Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia

Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia has been one of the most debated subjects in the past years. There are resilient advocates on both sides of the debate for and against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Advocates of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide believe it is a person’s right to die when faced with terminal illness rather than suffer through to an unpleasant demise. Whereas, opponents contend that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is not only equivalent of murder, but it is ethically and morally incorrect.

Physician-assisted suicide is a large moral controversy in the medical field. Jukka Varelius explains the key points about the dilemma on whether medical patients should have the right to ask doctors to terminate their lives, in order to end their suffering. In “Voluntary Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and the Right to do Wrong”, the author addresses how assisting suicide is morally wrong in our society, but yet patients insist that they have the moral right to end their lives if they are in agony and facing significant torment due to their ill status. Jukka, in his point of view, outlines the multiple problems that go along with the main conflict, such as should a doctor be forced to end a suffering patient’s life even if the physician does not wish to do so and should the patient have the ability to ask for euthanasia even if there is still a possibility that the patient’s status can improve. Mr. Varelius does a successful job portraying the key points in this conflict, but does not strongly support any side in the

In Greek, Euthanasia directly translates as “good death”. Euthanasia is defined as performing interventions or administering medications with the intention of causing a patient’s death in order to relieve pain or suffering (Asch, 1996). There are many moral, ethical and legal issues regarding the topic of euthanasia. This paper will discuss in detail: the definition, history, current issues, effects of euthanasia on families, clinical practicing nurse perspectives and the American Nurse Association opinion on euthanasia.

According to Paul Keating “Euthanasia is a Threshold Moment We Should Not Cross” from The Sydney Morning Herald, euthanasia is a negative form of treatment for patients with terminal illnesses and has negative effects on other aspects of society. Multiple studies are referenced and examples are given to support the authors claim that euthanasia is wrong and should be avoided. The use of euthanasia is related to assisted suicide or the intentional killing of a patient by physicians. The author also discusses the idea of safeguards that are said to be put in place to protect the patient from any consequences other than to put them out of their pain and misery. Keating debates that these ideas of ‘safeguards’ will not help due to the human error

Euthanasia is one of the biggest medical issues being considered in my country. It is against the low to euthanize humans here, however, some doctors believe that some people need it and sometimes they give euthanasia when they are asked by their patients, and get arrested. Today, Medications are developed enough to control humans’ lives. Though we need to consider again what is the right thing to do. The issue here is, is euthanasia acceptable or not in under any reasons. We can think about this issue from 3 different views.

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

The debate over whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for dying patients has long been a topic for discussion amongst members of the medical community. There are pros and cons for each argument, however, at the center of this debate is the consideration of patient advocacy and well-being. Although every health care profession centers their profession around providing the best ethical care for the patient, the most important value to consider are the decisions the patient makes for themselves. Currently, patients are given many safeguards such as living wills, a durable power of attorney, and the option for do not resuscitate that act as guidelines for end of life treatment. Physician-assisted suicide should also

The last argument that this paper will look at is the argument of double effect. In the context of terminal illness physician assisted suicide could instead be seen as a vital form of care for someone who is suffering, instead of the failure of medicine. Physician assisted suicide seems to oppose the pro-life view, but on closer examination, its purpose is instead to relieve suffering in imminently terminal cases where it is thought that no other treatment could reasonably hope to do the same. Even though traditionally the role of the doctor is seen as extending life, that role may also encompass the assistance in PAS.

The argument that I am analyzing is found in Philippa Foot’s article Euthanasia. This specific section starts at the beginning on page 88. This argument starts once she talks about the true meaning of Euthanasia and the difficulty in how people see or perceive it. In Foot 's article, she wants to prove that an act of euthanasia is morally permissible, as long as you’re performing it for the right cause or reasons. Foot defines euthanasia as "a matter of opting for death for the good of the one who is to die." (Foot, p.100) She further justifies this argument by stating that as long as we put into consideration the interests of the person involved and only the benefits of that person that euthanasia can morally acknowledge. I believe that it

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?

The word “euthanize” means to bring about a person’s death to relieve them from serious distress. The topic of euthanasia in medicine has evolved since intensive care was first instituted. Before the 1950’s, a simple model was used to determine when someone was dead: the individual was dead when his or her heart stopped beating. In the modern light, the answer to this question isn’t as clear. With advancements in organ transplantation and other medical technologies, the stopping of a beating heart is no longer a definite death sentence. This prolonging of life brings about many ethical dilemmas in the field of medicine. One of the issues is patient autonomy. The practice of euthanasia has been established to put the choice back into the hands of the patient. To better understand euthanasia, there are five different types.

A family’s grievous decision to euthanize is very crucial. There is nothing more dreadful than to see a love one suffer, but what is more torturous is to decide to either let go or keep that love one confined in bed and connected to tubes. Euthanasia allows the family members to make the first option considering that this is a decision that has the best interest for the patient involved. By deciding to euthanize, the family is “able to choose when and how [the patient] want[s] to die, and that [the patient] should do so with dignity” (Euthanasia and assisted suicide). Because patients often feel like a burden, euthanasia puts them at ease. When a patient is in a comatose state,“euthanasia is much more dignified than dying

Euthanasia or mercy killing both have the same meaning, which is: stop the patient who won’t recover from torment by using medical tools which are painless. Originally, it’s combining of two Greek words: “Eu” meaning “good”, and “ thanatos” meaning” death”. Simply, it means good death. Euthanasia has been known for a long time. In world war two the German soldiers who got very serious injuries and mostly won’t recover, they let died. Locally, The only three states in United States that legalized euthanasia are Oregon, Washington and Montana states. In 1994, Oregon voters approved the Death with Dignity act (DWDA) by voting of 51%. Since that year physicians are capable to prescribe life-end medication for terminally ill people. According to Life issues Institute the DWDA records show that 455 people have requested lethal drugs from their physician and 292 people have died from using them. The yearly numbers continue to rise, beginning with 16 deaths in 1997, increasing to 38 in 2005, and reaching 46 deaths in 2006 (Enouen). On the other hand, Others State criminalized this action, and the states’ rules consider the people who helped terminally ill people to suicide as criminals, it also for those who help people to commit suicide even if they are their doctors. This case has been a big concern for many people whether if this action should be legalized or not. This research paper will provide a discussion on the advantages and the disadvantages of euthanasia

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.

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