When looking at euthanasia, it is important to remove associated emotions that are involved, deontology allows us to do so. The “action is based on whether or not the action itself is wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the actions” (Webster’s, 2014). The ability to act morally, one must follow one's moral duties (Mackinnon, et al. 2014). Patient centered deontology is specific to euthanasia as it is dependent upon patient's consent. Jim desires the removal of the ventilator to avoid pain and discomfort.
If euthanasia is legalize, there might be a concern which poor patients and their family members refuse to accept treatment because of the high costing in order keeping them alive while the treatment will not guarantee that the patient will be cure. Therefore, some the them might choose to refuse treatment or even their family members do not want to spend the money on the treatment. Thus , legalize of euthanasia will serve death sentence to many disabled, elderly citizens and terminally ill patient and it might not their own will. 3.2 Euthanasia devalues human life It is one of reason why euthanasia should not be legalize.
The ideas behind this moral distinction is that in passive euthanasia the doctors are not actively killing anyone but they are just not saving the patients. Most people think that euthanasia can be justifiable, when the patients are facing incurable disease, undergoing suffer, terminally ill and requests for euthanasia as their last wishes. For instance, Somerville (2010) argued that it is important to respect the people’s right of self-determination and autonomy. In other words, people should have the right to choose their time of dying but the state have prevented and stop them from doing it.
Ethical differences can occur because of individual perseption of a subject or event (Legal dictionary, 2017). The ethical difference even may be political or religious in nature (Legal dictionary, 2017). Legal reasoning helps people to distinguish between what is right within society compared to what they think they should do. In this case, the moral reasoning is to end the patients suffering and to allow the resident to die is the kinder option (Moore, 2017). The legal reasoning in this case would be to honor the families wishes with the exception that the decision for life saving treatments was made in a malicious manner (Moore,
Euthanasia, is common to families who have loved ones in an incurable condition facing the inevitable. It is one of the most difficult decision for anyone to face of whether to pull the plug or keep the patient under vegetative or suffering state. Letting someone go is never easy, but euthanasia allows the family to decide the patient’s fate, to avoid any other agonizing pain, and to brace themselves for the imminent loss. A family’s grievous decision to euthanize is very crucial.
Physician- Assisted Death (PAD), or Euthanasia, is ending a patient’s life with the help of a physician. Euthanasia is painless and the patient would have to be diagnosed with an incurable disease or a terribly painful illness to even be considered. An individual will request euthanasia and will have to see a hospital psychologist to make sure he or she can come to terms with dying. There are many benefits to consider when thinking about euthanasia; the patient will not be in pain or suffer from the illness anymore, safer and more effective than a patient trying to end their life on his or her own terms, hospitals and family members would actually save money, and the patients’ feel more control over their own death.
Additionally, the patient may need additional treatment, as can be the situation in corrective surgery; here, the professional may be obliged to adjust the longings of the patient for therapeutically pointless potential dangers against the patient's informed autonomy in the issue. A specialist may need to lean toward autonomy on the grounds that refusal to satisfy the patient's will would hurt the specialist-patient relationship.
Keeping euthanasia outlawed regulates religion, aids morality, and supports physicians’ ethics. Euthanasia is killing a patient painlessly for medical reasons, even sometimes given without a request from the patient, such as being in a coma. Euthanasia goes against peoples’ one right to life. Some think it is ok because it supposedly helps the patient, but is it realistically helping? There should be so many other options for patients to choose from, instead of thinking death is respectable choice.
Euthanasia is the practice of painlessly ending a person or animal’s life because they are suffering and cannot be cured. It is a humane option compared to being forced to live out the rest of your life living off a machine and in great pain. Nevertheless, people still find it to be against their morals and do not want it to be in practice. Dating back two centuries, the argument of euthanasia has been debated on whether it should be allowed, and controversy follows it around everywhere it is allowed.
Physician assisted suicide—or euthanasia—has been a topic of extreme controversy for years now. According to examiner.com, this debate could date back as far as the sixteenth century. Some believe that it is a necessary practice that would allow terminally ill patients to die quickly, painlessly, and with dignity, while others believe that it is a destructive and murderous practice that could potentially blur the lines of right and wrong within the medical community. While many believe that it is within our rights as humans to die as we please, the rest believe that the right to be killed does not exist. This paper will highlight both the pros and cons of legalizing human euthanasia.
The argument of autonomy and dying in dignity is given prominence by cases such as Diane Pretty and Debbie Purdy, who both argued that “Suffering, indignity, and the loss of independence are undesirable” (Benatar, 2010, p2) and as a result a mentally cognitive individual suffering from chronic illness or terminal illness should be legally allowed to request assisted dying. This ensures that individuals are able to “arrange to die at a chosen time, in privacy and with dignity” (Benatar, 2010, p3). Diane Pretty suffered from Motor Neuron Disease and was experiencing the disintegration of her body, as a result she appealed to the court to allow her husband to help her end her life, but the request was denied (Doyal, 2001, p1079). Diane’s argument was essentially grounded on the value of autonomy and dignity, the reality of her disease meant she would likely suffer from extreme pain and die an undignified death. The rapid degeneration of her body meant that she would become dependent on those around her for the simplest of tasks.