Euthanasia - Dr. Jack Kevorkian
Is euthanasia murder or is it actually saving someone from extra pain and suffering? This is just one of the questions that are causing so much debate in our society today. Should euthanasia be illegal?
Is it right that a person has to suffer through three months of life support before they die just because the law says that even though a person is going to die soon that it is wrong to help them end their suffering because that would be considered murder. Many people believe that euthanasia should be legalized. This has caused a lot of controversy in today’s society especially with religious organizations. Almost all churches claim that nobody has the right to take another persons life away except for god himself. Many people who are against the idea of euthanasia say that the only pain that is lessened is that of the loved ones, the pain of worrying about the sick and paying their bills. Those people also state that euthanasia has many more bad side effects in the long run. They believe that people would kill their parents faster just to get rid of them or to claim the insurance money sooner. Others say that euthanasia prevents people to see the value of suffering which may be something that god is trying to teach to all of us, if we commit euthanasia then we are turning are backs on god.
Many people try to compare euthanasia with suicide but the fact remains that they are two totally different things and are carried out under extremely different circumstances. One author of a book about euthanasia stated that "Just as our society discourages suicide, it should discourage euthanasia because in both the person is running away from life and its responsibilities" (143). This is an example...
... middle of paper ...
...asia. Most of us have been brought up learning that it is wrong to kill another human being. But the fact is that euthanasia just does not go along with our way of living and our religions as it does in other areas of the world. Maybe if we were to have been brought up in some other area of the world we would have a different opinion about euthanasia but for know, for most of us, our religions and our morals say that euthanasia is the wrong thing to do.
- Gavin, Fairbairn J. CONTEMPLATING SUICIDE: The language and ethics of self harm. New
York: Routledge, 1995.
- Grollman, Earl A. SUICIDE. Boston: Beacon Press, 1988.
- Long, Robert Emmet. "SUICIDE." THE REFERENCE SHELF 67.2 (1995): 20-8.
- Shneidman, Edwin S., et al. Clues to Suicide. New York: McGraw-Hill , 1957.
- Stengel, Erwin. Suicide and Attempted Suicide. Maryland: Penguin Books, 1971.
This essay leaves no rock unturned in its analysis of the debate involving euthanasia and assisted suicide. Very thorough definitions are given for both concepts - with examples that clarify rather than obscure the reader's understanding.
...d to a person’s suffering. People from all over the world have completely different opinions about assisted suicide. Many people believe that euthanasia is a very effective way of ending a person’s grief. Many people are fighting against the law. The law against assisted suicide is unjust and should be illuminated. The government should have no say in whether a person’s heart stops beating because of their agony. Euthanasia should be up to the sick individual and the government’s decision to place a law should be withdrawn. But euthanasia has to be done in an ethical manner and humanely. Restrictions should be placed around euthanasia and should be done in a very delicate and specific way. It should be understood that euthanasia should only be used under extreme circumstances and to ease a person’s pain. A person’s torturous life can easily come to a gentle close.
Death. This is not a topic that many people are comfortable discussing. It is such an uncomfortable topic to discuss because regardless if death is brought upon through natural death, murder, suicide, or even euthanasia, it brings upon such a wide variety of emotions to those affected that I believe no one can grow accustomed to. Stemming from this, we get into the debate of euthanasia vs. murder vs. suicide, and the ethics behind the three. Before considering the differences between the them, we should first be able to define ethics and morals. Nowadays, these two terms can be considered very similar, and are said to be the sort of principles that decide a person’s behavior and actions. Ethics and morals play a big role when discussing these topics, as people are quick to argue that euthanasia and murder can be considered the same. Through this paper, I will argue their differences, and how most aspects of euthanasia can be considered morally different and better than murder. Additionally, my perspective of how suicide compares and differs to these two will also be introduced.
