The idea of duty should also be considered. If a doctor is to do his moral duty, this would be to cure or alleviate pain, and not assist on killing, as that would disregard the doctor-patient relationship and the hippocratic oath they swore to uphold. With today’s growing technology and medical innovation, people suggest that a cure may become available at any time and miracles can happen, and euthanasia would prevent those from happening. With doctors doing everything they can to keep people alive, patients are often left living under machines controlling every organ of their body, even when they’re brain dead. That only because the family members won’t let go and keep on holding on to the little shred of hope that a miracle might
Is it ever right to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is undergoing severe pain and suffering? Euthanasia is the termination of a person's life in order to relieve them of their suffering. A person who undergoes euthanasia usually has an incurable condition. There are few forms of euthanasia which includes active, passive, voluntary, involuntary, and indirect euthanasia, plus assisted suicide. In active euthanasia a person directly and deliberately causes the patient’s death, on the other hand in passive euthanasia they don’t directly take someone’s life but allow it to happen.
It means that doctor and patient know and intentionally consent to give and receive a dose to end life mainly driven by a terminal and painful illness. The main factor that has driven this debate is that both are considered assisted dying and are an act to take the decision to intentionally end the life of a human being. It has generated moral, ethical (including patient, family and doctors), religious and legal dilemmas since many people see Euthanasia as a suicide masked as a mercy or compassionate death. The main difference is that euthanasia is considered a mercy kill or death because the physician administer a lethal medicine. However, in the case of PAS, the physician provides the dose or prescription for the self-administration by the patient.
Euthanasia, commonly referred to as mercy killing, is the exercise of ending lives of those with terminal conditions or agonizing pain. The practice of euthanasia is permitted in certain places such as the Netherlands, Belgium, and some parts of Canada. Although some view Euthanasia as wrong and unethical, others believe that it is a natural right every person is born with. Therefore, Euthanasia should be legalized for those ailing with little hope because the quality of a patient’s life diminishes, it could be a welcoming relief for families, and a patient has the right to die. As patients go through extensive care, like advanced medical support and artificial nutrients, their quality of life changes.
The cancer patient has no desire to continue living, because of the crippling pain. As a medical professional, should he/she be obliged to assist the patient in ending their suffering in the most humane approach in a perfectly legal manner or allow the pain to continue? In one hand, if the oncologist proceeds with the euthanasia, the physician would be breaking their Hippocratic Oath. In the other hand, the physician might face the reality that the patient has to live the remainder of the life suffering, against the wishes. This is only one of an infinite quantity of scenarios that could have been created.
However, if it is for God to determine our death, then the practice of medication must have been wrong. Another antagonistic towards voluntary euthanasia often claims that acceptation and legalization of voluntary euthanasia will inevitably lead to involuntary euthanasia. They are afraid that voluntary euthanasia will be abused and misused. Nevertheless, after appropriate procedures and safeguards are installed to offer maximum protection for patients and doctors involved, the rate of involuntary euthanasia have enormously decreased in Belgium and Netherlands where voluntary euthanasia is legal. In Belgium, they together account for 3.2%, 1.5% of all death in 2001 and 2007 respectively In the Netherlands, the rate less diminished from 0.7% in 2005 to 0.4% in 2007.
“When physicians take the Hippocratic Oath, they swear to not play at God in their practice of medicine” (Lariat). Allowing patients to die with decency, like they wish, would go against the Hippocratic Oath and it would also change the doctor’s role as a caretaker. Even so, dying with dignity still has many
However, this interchanging use of these terms is strictly not appropriate. While it is acknowledged that there may be no morally significant difference between assisted suicide and voluntary, active euthanasia, there is nevertheless a qualitative difference between them. According to Brock (1993), with assisted suicide, a qualified medical practitioner supplies the patient with means for taking his own life, unlike in the case of voluntary active euthanasia; it is the patient and not the doctor, who acts last. To put it simply, in the case of voluntary, active euthanasia it is the qualified medical practitioner who kills the patient, whereas in the case of assisted suicide it is the patient who kills his or her self (Johnstone,
INTRODUCTION Euthanasia alludes to the act of deliberately close a life keeping in mind the end goal to assuage torment and enduring. There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".  In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient"". Euthanasia is sorted in diverse ways, which incorporate voluntary, non-voluntary, or automatic.