The decision is made by another person because the patient is incapable of doing so himself/herself” (2015). Involuntary euthanasia can be regarded as murder (NHS). There are also two procedural classifications of euthanasia which are passive, and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is when a doctor prescribes a patient increasing doses of medication which can be toxic. Although, it is the not doctors intentions to harm or kill the patient, this is still the ending product.
I could imagine that it would be hard to let them go, but happy for them to end their suffering. This is why I think that euthanasia is compassionate and humane. The community that Jonas lives in does accept the practice of euthanasia, but in a different way than we do in the real world. Release in The Giver is not compassionate because of they way they describe it and the process. They use release on newborn children, elderly people who are not suffering, and on criminals or people who break the rules of the
Although there are some situations in which euthanasia could be exploited, my thesis will argue that it is not always morally wrong to end someone’s life in the circumstances in which euthanasia would be contemplated. The act of euthanising somebody can either be voluntary, in which the person believes their life is not worth living and asks for their life to be ended, or non-voluntary, in which they are unable to do so, and the decision on whether to end their life rests on doctors and family. Furthermore, there are different ways in which it could be performed: through medical intervention, (deliberately ending the patient’s life using medical equipment, such as through lethal injection), or medical non-intervention, (not making any efforts to prolong their life). Both will inevitably end the patient’s life, however, not
Life is never guaranteed and whether it is through an illness or an accident, we as humans are eventually going to die. Physicians Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial issues. The issue of doctor-assisted suicide has been the subject of the heated dispute in recent years. While some oppose the idea that a physician should aid in ending a life, others believe that physicians should be permitted in helping a patient to end his or her unbearable suffering when faced with a terminal illness. Furthermore, Physician-assisted suicide should be legal; it should be the patient’s right to decide when and how he or she should die.
Being a Doctor is one of the most arduous job there is. It involves having to make tough life and death decisions, but what happens when the best course of action that the doctors see is to just let the patient die, if only to spare them the pain of living. In the article “When Living Is Worse Than Death” by Christine Mitchell this topic is talked about using the case of a terminally ill child and how her parents wanted to keep her alive through any means necessary despite the medical teams advisements. This article does raise some good points about the morality of letting patients die without having to go though needless suffering with no hope of recovery , however it only shows the one viewpoint and as such lacks strong enough evidence to make a solid argument. “When Living Is a Fate Worse Than Death” by Christine Mitchell is about a child named Charlotte who was born missing most of her brain cells,a condition which meant
Decease donors in most cases write a will prior to their deaths permitting their own organs to be given to someone else. Apparently, this is considered to be the most appropriate because it does not cause any harm, especially physical harm to the donor. Furthermore, it is the will of the deceased that the living should respect and not go against. However, this kind of donation is against cultural and religious beliefs of some individuals who feel that dead people deserve their last respect. Other issues arise when a person is declared dead when they really aren’t because sometimes mistakes can be done in authentication.
But in Donald’s case it was the total opposite. He went to the hospital with his mind already made up to die, which goes against what the doctors have being taught to do, and the principle of beneficence. The doctors decided to reject his autonomy because they knew he had an immense possibility of having a happy live and not just simply acting in a paternalistic way. In the end the doctors decisions was the right choice, when Donald stated, “I am enjoying life now, and I’m glad to be alive” (Munson6). Which proves that the doctors knew what they were doing, even though his autonomy might have being rejected; at the end it turned out to be a greater benefit to Donald because he was able to live again as a normal man.
Physician assisted suicide, although legal in some states, should remain illegal because it goes against religious and moral beliefs. “In physician assisted suicide, the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act” (Endlink). Supporters of assisted-suicide laws believe that mentally competent people who are in misery and have no chance of long-term survival, should have the right to die if and when they choose. I agree that people should have the right to refuse life-saving treatments, written in the patient bill of rights. But they should not have the freedom to choose to end their own lives with the help of a physician.
The pros to having the right to die law are that patients are able to end their suffering and pain. Some patients have illnesses that are so painful that the only way to get rid of the pain is to end their own life. The patient is able to die in dignity because they don’t have to worry about losing their mental and physical capacities. The patient can arrange to say goodbye to their love ones and their financial burden is reduced. Patients are able to donate their organs to other patients if they were planned ahead of time.
It is believed that once practicing physician-assisted suicides becomes an acceptable concept in society, the next steps will easily be taken toward unethical actions such as involuntary euthanasia. Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD, Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Medical Ethics at Georgetown University claims that our healthcare system is too obsessed with costs and principles of utility. He defies the belief that the slippery slope effect is no more than a prediction, by reminding the outlooks and inclinations of our society. Furthermore, he believes there comes a day that incompetent patients and those in coma won’t be asked for their permission to use euthanasia. The Netherlands is another example of such misuse.
Flippini states that instead of wasting time and effort trying to legalize euthanasia and making ill patients feel like a burden, and that their lives are not worth anything. They should instead provide better palliative care services aimed at managing symptoms and making the ill comfortable especially as they approach death that way that could help the ill live more fully with the dying