Euthanasia is a social issue in today’s world because not only does it affect the lives of those who are terminally ill and/or comatose, and the physicians who have been entrusted with their care, but it also affects the patient’s ability to have control over their own life, whether they are aware of this decision or not, which is one of the reasons why euthanasia has become such a controversial issue around the globe. Caddell and Newton (1995) define euthanasia as “any treatment initiated by a physician with the intent of hastening the death of another human being who is terminally ill and in severe pain or distress with the motive of relieving that person from great suffering” (p. 1,672). Even though the concept of great…
One of the most hotly debated ethical issue of our time is one of Euthanasia. Euthanasia comes from the Greek words “Eu”, meaning well or easy, and “Thanatos”, meaning death. In modern terms it is the intentional premature termination of another’s life by direct intervention or by withholding care.[1] Within that it can be either voluntary (expressed or implied consent), or involuntary. The two sides of this debate are the rights of an individual to decide when he or she is to die, or the sanctity of life and the states responsibility to protect people.…
The debate around euthanasia is a tricky topic from the perspective of both patients and doctors. Should it be allowed, and if so, when is it appropriate to practice? Should doctors be held to moral standards when practicing euthanasia, and if so, which ones? Is killing a patient any different than letting a patient die? Daniel Callahan has responded to philosophers such as James Rachels in his article, “When Self-Determination Runs Amok,” and insists that recognizing the moral distinction between killing and letting die is crucial in evaluating whether euthanasia is permissible. Callahan discusses how euthanasia should not be permitted under any circumstances based on three important turning…
Many people see death is a bad thing. People don't like it and they don't want to hear about it. For many seriously ill and vegetative patients, death is a good thing for them. Death will end their suffering from pains and they can also die with dignity. Euthanasia traditionally means a "good death." The term has traditionally been used to refer to the hastening of a suffering person's death or "mercy killing." The legalization of euthanasia is important for the patient because it would give dying people a choice to determine if they want to fight the disease or end their suffering.…
Euthanasia the assisted killing of a terminal patient is a controversial topic that medical professionals cannot avoid. Many health professionals face the ethical dilemma of whether or not they should end a patient’s misery. Patient’s rights are always the top priority, doctors are taught to find every possible way to treat and cure the patient, but the possibility of the patient being irremediable to what extent is the health care professionals willing to go to give the patient their wishes?…
Euthanasia, the ‘mercy killing’, has definitely been one of the most difficult ethical dilemmas. Euthanasia is defined “an action or an omission, aimed at and causally implicated in, the death of another for her/his own sake” (Foot, 1997, as cited in Robert, 2004, p. 145). Euthanasia differs from murder, because the action causing the death is for the sake of the person to be killed. Someone might say that the person wanted to die anyway, so why ending his or her lives can be wrong? Is active euthanasia –acting to end the life of another- ever a right moral action? It is not an easy debate whether it is right or wrong to help end someone’s life. Some people might argue that active euthanasia is morally wrong, because there is no objective measure of suffering (Robert, 2004). It can, however, be said that active euthanasia can also be justifiable, because it is to end the person’s misery. The purpose of this paper is to debate whether active euthanasia is ever permissible. This will be accomplished by analyzing the case study: “Active Euthanasia with Parental Consent” (Robert, 2004, p. 153) and providing the best possible moral resolution. The paper will then discuss conclusion.…
The term euthanasia originated from the Greek word for "good death." It is the act or practice of ending the life of a person either by lethal injection or the deferment of medical treatment (Munson, 2012, p. 578). Many view euthanasia as simply bringing relief by alleviating pain and suffering. Euthanasia has been a long-standing ethical debate for decades in the United States. Active euthanasia is only legal in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland and in the United States in the states of Washington, Oregon and Montana (Angell). Several surveys indicate that roughly two thirds of the American public now support physician-assisted suicide, and more than half the doctors in the United States do too (Angell). Active voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia matter because they allow the patient or family to relieve them of pain and suffering, and to die with dignity and respect. In this paper I will argue that it is immoral and unethical to deny a patient the right to die and that active voluntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia should be a legal practice in the United States.…
