Ethics Of Euthanasia

Euthanasia, otherwise known as “mercy killing,” is the act of intentionally ending the life of a person who suffers from an untreatable or incurable condition that typically causes a great deal of pain (“Euthanasia”). The practice has been a contentious legal issue in the United States ever since Oregon enacted the Oregon Death with Dignity act in 1997, legalizing physician aided death (“Oregon”). To be more specific, the act permits physicians to prescribe treatment that will result in the death of a patient, if the patient requests it. After Oregon passed its act, California, Colorado, Vermont, and Washington followed suit and passed their own legislation legalizing the practice (“History”). To this day, the legality and morality of such

Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated. Even though assisted suicide was not discussed throughout the sixteen to eighteen hundreds, ethical philosophers investigated the roots of human morals in an attempt to create an overarching rule that would help determine if “death with dignity” is morally justified.

“A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured.” -Andrew Coyne. According to Cambridge dictionary, euthanasia, also called assisted suicide, is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Although many think assisted suicide should be legalized in Canada to avoid violation of Freedom of Choice Act, I strongly disagree with its legalization. Permitting euthanasia prevents advancements in care facilities for the terminally-ill, leads to non-voluntary use of euthanasia and diminishes society’s respect for life.

Physician assisted suicide is morally and ethically wrong due to the Hippocratic oath doctors take at the beginning of their term, and unlike euthanasia, it is therefore the patient that triggers the death and not a third party. Our culture subscribes to the notion of the “absolute sanctity of life”, Western religions do not plainly forbid suicide, and assisted suicide would result in overall no harm on the society. The physician-assisted suicide controversy surrounds the idea that assisted suicide rests on the difference between dying with dignity and dying suffering. The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial. It is ethically permissible for a dying person who has chosen to escape the unbearable

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

Euthanasia has been a big topic of conversation around the United States for the past decade. There are those who are against death by medicine, and those who are for dying with dignity. Right off the back, the words death by medicine and dying with dignity sound a lot different. Those who are pro Euthanasia look at it as ending a persons suffering, and giving them a choice. People against Euthanasia look at it as either suicide or murder, and find it inhumane. Generally, the process of assisted suicide is done by a physician for those patients that are fatally ill with zero chance of possibilities to making a recovery and with great likely hood their death will be drawn out by the hospitals machines and more then likely

The legalization of physician-assisted suicide has became an increasingly debatable topic in the United States today. The practice of assisted suicide pertains to a terminally ill patient who wants to end his or her life along with a physician’s acknowledgement of that patient’s desire to die. The debate on whether or not to legalize assisted suicide in every state has caused many uproars in the field of health care. Elements that factor into the controversy of this practice include ethicality, legality, and autonomy. Questions about the issue include: should the patient have the autonomy to select the system of assisted suicide, is it morally

Assisted suicide is an ethical issue which is reliant on a person’s values, morals, religion, and experiences. Debated this topic can bring out strong emotions and opinions pulling away from the focus of this paper which was simply to describe view points from both sides of the spectrum.

Or, this is due to the fact that unless she interferes and puts an end to his life, that his life will be so horrible he’d be better off dead. Hence, the main reason that the person who carries out the act of euthanasia is that they want to accommodate the one whose death is imminent. “It is important to emphasize the motive of benefiting the person who is assisted to die because well-being is a key value in relation to the morality of euthanasia.” (Young) This is also clear as day in many cases of physician-assisted suicide. Some argue that for Euthanasia, “Once legalized, euthanasia will not be used just for those facing serious illnesses, but those who are depressed.” (Mezban) Past philosophers like Immanuel Kant and John Locke were opposed suicide. For this reason, they viewed euthanasia as suicide, regardless of how much pain or suffering the person was dealing

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.

If people have the right to live, then do they have the right to die? Is it okay to end someone’s life in order to end his/her pain and suffering?

Active euthanasia is killing a patient who requests to die. For example, a patient with a terminal illness may wish to end their battle. To fulfill these wishes the physician may administer a lethal injection. Except in special circumstances, it is illegal to deliberately cause the death of another person. I contend that life is a gift from God and he has the ultimate power to decide when to take this privilege away. Patient autonomy argues that a person’s life is their own, allowing a patient to make decisions on whether to live or die. This is seen most strongly in cases where people are suffering severe pain or disability. However, to what extend is individual autonomy to be undermined? In our current model, the guidelines for determining the competency of a patient present too many holes. Therefore, allowing life and death decisions to rest on individual autonomy rejects our society’s basic attitude or respect for

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