There have been many controversies on whether euthanasia should be legalized. For example, people have argued for the right to live and the right to die. The term, euthanasia, is sometimes misinterpreted and not thoroughly analyzed by others to be truly understood why its controversies exist. To introduce the term “euthanasia”, euthanasia is when a person feels that their life is not worth living and would like to kill themselves with the assistance of a professional painlessly. Euthanasia does not include stopping a medically “useless” treatment, killing the pain without killing the patient, or, “refusal of medical treatment by a competent patient.” (www.care.org.uk).
In his article ‘A Problem for the Idea of Voluntary Euthanasia’ Neil Campbell talks about the ethics behind the voluntary decision and thinks that voluntary euthanasia does not really exist. He argues against euthanasia and says that when those terminally ill patients take the decision of ending their lives, the decision was not freely chosen, but was the result of them undergoing excruciating pain. (Campbell, 1999, p. 242). His argument is presented in a way to support the opponents’ claim by denying that voluntary euthanasia exists and that it is all psychological and not
Many pro-euthanasia believers will use the autonomy argument and debate the opinion that patients should have the right to choose when and how to they want to die. In an article in the Houston Chronicle, Judge Reinhardt ruled on this topic by stating “a competent, terminally-ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in choosing a dignified and humane death… (De La Torre).” However, dignity cannot be measured by the level of pain or the speed in which the individual dies, because it is already a characteristic of a person’s worth as a human being (Middleton). Allowing a patient to live their life to the fullest until the very end is surely a more humane and dignified death then cutting that life short in fear of what it is coming through the practice of euthanasia. While death for these patients can be a sad ending, it does not have to condemn a person to a remaining life of sadness and negativity. In an article for Verily Magazine, Sophie Caldecott described her terminally ill father’s painful yet beautiful last years of
What if I told you that there is a way in which no one would have to suffer to death? A way that helps people die with dignity and, a way that provides a peaceful, smooth death? This miraculous way is called ‘euthanasia’. Euthanasia, meaning ‘good death’ terminologically, is the act of intentionally ending someone’s life to relieve the pain and suffering. It is a fuzzy concept since it creates conflicts between values.
This being said, you should always have that choice to do what you want with your life. The novel accepts the practice of euthanasia but I think it's wrong and is not sympathetic to take a life of an innocent human being. The choice of living or dying should be up to you and nobody else because you should at least have to right to your own body. In the book the old don't really have the choice they grow old, get put into homes, and then get released. I do not think that this is that the practice of euthanasia is compassionate.
Dr. James Rachels, in his article “Active and Passive Euthanasia” criticizes the AMA because he believes that passive euthanasia is just as worse as active euthanasia so you should either be for both or against both. His first argument against the AMA’s statement is that if the reason to end someone’s life is to put them out of their pain because there are not any further treatments to alleviate the pain then obviously it would be best to use the method that would end their life the fastest without causing pain. Thus, active euthanasia like a lethal injection would satisfy this reasoning much better than a passive euthanasia method such as a patient refusing treatment and suffering until they die. If you support passive euthanasia for this justification then according to this argument it would not make sense if you do not also support active euthanasia. His second argument is that he believes the AMA’s statement shows that choices in life and death situations are determined with inapplicable points.
One of the main arguments is that euthanasia could be an ethical issue and can be seen as assisted murder. Physicians are not forced to provide the euthanasia doses; the physicians who do, have agreed to do so. As well as the patient is asking to die, they are not being killed against their will. Another argument is that medical resources and money will be spent for a patient to kill themselves, when they can just commit suicide on their own free will. More medical resources would be spent on keeping that patient alive, than it would euthanize them.
Euthanasia is to help patients who despair and cannot be cured to die peacefully and to have free from suffering. Tulloch Gail from Edinburgh University Press said that Euthanasia can be categorized in two respects. First, if patients have requests for medical help injection for themselves, it is called Voluntary Euthanasia and did not a request from patients, it called Involuntary Euthanasia. Second, if the doctor injected into the patient died, it is called Active Euthanasia but if the doctor lets the patient died by themselves, it is called Passive Euthanasia (2005). However, Euthanasia is also illegal in some countries.
However, it is still illegal in all of the United States. But Physician Aid in Dying or PAD is legal in Washington, Oregon, and Montana. The difference is that euthanasia involves a third party to adminis- ter the dose, whereas PAD leaves it up to the patient to take it. In this presentation I will focus solely on euthanasia, including the role of Dr. Kevorkian and the moral implications of legalizing assisted suicide. The concept of choosing a time to die with the help of a physician was first medically explored by Dr. Jack Kevorkian.
Passive euthanasia is defined as the withdrawal of medical treatment with the deliberate intention to hasten a terminally ill patient’s death. It occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either don’t do something necessary to keep the patient alive or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive. For example, this would include such things as switching off life-support machines, disconnecting a feeding tube, not carrying out a life-extending operation or drugs. Active euthanasia contrarily occurs when the medical professionals, or even another person not necessarily having the power to take a life, deliberately does something to cause the patient’s death. This would include injecting the patient with poison or using an overdose of painkillers or sleeping agents.