Euthanasia not only gives the patient the opportunity to stop their suffering, it also gives them autonomy. According to Thomas Preston, professor of medicine, a retired cardiologist and a former board member of Compassion in Dying “society must protect the right of terminally ill patients to choose euthanasia.” (Euthanasia 53) By euthanasia being legal, we have been unconsciously giving the patient the autonomy of whether they want to continue living or not. We as human beings can only perceive the outside of a person, however, we could never really know what they may be going through or suffering. Sometimes, individuals are so self-centered that would prefer to have their loved ones alive and in pain than giving them the freedom to choose between life and death. After all, each person is the owner of his or her life and should be able to decide what is best for them.…
Today there are millions of people who are living with a terminal illness. Many of these people are basically waiting to die. Modern medicine can either do nothing more to help them or they have enacted their right to refuse treatments. Whichever the case may be the question arises: should we have the right to choose to die? This paper will be examining euthanasia and assisted suicide. It will begin by first defining what euthanasia; it will also be looking into the different types of euthanasia; there is passive and active. Next I will share my own personal feeling on the issue of euthanasia. I do believe in certain circumstances that euthanasia should be allowed; after all the law does support a human beings right to determine what will be done their own body. Each person is going to have their own view of the issue; my opinion on it is not going to be the same as someone else’s. Then this paper will define and describe the special populations that are presented on the Pro/Con website as well as how this population might be adversely affected by euthanasia. I will discuss my own beliefs regarding euthanasia and these special populations. And finally this paper will look at the laws concerning physician assisted suicide in Texas. It will compare and contrast theses laws against Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act.…
“Any action or social policy is morally right if it serves to increase the amount of happiness in the word or to decrease the amount of misery. Conversely, an action or social policy is morally wrong if it serves to decrease happiness or to increase misery.” (RSL/Rachels, EL 247) The utilitarian argument is used to justify and condemn many policies, however, I believe that the argument is especially fitting when it comes to the matter of active euthanasia. Mercy, an action that serves to decrease the overall misery in the world, is an unquestionable sign of kindness and correctness. Mercy comes in many forms and is rarely frowned upon. Following this reasoning, why is mercy that takes the form of ending a suffering patient’s life considered…
In this dissertation we will explore active and passive euthanasia, the brouhaha surrounding the two and which one is appropriate and morally sound for modern times. James Rachel has written a very poignant supposition on active and passive euthanasia. Though many disagree with him on the appropriateness of the practice as it relates to humans and what is considered alive. Some believe that one is dead when the brain is dead or in a comatose state.…
Abstract The traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis. The conventional doctrine is that there is such an important moral difference between the two that, although the latter is sometimes permissible, the former is always forbidden. This doctrine may be challenged for several reasons. First of all, active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia. Secondly, the conventional doctrine leads to decisions concerning life and death on irrelevant grounds. Thirdly, the doctrine rests on a distinction between killing and letting die that itself has no moral importance. Fourthly, the most common arguments in favor of the doctrine are invalid. I therefore suggest that the American Medical Association policy statement that endorses this doctrine is unsound. (N Engl J Med 292:78-80, 1975) The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be crucial for medical ethics. The idea is that it is permissible, at least in some cases, to withhold treatment and allow a patient to die, but it is never permissible to take any direct action designed to kill the patient. This doctrine seems to be accepted by most doctors, and it is endorsed in a statement adopted by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association on December 4, 1973: The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another -mercy killing is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association. The cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient and/or his immediate family. The advice and judgment of the physician should be freely available to the patient and/or his immediate family. However, a strong case can be made against this doctrine. In what follows I will set out some of…
Euthanasia means “good death” but today the term is deemed as a merciful action to rid someone of suffering. In many cases we have seen terminally ill patients euthanized active or passive, yet for the sake of my essay I will discuss active euthanasia. End of life issues is a topic many families are faced with everyday more than one likes to imagine; however, imagine that you were a significant other who has a loved one in the hospital suffering from a terminal illness and their pain is unbearable that your loved one has decided to end his life and the subject of euthanasia comes up. What would you do? The…
Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.…
Voluntary Active Euthanasia is a controversial subject, Does one have the right to end their own life? According to Peter Singer in “Voluntary Euthanasia: A utilitarian Perspective,” Voluntary Active Euthanasia is morally permissible under certain circumstances. If and only if certain requirements are met by certain parties can the process of voluntary active euthanasia be completed.…