The process of dying is still part of life. Therefore, a person should be allowed to die with dignity. Everyone has an individual right to live and die. If a terminally ill patient whom is in so much pain and suffering has a desire to die, the society should respect that decision as they have the right over their own lives. In this case, there will be safeguards involved such as a counselling session.
Everyone has the right to choose to live or die. Death is part of life that can 't be avoided. This is a natural phenomenon in the process of life is birth, aging, illness and death. Euthanasia, in some words "Mercy Killing or Physician assisted Suicide." Euthanasia is to help patients who despair and cannot be cured to die peacefully and to have free from suffering.
The profession is full of tough choices to be made by the physician, patients and families. So in my opinion one should compare the up and down side of his/her choices and go for that with benefit to the patient and family. In doing so we need to take in to consideration of ours and publics’ moral ground, laws of the country and cultures of the people. I believe every life has a purpose in this world and should be left to pass on by its own natural course without any intervention. The state of patient’s health condition may be so bad he/she may want to be killed or commit a suicide but the job as a physician is to work the best they can in finding a solution for the pain or suffering.
The use of palliative care, passive and active euthanasia in my opinion should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. The legalisation of active euthanasia is most logical step in addressing a terminally ill individuals’ choice regarding a dignified death, as well as what seems to be the laws double standards and unfair-discrimination regarding the choice of dying when an individual’s life may be interrupted and when terminally
Of all the reasons to support a terminally ill patients right to die, the most important one is this. I believe this way because Dr. David Mayo has published that euthanasia enhances personal freedom. Mayo has stated that, “People should be free to determine their fates by their own autonomous chores especially in connection with private matters, such as health,” and he argues that society encourages people to take control over all aspects of life and that should include one’s desire to control the manner of his/her own death. Dr. Mayo has the expertise in this area having served on the board of National Death with Dignity Center. This approach is the major principle of respect for patient’s autonomy.
Supporters of euthanasia claim that individuals can make important decisions about their bodies. Having a doctor help terminally ill patients with ending their own life that ensure death will be on their own terms and in peace with dignity. Euthanasia is legal in the states of Oregon. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act was affirmed in 1997 by voters Oregon. On February 21, 2017, Public Health Division, Center for Health Statistics report on the use of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.
For instance, looking at either passive euthanasia or active euthanasia it is the same positive motive and the same result and once again it only comes down to the killing and letting them die. Thus, it would not matter if the doctor either killed the patient or watched the patient die since they would be in the same moral positioning either way. The argument against this is that in passive euthanasia the doctors do not do anything to cause the patient’s death
In other words, it bears the meaning of a “painless, happy or good death” as derived from the ancient Greek language – “eu”, meaning good; and “thanatos”, meaning death. Due to the rapid advancements in medical treatments, patients are capable of being kept “alive” for indefinite periods of time. Hence, in order to distinguish the ancient concept of allowing a patient to die and neglecting them treatment, the medical community has encompassed the idea of drawing a line between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia . Because active euthanasia is a deliberate act that intends to end the life of a human being, it is still considered a form of murder in the eyes of the law of many countries
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.
It might be utmost important to the doctor to know whether killing his or her patient is active or passive, deliberate or just expected, but this matters less to the patient. The patient might consider it as their death is according to their well but the patient 's standpoint that is utmost vital. I also believe that the firmness of the deontological view reckonings against its plausibility. It therefore censures the terms like suicide, euthanasia, murder and abortion. According to moral right, as the patient and the doctor agree, it should be carry out, without considering the negative impact on the relative and this is not right.
Dr. Daneault, a member of palliative care at Montreal’s Notre Dame Hospital, shares his views on why doctors wish to not perform this operation and states that “Doctors won’t perform euthanasia, because it’s considered homicide.” Parsons shares the same views that the future society’s ability to have control over who dies and when is wrong. He believes that the citizens of the society should have the right to live a prolonged healthy life, and that medicine is the solution, not
Only in four states is assisted suicide mandated by state law: Oregon, Washington, Vermont and California. “Oregon insists that the lethal dose is self-administered, to avoid voluntary euthanasia…Oregon’s law covers only conditions that are terminal. Again, that is too rigid. The criterion for assisting dying should be a patient’s assessment of his suffering, not the nature of his illness.” (The Right to Die) The author agrees with Oregon that assisted suicide is legal, but does not agree with the fact that it is only offered to the terminally ill. I also agree that it should be legalized, but I agree with Oregon’s law that it should only be offered to the terminally ill. What if the patient just hasn’t received the proper care yet?