Pro Euthanasia

Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia has been one of the most debated subjects in the past years. There are resilient advocates on both sides of the debate for and against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Advocates of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide believe it is a person’s right to die when faced with terminal illness rather than suffer through to an unpleasant demise. Whereas, opponents contend that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is not only equivalent of murder, but it is ethically and morally incorrect.

Physician-assisted suicide is a large moral controversy in the medical field. Jukka Varelius explains the key points about the dilemma on whether medical patients should have the right to ask doctors to terminate their lives, in order to end their suffering. In “Voluntary Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and the Right to do Wrong”, the author addresses how assisting suicide is morally wrong in our society, but yet patients insist that they have the moral right to end their lives if they are in agony and facing significant torment due to their ill status. Jukka, in his point of view, outlines the multiple problems that go along with the main conflict, such as should a doctor be forced to end a suffering patient’s life even if the physician does not wish to do so and should the patient have the ability to ask for euthanasia even if there is still a possibility that the patient’s status can improve. Mr. Varelius does a successful job portraying the key points in this conflict, but does not strongly support any side in the

Threatening to diminish the value of life is very dangerous. Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, is the practice of doctors intentionally ending a terminally ill patient’s life in what is purportedly a gentle and dignified manner. The term originated in ancient Greek and means “easy death.” Doctors perform euthanasia by administering lethal drugs or by withholding treatment that would prolong the patient’s life. Physician-assisted suicide is also a form of euthanasia, but the difference between the two methods is that in euthanasia, doctors end the patient’s life with lethal injections, whereas, in physician-assisted suicide, patients kill themselves with a lethal amount of drugs prescribed by the doctors. Physicians practiced euthanasia

Assisted suicide has caused many divisions in the medical field on whether assisted suicide should be legalized. In September 1996 issue of the BMA news review, the results of a survey of over 750 GPS and hospital doctors showed that 46 percent of the doctors supported a change in the law to allow them to carry out the request or a terminally ill patient for voluntary euthanasia, 44 percent were against euthanasia and supported the present law and 37 percent said they would be willing to actively help end the life of a terminally ill patient who had asked for euthanasia and so assisted suicide, if the law allowed it.” (www.idebate.org/debatebase/debates/assisted-suicide/house-belives-assisted-suicide-should-be-legalized) What we should all know is that we have a God given right to choose how we want to live our lives within the limits of the law. We choose how we want to live and where, we also choose our career paths our significant others as well as

Imagine a society where people live in constant fear of their lives. Where hospitals don 't treat people for their illnesses but kill them instead because someone determines that their lives are no longer worth living. Where we no longer struggle to accommodate peoples sensibilities because the disabled are simply disposed of, before they become a problem. Ladies and gentlemen it is precisely this kind of society that is waiting for us, if we openly embrace the concept of euthanasia. The term 'Euthanasia ' comes from the Greek word for 'easy or happy death '. It is one of the most controversial

The argument that I am analyzing is found in Philippa Foot’s article Euthanasia. This specific section starts at the beginning on page 88. This argument starts once she talks about the true meaning of Euthanasia and the difficulty in how people see or perceive it. In Foot 's article, she wants to prove that an act of euthanasia is morally permissible, as long as you’re performing it for the right cause or reasons. Foot defines euthanasia as "a matter of opting for death for the good of the one who is to die." (Foot, p.100) She further justifies this argument by stating that as long as we put into consideration the interests of the person involved and only the benefits of that person that euthanasia can morally acknowledge. I believe that it

The main purpose of this chapter is to identify the arguments in favour and against assisted dying and to set out a framework of safeguards that would accompany any changes in legislation. This chapter will help show how the concerns regarding the legalisation of assisted dying are outweighed by the arguments in favour of a change in legislation.

