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.
Euthanasia, meaning ‘gentle, easy death’, is known as the act of ending somebody’s life painlessly in order to relieve suffering. This is a common topic for debate, with many arguments about whether it is morally wrong to end somebody’s life in the circumstances of extreme illness. People such as Joseph Fletcher, founder of Situation Ethics, may suggest that euthanasia may be the most loving thing in certain situations, and is therefore morally right. However, other people, such as Aquinas, founder of Natural Moral Law, would disagree, stating that it goes against the precept of preserving life, and is therefore morally wrong, no matter the situation. 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.
Another reason behind anti-euthanasia supporters reasoning is the belief that it gives the doctor too much influence and power over patients. Opponents believe that euthanasia goes against the Hippocratic Oath and the four principles of medical ethics. The Hippocratic Oath states that is a popular medical statement written in the fifteenth century by Hippocrates, a Greek physician. The Hippocratic Oath states that deadly medicine should never be given to someone even if they ask (Cockeram 10). The four principles of medical ethics guarantee that all doctors must avoid harming their patients, are rational in their judgement, aim to do good, and treat all patients with fairness.
It is the duty of the doctor to consider each patient’s circumstances differently and take into account the patient’s values and any other factors which might conflict with beneficence. In the above case, it can be argued that beneficence is met as the doctor provides Joseph with the suggestion of lowering his BMI and to quit smoking. This action promotes good health and wellbeing to Joseph. However, there is a conflict between the principles of beneficence and autonomy. As discussed above, Joseph exercises his autonomy by refusing to quit smoking, in conjunction to this, it can be argued that the doctor’s actions of signing the medical clearance form may not be beneficent to Joseph in the long term.
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.
While it is desirable to save both the baby and the mother, sometimes only one can be saved. According to my ethical theory, the woman should die because that is not murder, it is natural causes. It may seem harsh, but God knows when we will live and die, and sometimes a woman is not supposed to live through her pregnancy. If the baby dies, it is murder because the baby had a chance at life, but it was prevented from experiencing life. Life is so important to God that he says anyone who murders should die.
If a surgeon has operated with bronze lancet on the body of a free man for serious injury, and has caused death, his hands shall be cut off.”Laws 215 and 218 from Personal-Injury Law. This may not seem fair at first, but if you think about it then yes it is. The surgeon knows the risk and he won’t do a bad job for if he does then his hands are cut off. This law also protects the weak from being killed in operation, and the laws are about protecting the weak. Hammurabi’s code I think was in fact just.
Hippocrates stated, "Also I will, according to my ability and judgment, prescribe a regimen for the health of the sick; but I will utterly reject harm and mischief”. This is seen as the foundation of the oath and Doctors have to take it seriously to the full extent, which is why we are so divided in this country in controversial topics such as abortion and assisted suicide. Topics like abortion are taken very serious by Hippocrates because he saw every life as having value. In the oath he said, “I will not give to a women a pessary to procure an abortion”. Hippocrates looked down on abortion and saw it as immoral to take a life of an unborn.
The decision to or not to donate is a moral decision. There can be no right or wrong answering this. There is a policy known as the Dead donor rule that raises a lot of ethical questions. Medical professionals must weight the value of saving a life with the individual rights with their body. However, with this rule the person must be declared dead before a doctor can harvest the organs.
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
The Doctrine of Doing & Allowing essentially outlines a lens that aids in drawing a distinction between doing something to cause the outcome, or allowing something that leads to an identical outcome. In this particular case, the Doctrine of Doing & Allowing aided the supreme court in rejecting the claim made by this case as a parallel can be found between a patient requesting assisted suicide through lethal medical treatment and a patient refusing to be put on a medical treatment such as life-support or some other form of treatment that the profession utilizes to prolong the process of death. (Vacco v. Quill, p. 423). J.J. Thomson’s concerns with the Doctrine of Doing & Allowing are quite complicated as he attempts to dig a bit deeper into the revised version that had been altered to incorporate both killing, allowing or letting die, “active euthanasia and passive euthanasia” (Thomson, pg. 500).
Parsons is against the principles that the future society has towards embracing death and equating it to life. He believes that a man is supposed to instinctively protect himself and should place his life above all else. He does not believe in forced euthanasia taking away the life of innocent people and the citizens willing to die that way. In an article called “Euthanasia: When doctors say no” written by Martin Patriquin (2009), it discusses about doctors having the choice for whether or not to euthanize their patients with terminal illnesses. 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.
Brock also notes that voluntary active euthanasia is morally permissible because it shows a sort of mercy to the individual that is dying. If somebody is not receiving life-sustaining treatment, but is still suffering greatly, then allowing voluntary active euthanasia would allow him or her to escape his or her suffering. They cannot simply "pull the plug" because they are just simply suffering with no life sustaining treatment being received, or even available. Brock also points to the fact that many people would refuse euthanasia, even if it were a legal option. He points to the Netherlands as being an euthanasia permitting country, and the number of people who choose euthanasia in the Netherlands is still very low.