How far reaching are my rights when it comes to making decisions about my own life or the lives of loved ones? Does the medical profession have a say in those same decisions? As societal views change and medical advances rapidly develop, many questions have been raised about our rights as humans to do what we please with our body, specifically in the case of euthanasia. My interest in euthanasia was peaked after watching the movie Me Before You. In the story, a man is paralyzed and decides that he cannot live in that condition any longer so he seeks to end his life by medical means. The movie ultimately makes his decision to end his life look almost beautiful, glorifying those partaking in the act. I found the topic compelling, …show more content…
There are those that support it, stressing that it is our right, not only as American citizens, but also as humans, to do what we deem best for our bodies and health. Others stand highly opposed to it, viewing it to be completely immoral to end a life. Many see both sides of the issue, particularly those who have witnessed loved ones suffering from terminal illness or a debilitating condition. My viewpoint is that morally it is not our place to take life into our own hands and by doing so, we diminish the value God placed on life. I believe that palliative care, focusing on improving quality of life, should be the primary emphasis of medical professionals rather than euthanasia, which can leave the door open for abuse by physicians and family members.
Although there are some who try to take a middle ground, scholars and writers tend to clearly support or oppose euthanasia when addressing the moral aspect of the issue. Those purporting that euthanasia is morally acceptable support their position in a variety of ways. Amelia Mihaela Diaconescu debates in her article “Euthanasia” whether or not it is acceptable to let people suffer and prolong that suffering through their last days. She discusses that due to progress in medicine, a profound number of patients are able to comfortably live longer than they would have a decade ago; however, there are some situations when the treatment of maintaining the patient alive must be interrupted and the patient should
In comparing and contrasting the Arthurian Legends and J.R.R. Tolkien’s book The Fellowship of the Ring, it is almost like a medieval contest between the two with many of the similarities coming from the customs of the Middle Ages. A look at the make up of the groups involved, the moral code, the protagonist, the antagonist, the use of supernatural elements and the knightly quest involved in each book shows how alike they are but yet different.
The ethical issue is Euthanasia, there are many groups that support or oppose this issue. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The different viewpoints are based around whether it is humane to assist someone in dying and whether it should be illegal for someone to assist the death of someone who has a terminal illness and are suffering incurable pain. Groups that oppose the issue generally believe that it is inhumane to end someone 's life early, these groups generally believe these people should be given care and as much comfort as possible until their last days. Groups that support the issue generally believe that if someone has lost their mental state or are suffering unbearable pain that cannot be cured, that they should be allowed the option of euthanasia because it is inhumane to make someone suffer unbearable pain if they do not need to. An ethical issue brings systems of morality and principles into conflict, ethical issues are more subjective and opinionated and generally cannot be solved with facts, laws and truth. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because there are two equally unacceptable options. It is considered wrong
“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.
Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.
On the other end of the political spectrum, there are those who are against ending the DACA program like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. In a written statement, Pelosi said, “President Trump’s decision to end DACA should break the hearts and offend the morals of all who believe in justice and human dignity” (Rubin). She went on to call it a “cruel act of political cowardice” that would be a “stunning blow to the bright young DREAMers and to everyone who cherishes the American Dream” (Rubin). Pelosi would also like fellow Democrats to join together to pass legislation to protect the DREAMers from the cruelty of being deported and the devastation of being separated from their families. Pelosi vows that “Democrats will stand firm with DREAMers and redouble our efforts to protect our nation’s
Physician-assisted suicide is one of the most controversial procedures in all of modern medicine, and the ethics of the practice have been in question for several years. It is legal in five states in the United States and many countries around the world. The operation involves a trained physician intentionally supplying lethal doses of drugs to a patient who administers the drugs to his or herself. It is a practice that is commonly confused with euthanasia. In euthanasia, the physician is the primary source of administration for the lethal doses because he or she injects the drugs into the patient. There are many reasons as to why one may feel inclined to end his or her own life. The most common of these could be severe depression or terminal illness. These people and patients often find themselves in a deep hole that is impossible to climb out of. Their last resort is to end their physical and emotional pain.
Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the stronger argument.
Many people have different opinions on the debate of legalizing Euthanasia or Physician- assisted suicide. “The term assisted suicide has several different interpretations. Perhaps the most widely used and accepted is "the intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a doctor, relative, or another person". Some people will insist that something along the lines of "in order relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering" needs to be added to the meaning, “(2) The major debate on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are: the slippery slope to legalized murder, the right to die, and the Hippocratic oath and prohibition of killing. “Proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a quick, dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the right to die is protected by the same constitutional safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage, procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment.” (1) I
The theoretical aim of this thesis is to introduce euthanasia, the complex role of the physician with physician-assisted suicide (PAS) under the argument that it is not an issue of passive or active. Nor right or wrong. Euthanasia is defined as the act or practice of killing or allowing someone to die on grounds of mercy (Morally Disputed Issues: A Reader, 341). In its complexion euthanasia is not merely a dead or alive decision as it truly is at its core goal. There is passive euthanasia which is defined as withholding treatment such as a ventilator or fluids. There is active euthanasia which is prescribing or initiating a substance that would allow a person to stop living. We also have to consider voluntary euthanasia- a patient seeks to
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are actions that hit at the core of what it means to be human - the moral and ethical actions that make us who we are, or who we ought to be. Euthanasia, a subject that is so well known in the twenty-first century, is subject to many discussions about ethical permissibility which date back to as far as ancient Greece and Rome , where euthanasia was practiced rather frequently. It was not until the Hippocratic School removed it from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate? More so, euthanasia raises
According to Webster’s Dictionary, Euthanasia is “conceding painless death to a patient who is considered to be hopelessly ill, because of a non-curable disease”. The term is used to refer to the act of deliberately taking the life of a sick person, especially those who are sick from terminal illnesses. Patients in this category are normally those who are nearing their death from a persistent terminal illness and medicine does not to have much effect on them. Different scholars hold different opinions on whether to legalize the practice. Some stage a very strong that attempt to justify euthanasia. They argue that it is a common practice in the US and that it serves to end a person’s suffering and save the family members a lot of emotional
“ From far away drifted a faint, sharp yelp, followed by a chorus of a similar sharp yelps (London 105).” In the book, Call of the Wild by Jack London the main character Buck faces a retrogression. Buck goes from being king like to a wild rebellious dog. Buck goes through this change because men found gold. The men needed dogs like Buck. Buck was half saint Bernard and half scotch-shephard, so he was a gigantic dog and had a thick coat to survive in harsh weather like in the Klondike. So Buck is sold and beat he learns to obey the law of club and fang to be formed into a sled dog, but ends up forming a bond with a man his name was John Thornton . Thornton died and Buck answers the call and runs in the wild becoming alpha of the wolf pack. As Buck was
Most people do not like to talk or even think about death; much less the topic of ending one’s own life. However, for some, death is a desired alternative to living in agony. Euthanasia has been a topic of debate since antiquity, and both sides stand firm on their beliefs. The right to choose death is illegal in most countries. I believe in people’s freedom to do what they please with their own bodies. The basic right of liberty is what America was founded on. Euthanasia should be a legal option.
Ethics, in medicine, is described as applying one’s morals and values to healthcare decisions (Fremgen 2012). It requires a critical-thinking approach that examines important considerations such as fairness for all patients, the impact of the decision on society and the future repercussions of the decision (Fremgen 2012). According to Fremgen (2012), bioethics concerns ethical issues discussed in the perspective of advanced medical technology. Goldman and Schafer (2012) state bioethical issues that arise in medical practice include antibiotics, dialysis, transplantation, intensive care units, issues of genetics, reproductive choices and termination of care. In clinical practice the most common issues revolve around informed consent, termination of life-sustaining treatments, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, and conflicts of interest (Goldman, Schafer 2012).
Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.