I think that suicide with assistance should be given as an option to people. People should have the right to choose whether they want to live or die. If patients know they are going to die, then they can be with their family and friends and live life knowing that they will die soon. This practice also doesn’t cause as much fear. If the patient knows he or she is going to die within six months, then it will be easier to take in.
It is unjust that anyone should die because they disagree with another’s political, religious or other views. Terrible events like the Holocaust and 9/11 could have been avoided if people stopped looking to extremism as the solution to all problems. When an idea had less pros than cons, it is only natural that it is discouraged. Extremism should only be resorted to in the most extreme situations that require it. So, go out and spread the message that there are other ways of achieving things than extremism.
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 “a concept used in the medical field which means easy death or gentle death, and is defined as the deliberate speeding up of the death of an individual based on terminal medical conditions” (Jonsen, et al. 2015). Euthanasia reflects one of the current debate issues health professionals encounter when caring for the end of life patients who are choosing between speeding up their death or living the rest of their life in pain. In the fields of laws and regulations related to human health there is still a controversy over the concept of a peaceful death. This ethical dilemma has health care providers making a decision to choose between two difficult options and are obligated to use moral reasoning to solve these legal and ethical
According to the journal Why Abortion is Immoral of Don Marquis, a philosophy professor at Kansas University, he stated that “he tries to show that aborting a fetus is, except in exceptional circumstances, a serious moral wrong.” In fact, killing is not accepted in the society. specially to kill potential human being who has a valuable ability like ours. Although the fetus is not considered as human being and it also have a spirit and sacred, the fetus will be a human being after nine months and ten days, therefore no one could destroy another person’s
There are ethical controversies when destroying human embryos for research following the use and the creations of human embryos that are used for stem cell research and therapy. It causes moral problems, as it appears to bring tension within two fundamental principles that are valued highly. It is morally banned to intentionally destroy innocent human beings. The human embryo is looked as an innocent human being, and therefore means destroying a potential human life. (11.)
Deontological Ethical Theory states that a person has duties to god, oneself, and duties to others. We all know that we have this duty, and we know this intuitively without deriving it from any more basic moral principles. A duty theorist would also agree that abortion is morally wrong. They believe that it is our duty to others and ourselves to care for other human beings. Abortion is taking away a human life and would be wrong.
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
If a physician were to inject the patient with a lethal drug, then it would be euthanasia since the physician is performing the final act (Marker and Hamlon). Many people support the option of euthanasia and assisted suicide for patients nearing the end of their lives. Equally,
Some say it is just not suitable for this society, where constitution guarantees the human rights, and the conception that human rights are equally applied to every human being, exists. On the other hand, some say that death penalty is needed to clean and organize this world contaminated by crimes, and is a tool to make an ideal, crime-free world. I cannot deny that human rights are important, but if we keep pushing with human rights, nothing would be done to save furthermore victims, and that is basically out of its purpose to guarantee human rights; victims’ rights will be violated by death, and that is not a result wanted. It might not make sense, but we have to follow the utilitarianism, which encourages sacrifice of the small and less, for the big and many. We can save furthermore victims in future, use taxes in places where really need it, and comfort every family who suffers from such tragedies like family member’s death, by using death penalty for violent