary euthanasia is “the active killing of a dying person” requested by the client themselves (Collier & Haliburton, 2011, p. 226). In the paper I will also be discussing about virtue ethics, the principle of autonomy, and care ethics.
Suffering and Virtue Ethics
Many terminally ill clients are faced with pain and suffering because of illness and treatments. Living life competently should include a minimal amount of suffering. With the illegalization of active voluntary euthanasia, individuals can suffer more and have a lower quality of life (Begley, 2008, p. 435). I believe that suffering does cause a lower quality of life to the individual, and extending life while terminally ill does not have many benefits. I feel that suffering will only diminish the individual psychologically and physically. In virtue ethics, established by Aristotle, it follows the idea everything in life has a purpose, this is called teleology. Things are completed for the sake of something else. It explains that in life there are goals and an ultimate goal. An example for an ultimate goal can be in this case, passing away peacefully. This ultimate goal is something valued for its own sake. It is created from...
... middle of paper ...
...es respect of choice. With over-treatment the individual may experience suffering and pain. This will cause a drop in quality of life and eudemonia. I agree that prolonging life and treatments when terminally ill only decreases flourishing, and living well. Respecting the individual’s decision is part of autonomy, and the way of allowing a person to make choices for themselves. An individual should always have the right to shape their life, this should also include their death.
References
Begley, A. (2008). Guilty but good: Defending voluntary active euthanasia from a virtue perspective. Nursing Ethics, 15(4), 434-445.
Collier, C., & Haliburton, R. (2011). Bioethics in Canada. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.
Kimsma, G., & Leeuwen, E. (2007). The role of family in euthanasia decision making. HealthCare Ethics Committee Forum, 19(4), 365-373.
...the death rate and decrease the quality of care on patients. They argue that having the legal right to request an euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide will make doctors more comfortable ending a patient's life against their will without having to face any legal consequences. Although this point of view is true, I still think terminal ill patients should have the right to choose whether they want to keep living or not. This right should not be denied but modified. I think that once the patient knows he has no cure, he or she should sign a paper or make a will where it authorizes the doctor or family members to take the decision of ending his or her life in case his conditions worsens or the pain is unbearable. It would be just like the patients that have the "Do not resuscitate" request on their medical forms, but this time it would say "Do not prolong my agony."
killing and letting die. Some argue that letting die, which is the action considered to take
There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death. Should these people continue to suffer even though they really are ba...
Active Euthanasia: Physician Assisted Suicide is Wrong? The issue at hand is whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized for patients who are terminally ill and/or enduring prolonged suffering. In this debate, the choice of terms is central. The most common term, euthanasia, comes from the Greek word meaning "good death."
There is great debate in this country and worldwide over whether or not terminally ill patients who are experiencing great suffering should have the right to choose death. A deep divide amongst the American public exists on the issue. It is extremely important to reach an ethical decision on whether or not terminally ill patients have this right to choose death, since many may be needlessly suffering, if an ethical solution exists.
...hat patients should be allowed to make the decision of the right time to end their life’s and to always have the right to die with dignity. Without physician assistance people who are terminal ill may commit suicide in a messy, horrifying and traumatic way. Terminal ill patients sometimes suffer discomfort and pains so terrible that is beyond the comprehension of those who have not actually experienced it. The options given to those individuals to end their own life can saved them from their misery, therefore such policies are morally right. Also with allowing this policies we can spare a lot of suffering to the family, without a doubt it can be traumatic for a family member see their loved ones slowly die. Sometimes terminal ill patients remain connected to artificial respirators devices, taking strong doses of painkillers and in general living an unworthy life.
Physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option, if requested, for terminally ill patients. For decades the question has been asked and a clear answer has yet to surface. It was formed out of a profound commitment to the idea that personal end-of-life decisions should be made solely between a patient and a physician. Can someone's life be put into an answer? Shouldn't someone's decision in life be just that; their decision? When someone has suffered from a car accident, or battled long enough from cancer, shouldn't the option be available? Assisted suicide shouldn't be seen as cheating death, but as a way to pay homage to the life once lived. As far as including the mentally challenged in this equation, I am against it. The mentally challenged, although less likely to grasp information, still has the physical awareness to grow. It can be subdued with medicine and psychotherapy. From personal experience I am a witness of being around mentally challenged adults who love life regardless of their conditions. Most don't have the ability to express a request such as life or death. Living life is a daily task just like it is for healthy citizens. Most if not all mentally challenged people aren't in any pain throughout their entire life. For this they shouldn't be targeted for assisted suicide. Death is an occurrence in life, whether it's unexpected or expected, it can't be cheated nor can it be avoided. The terminally ill should have the option to end their suffering with dignity.
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
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
... greater pain and anguish for longer periods of time than my father did, I believe euthanasia is the only compassionate form of relief we can provide. I believe it is morally important to allow an individual to die with respect for his or her dignity, while respecting his or her autonomy. Because of these reasons, euthanasia is morally justified when administered under strict controls.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
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.
There are two types of euthanasia: active and passive. While passive euthanasia is accepted by American Medical Association(AMA), active euthanasia is illegal in most states. The debates about legalizing active euthanasia still continue with a few countries and some states supporting it, but most societies and most states going against it. In this controversial issue it is important to understand what euthanasia is, and then decide if it should be legal or not.
Williams, J. R., Lowy, F., & Sawyer, D. M. (1993). Canadian physicians and euthanasia: 3. Arguments and beliefs . Ethical Issues, 10, 1699-1702.
Secondly, to numerous people, quality of life is more important than the length of the life. The patients who request euthanasia are going through unbearable pain that others who had never gone through it won’t understand. The bystanders think it is better to live, but the patients themselves see death as a way to end their intolerable pain and to give them peace. I believe that it is just a matter of time before those patients die of sickness, and it is pointless to force those patients to live longer. I think it is best to end the lives of those in pain, rather than trying to make their lives full of suffering and torture longer.