Euthanasia, a sensitive topic for most; some are for it, some are against it. The issue that is presented in James Rachel’s “Active and Passive Euthanasia” is an attempt to determine if assisted death is morally acceptable or flat out immoral. This controversial topic is a subject that comes up frequently in the medical field. Should one be able to self inflict death? Some say it is morally wrong while others believe otherwise.
If a doctor is to do his moral duty, this would be to cure or alleviate pain, and not assist on killing, as that would disregard the doctor-patient relationship and the hippocratic oath they swore to uphold. With today’s growing technology and medical innovation, people suggest that a cure may become available at any time and miracles can happen, and euthanasia would prevent those from happening. With doctors doing everything they can to keep people alive, patients are often left living under machines controlling every organ of their body, even when they’re brain dead. That only because the family members won’t let go and keep on holding on to the little shred of hope that a miracle might
Religious people say that it goes against the fifth commandment which is “Thou shalt not kill.” (Bible) The commandment prohibits the murder of oneself or the murder of others. This is considered a divine law which shouldn’t be changed for the good of a few people, much like how a state law can’t contradict a federal law. For physicians and the general public that disagree with assisted suicide feel that assisted suicide can give society the approval to kill.
Utilitarianism is a one of the ethical theory that was discussed in the first half of the class that applies to the case of Euthanasia. Utilitarianism is the moral worth of an action based on consequences (the greatest good principle). Therefore, utilitarianism can be applied to Euthanasia because it produce happiness for patients and their family by avoiding pain. However, I believe that Euthanasia should not be morally allowed. Euthanasia is an action done intentionally to end life to end the pain and sufferings from a terminal illness.
All of these patients will most likely have to endure unnecessary pain and suffer a horrible end. Most of them do not want to go down the spiralling road of needless pain and have to face what these diseases will do in their last months or years. Why should doctors and Americans who have not been through these events be the ones to stop them if they do not want to go through all that trauma of these diseases or even injuries? They shouldn’t. That is why assisted suicide needs to be made legal in all of the United States.
Euthanasia, also referred to as physician assisted suicide, is an option for those that are in pain and want to end their suffering. It is not easy to argue that an individual should not be able to make their own choice on if they want to end any type of suffering they are enduring. Some might argue that however ill a person may be, they are entitled to every hour granted to them. While this stance in particular is defendable in it’s own right, despite this belief, everyone who is able to make this type of decision is in control of their body and should be granted the option to end any type of unbearable pain. How can one who is not dying make the decision for the individual who is?
What would you do in that moment when “death is knocking on their door” or they are about to die? Some people may answer this question by saying keep them alive by using artificial means. I say no. I firmly believe that this is wrong and you are only prolonging their suffering. Euthanasia is what I believe is the right thing to do in these cases if the sick person would rather go that route.
INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Today, the topic euthanasia is facing a lot ethical issues; even the mention of the word euthanasia will most likely draw reactions from most people, like abortion, capital punishment, and other issues related to the beginning or end of human life. Although it is often assumed that the modern-day perspective of euthanasia differ from those throughout history, it would seem that the concept of euthanasia has always been the subject of debate (McDougall and Gorman, 2008). The New Oxford Dictionary of English defines ‘euthanasia’ as ‘the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma’. ‘Euthanasia’ comes from two Greek words, ‘eu-’, a prefix meaning ‘good’ or ‘well’, and ‘thanatos’, meaning ‘death’. Literally speaking, when someone undergoes euthanasia, their death is good.
Do you assent that people who encounter some fatal diseases and do not want to endure pain can have voluntary euthanasia? Voluntary euthanasia, the practice of a hopelessly ailing and suffering person asking for terminating the life in a relatively rapid and painless manner, has been the most controversial moot point that spawns numerous discussions in the recent few decades. I propose that voluntary euthanasia should be legalized so that anyone who struggles for the desperate disease can have the right of practicing voluntary euthanasia. Every individual has liberty and is an autonomous person with the right to self-sufficiency and independence.
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. CLASSIFICATION OF EUTHANASIA Euthanasia may be characterized consistent with if an individual
A legitimate argument against the legalization of Physician Assisted Suicide is the potential abuse it will cause. Many say it will become unavoidable when patients are eventually given the option to Physician Assisted Suicide that do not qualify to the regulations that must be followed. Many believe our society today would eventually push the idea of PAS to these people who do not apply due to pressures of class and poverty. Yes, I do believe our society today has become extremely difficult to keep up with, when these high standards are at the top. Some call this the “Slippery Slope” theory
Karlsson, Milberg and Strang (2011) suggest that some individuals “perceived that the legalization of euthanasia would bring about a situation where society has the legal right to take patients’ lives in certain situations, and that individuals would lose the protection of and power over their own lives” (pp. 37-38). In a sociological perspective, this can relate to the conflict theory because regarding euthanasia, there is a strong sense of coercion and power when it comes to handling the lives of individuals who are terminally ill, or incapacitated individuals who don 't have the capability to make their own decisions. In addition to this, “those who feel like they are not in control of their over their own lives…are more likely to fear the potential abuse of euthanasia” (Verbakel & Jaspers, 2010, p. 113). When the concept of losing one’s own power becomes a prominent reality for these individuals, it can not only result in a larger conflict, but it could also further ignite the euthanasia
It is believed that once practicing physician-assisted suicides becomes an acceptable concept in society, the next steps will easily be taken toward unethical actions such as involuntary euthanasia. Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD, Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Medical Ethics at Georgetown University claims that our healthcare system is too obsessed with costs and principles of utility. He defies the belief that the slippery slope effect is no more than a prediction, by reminding the outlooks and inclinations of our society. Furthermore, he believes there comes a day that incompetent patients and those in coma won’t be asked for their permission to use euthanasia. The Netherlands is another example of such misuse.
The fourth common Western argument in favor of euthanasia is the argument of self-determination. According to the precious Western value of autonomy, the individual must be free to decide on the things that matter much to him or her. As decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, education, etc. The decision on how and when to die is one of the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime. Therefore we have the right to die; some even claim that it is a human right, a negative right (the corresponding obligation is non-intervention in suicide attempts) and a positive law (which is suicide correlative duty of care).