Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Moral implications of euthanasia
Moral implications of euthanasia
Discuss the positive effects of euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Moral implications of euthanasia
Imagine a man, sixty years of age, who has just been told by a medical doctor that his wife of forty-three years has contracted an incurable and terminal disease. The medical doctor informs the man that his spouse’s condition will begin to deteriorate. The disease will lead to chronic acute pain in the body, followed by loss of motor functions, and eventually death. The man is living in the moment knowing that nothing can be done to prevent his wife’s disease from progressing, and in despair he chooses to over medicate her with painkillers. In his mind, the painkillers will allow her to evade pain and enter a realm of eternal sleep. This action is called euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as “a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending a life of another to relieve that person’s suffering and where the act is the cause of death” (Gupta, Bhatnagar, and Mishra 1). Unfortunately, this type of situation is not far from reality. In fact, the first national survey on euthanasia, conducted in 1990, showed that 8,100 deaths resulted from administration of high doses of painkillers. The painkillers were explicitly administered to cause death. In 4,941 of these cases, the patients’ lives were deliberately terminated without their permission or awareness (Fenigsen 78). With the rapid increase of diseases being diagnosed annually worldwide, it is not a surprise that doctors and families see euthanasia as a viable alternative for the terminally ill. Indeed, euthanasia has become a common practice in society and a number of people, doctors and families alike, believe that is it the right thing to do. However, euthanasia should be prohibited in all circumstances because it goes against the doctors’ Hippocratic Oath, vio...
... middle of paper ...
... decides whether the right to die should override the principle of the sanctity of life. John Kersey examines the issues i." RS Review 2.3 (2006): 20. Academic OneFile. Web. 24 Oct. 2011.
Nathanson, Vivienne . "Commentary Why we need a new Hippocratic Oath." Medical Education 37.12 (2003): 1123-1124. Academic Search Premier. Web. 27 Oct. 2011.
Smith, Wesley J. "Feeding Tubes Should Not Be Removed from Patients Diagnosed as Being in a Persistent Vegetative State." Greenhaven Press 0.Fall (2006): 0. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.
Tarkki, Jarmo. "Assisted Suicide: Do We Own Our Bodies?." A Journal of Theology 43.2 (2004): 107-112. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.
"The slippery slope of assisted suicide." Washington Times [Washington, DC] 9 June
2011: B02. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 8 Nov. 2011.
The term Euthanasia is derived from the Greek roots, taking the words ‘eu’, meaning good or well, and ‘thanatos’, meaning death, to create the term “good death ”. (Definition of Euthanasia . 2011) The term ‘Euthanasia’ is not defined specifically within Australian Legislation, however the generalised definition states that Euthanasia is intentionally taking another person’s life by the means of a direct action or depriving a person of the medical care needed to preserve life. (Euthanasia: What Does It Really Mean? Date Unknown). Linda Jackson (2005) continues to add that Euthanasia can then be further separated into four specified categories: Passive voluntary euthanasia, active voluntary euthanasia, passive involuntary euthanasia and active involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary Euthanasia will be the specified area that will be focused on within this assignment.
As a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, I feel it important to express in this essay the stand of the church on the question of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Our church has strong biblical and traditional reasons for adamantly opposing these new end-of-life approaches.
Velasquez, Manuel, Andre, Claire “Assisted Suicide A Right or Wrong.” Santa Clara university n.d. web 24 March 2012
According to the Hippocratic oath, abortion is forbidden as morally unjustifiable. A physician is not to help a woman abort he...
A doctor kills a patient because they were paid off to do so. This may strike up some complications, right? If euthanasia were legal, maybe it would just be overlooked. Someone who is murdered could get no justice if law protects the murderer. To prove that a doctor wasn’t supposed to give their dying patient a lethal dose of medicine may be hard. The consequence of murder could appear with euthanasia becoming legal; yes the terminally ill patients could be helped, but euthanasia should stay illegal for the possible complications.
Harned, Mary. “The Dangers of Assisted Suicide.” Defending Life. Americans United for Life, 3 April 2012. Web. 20 March 2014.
“Michael Manning, MD, in his 1998 book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring?, traced the history of the word euthanasia: ‘The term euthanasia.originally meant only 'good death,'but in modern society it has come to mean a death free of any anxiety and pain, often brought about through the use of medication.” It seems there has always been some confusion and questions from our society about the legal and moral questions regarding the new science of euthanasia. “Most recently, it has come to mean'mercy killing' — deliberately putting an end to someone’s life in order to spare the individual’s suffering.’” I would like to emphasize the words “to spare the individual’s suffering”.
Physician -assisted suicide has been a conflict in the medical field since pre- Christian eras, and is an issue that has resurfaced in the twentieth century. People today are not aware of what the term physician assisted suicide means, and are opposed to listening to advocates’ perspectives. Individuals need to understand that problems do not go away by not choosing to face them. This paper’s perspective of assisted suicide is that it is an option to respect the dignity of patients, and only those with deathly illness are justified for this method.
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
The topic of euthanasia is one that has become highly controversial during the last several decades. The argument develops greater contentiousness when concerning the life, or lack their of, of terminally ill and persistent vegetative state patients. To further perpetuate the dilemma, one must consider in which specific circumstance euthanasia becomes morally justified for these patients?
Cotton, Paul. "Medicine's Position Is Both Pivotal And Precarious In Assisted Suicide Debate." The Journal of the American Association 1 Feb. 1995: 363-64.
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.
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.
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.
Throughout the course of history, death and suffering have been a prominent topic of discussion among people everywhere. Scientists are constantly looking for ways to alleviate and/or cure the pain that comes with the process of dying. Treatments typically focus on pain management and quality of life, and include medication and various types of therapy. When traditional treatments are not able to eliminate pain and suffering or the promise of healing, patients will often consider euthanasia or assisted suicide. Assisted suicide occurs when a person is terminally ill and believes that their life is not worth living anymore. As a result of these thoughts and feelings, a physician or other person is enlisted to “assist” the patient in committing suicide. Typically this is done by administering a lethal overdose of a narcotic, antidepressant or sedative, or by combining drugs to create an adverse reaction and hasten the death of the sick patient. Though many people believe that assisted suicide is a quick and honorable way to end the sufferings of a person with a severe illness, it is, in fact, morally wrong. Assisted suicide is unethical because it takes away the value of a human life, it is murder, and it opens the door for coercion of the elderly and terminally ill to seek an untimely and premature death. Despite the common people’s beliefs, assisted suicide is wrong and shouldn’t be legalized.