Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.
James Rachels describes two different scenarios to preface his argument about the euthanasia debate. First, there is Smith. Smith will receive a large amount of money if his ‘six-year-old’ family member dies (Timmons, 2016). When Smith’s relative is vulnerable and alone in his ‘bath,’ Smith murders the child, careful to make it seem as though the child died on his own (Timmons, 2016). Rachels then tells the reader about Jones. Jones will receive a large amount of money if his ‘six-year-old’ relative dies (Timmons, 2016). Jones shares Smith’s murderous desire to get the money and wants to submerge his family member’s head underwater while the relative is ‘bathing’ (Timmons, 2016). While Smith actually commits the
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
Euthanasia is the deliberate killing under the impulse of compassion in order to relieve the physical pain of a person suffering (Diaconescu 2012, p.474). According to Thiroux and Krasemann, (2012) Euthanasia has existed in human history from ancient’s times, although within twentieth century it is now being considered, as a type of “mercy killing”, in which is a form of murder within most countries of the world. Healey (1997) stated “euthanasia always involves an intention to kill” ethical debates on the topic continue to be an ongoing issue, this essay will distinguish the unethical notions of euthanasia by considering and implementing the theoretical concepts of the divine command theory and Rule utilitarianism theory. Divine Command Theory emphasises on the rules for determining one’s actions and motives, Christianity for example, the command of ‘thou shalt not kill’ reflects on the sanctity of life, therefore
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.
Currently in the United States only five out of the fifty states have legalized assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is the help from a physician for a patient to end their life because they have a terminal illness. Many people believe that euthanasia should be illegal across the board, however, people who have terminal illnesses should have a right to be in charge of how to end their life. Many people do not want their family to see them at their lowest, and they do not want to see their selves at their lowest either, therefore, giving a person a right to end their life peacefully, should be an individual’s choice.
Every year, millions of people die from terminal illnesses and no more than several developed countries let patients die in dignity. Because of the fact that there’s no way of understanding a patient’s pain, any government cannot decide whether the patients should die or keep on suffering. So that it is essential to mention about the importance of assisted suicide. Also called euthanasia, is the act of killing patients with incurable diseases and who are suffering unbearably to end their pain. It may be done voluntarily or involuntarily or in another aspect, it may be active or passive but the assisting is done by a physician. It is a very controversial subject but every human should have the right to die and also ask a professional for help. Therefore, euthanasia should be legal for terminally ill, mentally stable and
Life and death were regarded as spheres of God’s planet before medical advancement. Currently, with an increase in the demand for Physician Assisted Suicide, life and death no longer seem to be accorded the same moral sanctity as earlier. Deliberately, right to die; a controversial issue recently has been heated up and brought to life the pros and cons of mercy killing. Law poses many problems in this regard, mostly because it often comes into contradiction with morality. One of the most fundamental problems arising out of this conflict between law and morality is right to die.
In this article author James Rachels highlights the true meaning along with pros and cons of what active and passive euthanasia are. Since the very beginning the author ensures that the reader can understand the difference between these two concepts. He uses multiple examples and facts to support his idea. For example, he mentions that active euthanasia is at times more humane than that of passive euthanasia. His thought regarding this is that, with active euthanasia the person is less prone to having a painful death rather than just letting a person go through the passive channel and just letting that person suffer and die with agony.
“How terrible it is to love something death can touch” (Albus Dumbledore), is something everyone questions to themselves. There is a great desire to avoid it, but death is inescapable. Death approaches over time or unexpectedly and happens to everyone. In hospitals, a patient’s chance of life can hang by a choice. Euthanasia, is common to families who have loved ones in an incurable condition facing the inevitable. It is one of the most difficult decision for anyone to face of whether to pull the plug or keep the patient under vegetative or suffering state. Letting someone go is never easy, but euthanasia allows the family to decide the patient’s fate, to avoid any other agonizing pain, and to brace themselves for the
According to Singer, “voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia carried out at the voluntary request of the person killed, who must be, when making the request, mentally competent and adequately informed” (Singer 2011, 157). Euthanasia is a term used to describe a death that is pain free and fast. This is often done by certain pill or injection medications that will kill you quick and painlessly. Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient requests by their own free will and show that they are mentally capable of making this decision for a fast and painless death. The patient also must be informed and completely understand what euthanasia entails and the result will be a quick and painless death. There is also a way for a patient who is not capable to
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
Euthanasia can be interpreted in different ways depending on the person/point of view. Euthanasia is another word for mercy-killing, those who are in great pain and their treatments show no sign of progress can choose euthanasia as an option to die mercifully and with dignity. When a person goes through euthanasia, they consume a euthanasia solution through a vein or by drinking it. Then, they rest as the solution kills them. There have been many controversies on whether euthanasia should be legalized. For example, people have argued for the right to live and the right to die. The term, euthanasia, is sometimes misinterpreted and not thoroughly analyzed by others to be truly understood why its controversies exist.
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