It means that it is not right for the terminally ill people that are suffering to be alive. There is different way of saying about the moral distinction between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Most people think that it is acceptable to allow doctors to end their patient’s life by withholding the treatment but it is not accepted to kill a patient through an intended process (deliberate act). However, some doctors or medical specialist agree and accept that the doctors are free to provide death to any patients that they want without discussing the moral problem of them if they consciously killed the
Dyck’s book, “Life’s Worth: The Case against Assisted Suicide,” details why PAS is unethical. One of Dyck’s first arguments comes from a story in which a patient, who initially requested PAS but later found enjoyment in other things and turned away from PAS. His argument stands in which he says that patient’s wishes can change and that when they find happiness and solace in other things they will understand that PAS is not the way to go (Dyck, 14-15). Dyck also explores the concept of how PAS is not as effective as comfort-only care. The physician has to remain willing to care for and the patient has to remain willing to be cared for and that is a respect for life.
That means the doctor is assisting with the homicide because the patient’s death was only possible if the doctor contributed the needed drugs. Laws protect the doctors from possible accusations. This supports the claim that assisted suicide is wrong. Clearly the patient’s life is negatively affected, but now so are the life’s of the nurses and doctors. If no one is benefiting from it, then why should it be considered a medical
The government is saying that physicians are role models and should be viewed as people who save lives, not people who take life away. Opponents contend that physician-assisted suicide undermines doctors’ roles in society. According to American Medical Association, “Allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good” (Fuller). The community looks up to doctors, especially the sickly elders. They might be influenced to seek help in easing their suffering.
Suppose the patient and doctor decide not to treat the illness and let nature take its course in killing them. This is very common and patients decide not to receive treatment even though they know it will eventually kill them. The next argument is, what would be wrong with allowing euthanasia as a fast and painless death verses a slow deterioration if the ending result of them both is ultimately death. Singer claims, “If there is no intrinsic moral difference between killing and allowing to die, active euthanasia should also be accepted as humane and proper in certain circumstances” (Singer 2011,
What will be the affect on society in exploiting the vulnerability and desperation of a drug-addict? What happens to those patients who are not seeking permanent birth control as a means of preventing reproduction but for the cash, $200? In the circumstances, who is liable for the damages should the procedure fail the purpose of birth control? As according to the case of Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), and Mr. Justice Homes affirmed to “prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind”, and the court would promote the best interests of the individual by means of detailed procedural requirements and would not sterilize individuals or groups for the supposed “good of society” (Harris, 2008, p. 266). With due respect, it is illegal to promote long-term or permanent birth control to the specific groups or individuals for the supposed good of society.
However, the debate is not straightforward as the potential for abuse or harm is prevailing society's established prohibitions against assisting suicide. Within this debate, some of society views assisted suicide as being morally wrong and believe it should not be legalized regardless of individual’s particular case. In addition, that professional standards and legislation should not be changed. Others hold the view that assisted suicide is ethically legitimate in exceptional cases. Finally within the debate, some people would advocate that assisted suicide should be a morally and legally acceptable choice in the care of terminal ill patients.
The assisted suicide refers to euthanasia for the patient who is suffering due to an incurable illness with help from the doctors to end patients suffering by taking of lethal drugs. Colombia, Switzerland, and Germany are some of the legal assisted suicide countries. Physicians cannot be prosecuted for prescribing medications to hasten death (“Physician-Assisted Suicide,” n.d.). Some individuals argue that assisted suicide could be better to become legal to endless patients suffering. However, it is argued that euthanized help patient to comfortable from doom.
Therefore, many disapprove since it goes against the religious belief of a natural death. As a matter of fact, “Christianity believes that switching off life-support machines of brain-dead people is not wrong because it alleviates suffering so it is compassionate” (Argument for euthanasia, 2013). Although euthanasia is not universally approved, it remains as a common option for patients and their families. How terrible it is for those who get left behind. When people are faced with brutal dilemmas,
Proponents of euthanasia believe that it will do not degrades life for those who are suffering from incurable illness. They should have a choice whether they want to end their live. But in fact, not all of the patient receive euthanasia because of the suffering but other reason reasons like the medical cost and other monetary reasons. A report had discussed that the rising cost of medical care for the elderly had cause some euthanasia become one of the suggestion to solve this crisis. ( report, EPAC, the Economic Planning and Advisory Council).