However, they are still expected to follow rules, like the AMA proclamation that incorporates individual morality into its creed (Timmons, 2016). In these instances, “active euthanasia” is never justified, but “passive euthanasia” is (Timmons, 2016, p. 336). Rachels ends his argument by, once again, denying this claim and suggesting the only dissimilarities between these types of euthanasia is in the implications each one produces, which could necessitate “active euthanasia” as the best choice (Timmons, 2016, p. 339). There is no distinction between euthanasia, but, if medical practitioners are forced to make one, these individuals should ponder this and only this (Timmons, 2016). Rachels advises these individuals to avoid incorporating such notions into formal, written documents that constitute certain procedures into patient care (Timmons, 2016). Rachels acknowledges that “active euthanasia” and “passive euthanasia” are not the same, and more people should think of that before another person’s life is taken away from them (Timmons, 2016, p.

Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.

It is an honour, ladies and gentlemen, to stand before you today and present my case against the legalization of Euthanasia in Canada. I shall surely take advantage of this opportunity to give my true and faithful opinion on this matter of Euthanasia. Let me, however, make it clear that I have no hidden agenda and that I speak only for myself. There is nothing here than what you see. I can, therefore, allow my mind, with the experience of my studies of philosophy and as a psychology major, to play over this term which raises pressing and insightful questions among legislators, health care specialists, their patients and indeed you and I.

Rapid and Dramatic developments in medical technology has given us the power to save more lives than we ever have before. New treatments and technology allows us to reduce suffering and cure diseases that were once fatal or painful in the past. However, such advances in medicine have also given us the ability to sustain life, or prolong deaths, of patients whose physical or mental capabilities cannot be restored, and their pain cannot be eliminated. Like the woman suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease, people do resort to end their pain and suffering. But under present law, assisting in suicide is a crime. Social, medical and legal controversy surround this issue, leaving us with one important question: Should we, as a society, pass laws sanctioning assisted suicide.

Beginning with the philosophical aspects of euthanasia we must first understand the importance of the sanctity of life. Human life is sacred because God made humankind in His own image, and that each individual human

In a few nations there is a divisive open discussion over the ethical, moral, and legitimate issues of euthanasia. The individuals who are against euthanasia may contend for the holiness of life, while defenders of euthanasia rights accentuate mitigating enduring, substantial respectability, determination toward oneself, and individual autonomy. Jurisdictions where euthanasia or supported suicide is legitimate incorporate the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Estonia, Albania, and the US states of Washington.

The act of euthanasia, whether active or passive, is heavily obstructed in the medical field. Through medical ethics, the act of passive euthanasia is condoned by withholding treatment and thus, allowing the patient to die. Without any direct contact with the patient, the doctor is not considered as the cause of death. Thus, the medical field views passive euthanasia as of lesser and more permissible value in comparison to active euthanasia. In the statement made by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association, they perceive this as contrary to mercy killing, as it is,

Have you ever imagined one of your loved ones suffering from a painful illness? Have you ever wanted that person to die and rest in peace? This is called Euthanasia, which means the termination of a patient’s life who is suffering from excruciating pain and a terminal disease. Euthanasia came from the Greek for good (“eu”) and death (“thanatos”) “good death”(Sklansky, (2001) p.5.) There are more than four types of euthanasia such as active euthanasia, which means that death is caused directly by another person by giving the patient a poisonous injection. Passive euthanasia refers to the withdrawal of treatment that keeps the patient alive. Voluntary euthanasia means that the patient requests assisted suicide, while involuntary euthanasia means that it is done against the patient’s will. Euthanasia started in both the Roman Empire and Greece. In ancient Rome, euthanasia was considered a crime and was taken as murder. In general, Greece accepted euthanasia for patients who are suffering from extreme pain. Plato wrote “Mentally and physically ill persons should be left to death, they do not have the right to live”(A General History of Euthanasia, (n.d.) p.1 ) Sir Thomas More was the first prominent Christian to mention euthanasia in his book Utopia. Then, in the 18th century, Prussia passed a law that reduced the punishment of a person who killed a patient with an incurable disease. In the 20th century, euthanasia became a heated topic among numerous individuals, who