Merriam-Webster defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” As a globally issues, euthanasia is always in controversial. Swanton,D argued that euthanasia protects the rights of individuals and the freedom of religious expression. Additionally, Sydeny,D outlines europe’s increasing acceptance of euthanasia which may mean that euthanasia is a preferable choice for people. Conversely, Fagerlin, A PhD from University of Michigan Medical School and Carl E. Schneider, JD from University of Michigan Law School suggest the great distortion of living wills if euthanasia is allowed. What is
Euthanasia has been a controversial topic in the United States for many years now. Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending ones life, to relive them from any more pain or suffering. Euthanasia can also be known as mercy killing or mercy death. There are many different viewpoints on whether euthanasia is right or wrong. Those who are for euthanasia believes it is a way to relive extreme pain and suffering and it is a right of freedom of choice to do what one wants to their body. Those who are against euthanasia believe euthanasia devalues human life, goes against religion, and it can cause a slippery slope effect. Euthanasia is a topic that is viewed in different ways in the eyes of different people it is either viewed as a persons
Philosophers like Peter Singer and Margaret Battin have dedicated their personal and professional time to evaluating the choice to which a person has the right to continue to live or to die. In order to do this, we first have to examine what exactly euthanasia is. The practice of euthanasia can be classified in two different ways. First, euthanasia can be either active or passive. Active euthanasia involves the direct interruption of ongoing daily functioning that otherwise would be adequate to maintain life. Passive euthanasia involves the withholding or withdrawing of treatment that might support ongoing daily functions; without drugs or treatment the body would continue its process of shutting down. In the case of passive euthanasia, the argument can be made that the treatment is actually withholding the natural process of death. Secondly, euthanasia can be divided into three categories based on a level of consciousness: involuntary (death against ones wishes), voluntary (death based on expressed wishes), and non-voluntary (incapable of consent or competent decision-making).
In review, euthanasia is performed when the pain is too much for the patient. It is, overall, the patient’s life—their right and their choice. Everyone deserves to die compassionately, knowing that they will slip away painlessly. Everyone deserves to have a choice, especially when it comes to the manner of their death. If euthanasia is not legalized, many people will debilitating illnesses may take their lives in much more horrific ways. If they want the suffering to end badly enough, it is simply done one way or
After a period of being illegal around the world, there was then a spur of interest in the issue again. California made the process legal within its state and the nation of the Netherlands also making it legal in its nation in 1984, which it has kept to this day. Columbia and Japan are the only other countries to have legislation to allow Euthanasia. Many people travel to these places to conclude their life legally. Patients should be able to end their life in a painless environment with family and friends.
The concept of euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, is severely controversial ethical. Different countries’ have various laws pertaining to euthanasia. Most countries that support euthanasia have strict conditions, which must
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)
In the end Euthanasia is not something that should be frowned upon or looked at as a crime. Instead, it should be looked upon as a final act of respect for the human being who lived his life well and now knows that it is time to set his life to an end.
Euthanasia is a very controversial topic that raises many moral dilemmas. Is it right to end the life of a terminally ill person, even if the person is suffering and in severe pain? Is euthanasia ever justifiable? Is there any difference between just letting a
People across the world, including the Americans, view the theme of active euthanasia differently. Some oppose while others propose depending on the issue at hand. Basing on the arguments, it mostly depends on the effects that come out from it. I argue that the justification of the issue of active euthanasia should depend on whether we decline in legalizing it or not (Keown 114).
... 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.
Euthanasia, people can decide exactly how they want to live but should we as a society allow them the right to decide exactly how they want to die? On the one hand you have the question ?is it just to kill someone or allow them to die when help is available?? The obvious answer is no of course not. This is a prime example of why there can be no justice for all, because on the other hand you have the question ?is it fair to force someone to live through unbearable pain in anticipation of an agonizing death?? The obvious answer to that question is also no. This is where our self-interests come into play. It is in the patient?s own self interests to die because it will ease her pain, but is not in mine to alleviate her of her life ?because death is final and irreversible?, and because ?euthanasia contains within it the possibility that [I] will work against [my] own interest if [I] practice it or allow it to be practiced on [others].? (J. G...