Merriam-Webster dictionary defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy”. In other words, euthanasia is the termination of certain patient’s lives in order to relieve them from their suffering and pain. As this issue progressed and became a widely debated, controversial subject, society and scholars are divided into two groups, opponents and proponents, both groups have strong reasons to defend their cases. Opponents believe that euthanasia -in all its forms- is an act of murder, and should be prohibited no matter what the case is. On the other hand, proponents defend their arguments by saying that it is the patient’s right to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely death.
Both men had the same motive and willingness to kill the child, but the only difference was one killed while the other let them die. In this situation there is not a moral difference between killing and letting die. I believe the majority would agree that both are morally wrong. People might think that Dr. Rachels’s argument only works with negative motives, but it also works for euthanasia where the motives are generally for a positive reason such as relieving a patient from their suffering. 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.
Euthanasia does not include stopping a medically “useless” treatment, killing the pain without killing the patient, or, “refusal of medical treatment by a competent patient.” (www.care.org.uk). In the U.S., euthanasia is illegal in 44 states however, 6 states have legalized physician-assisted suicide (PAS). There are many different forms of euthanasia one of which is active euthanasia. Active euthanasia is a process of killing a patient by active means; injecting a patient with a lethal dose of a drug. Passive euthanasia is allowing a patient to die by withdrawing their
This essay shows that Hume believes that suicide can be defined as the killing of self that is intended to remove misery and which may or may not be morally justified. On the other hand, it also shows that Aquinas defines suicide as the intentional killing of self that is “contrary to self love, self perpetuation[, and] natural law” and which is morally impermissible. Simply all that Hume attempts to accomplish in his essay “Of Suicide” is to show that Aquinas is wrong and that suicide may be morally permissible in certain circumstances. Various philosophers over the past two
2) David Von Drehie: A law professor named Anthony Amsterdam, argued that the death penalty was a cruel and unusual punishment and had allowed unequal protection under the law (pg. 221). The death penalty was interfering with the right of the 14 and 8 amendments, that were taking away after this sentence had been placed.
“Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know.” (Camus 1) If someone were to say this in our world, it would be condemned, and the person would be thought of telling a sick joke or having even a mental problem. In reference to an absurd world, though, this usage of extremist ideals about death can better explain the concept and how it is seen by the writer. The themes of death explored using absurdism in The Stranger is shown with a general disregard for death by Meursault and the strange way he sees life based on these existentialist views. The Stranger is a perfect example of an existentialist novel that was written for that time period, as during this time around the area of France and Europe there was an existentialist movement that Albert Camus, the author, was involved in.
Consider that when A stabbed B he did so under a delusion that he was in fact fighting with a monster of fictional sorts, and that this said delusion was caused by a mental disorder. Though A’s act was voluntary, through no fault of his own he did not understand the reality what he was doing. It would therefore be very harsh to find A culpable for B’s death. So A has proven himself to be a danger to others and will need expert treatment before being allowed to return to society. The law deals with these situations by treating insane offenders as patients who bear no criminal responsibility for their actions, but who must go under medical care if medical experts think it is necessary.
On the other hand, “mercy killing” is the total opposite. It is when an action is taken upon the terminally ill patient without any consent or agreement. Mercy killing is illegal in all of the states of America and also most of all the countries around the world. Mercy killing is also called involuntary euthanasia. Both mercy killing and mercy death (assisted suicide) are forms of active euthanasia as it includes taking an action to end a patient’s life with intentions.