Euthanasia and Religion Essay

The catholic view of euthanasia is that euthanasia is morally wrong. it has always been

For some, the choice of Vegetarianism is decided based on religious beliefs or practices. Vegetarianism is compatible with the major world religions—the Eastern Religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism) and the Abrahamic Religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Bahá'í Faith). Among these, it is most commonly practiced by those of the Buddhist, Christian and Islamic faith. Vegetarianism within the Buddhist culture is taught along with the “Four Noble Truths,” which focus on the acts of suffering. Since the Buddhist faith accepts the idea of karma, it is believed that in order to maintain a life of peace and happiness and remain free of suffering, one must refrain from the harming, injuring or killing of any living being. As part of the Christian faith, animal cruelty is forbidden. The teachings of Jesus Christ focus on the ideas of love, compassion, mercy and acceptance. Although the question of eating meat is not directly addressed in Christian doctrine it can be implied that since animals are a creation of God and the idea of love for all of God’s creations is heavily stressed in the Christian faith, then out of Christian love on should lead a life

     This essay is dedicated to the expression of the various official views of religious bodies within our nation. Most major denominations are represented. These religions have long been the custodians of the truth, serving to check the erratic and unpredictable tendencies of political, judicial and social bodies which would have Americans killing off their elderly and handicapped.

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.

As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations,

   Euthanasia or assisted suicide would not only be available to people who are terminally ill. This popular misconception is what this essay seeks to correct. There is considerable confusion on this point, perhaps further complicated by statements in the media.

Hinduism and Buddhism are both eastern traditions with much to say about the human condition as well as the reason human beings exist at all. In some ways they are different while also being similar in other ways. In this essay, those differences will be discussed and the similarities examined for their message. In conclusion, we will examine what these two faiths offer to the human beings of the twenty-first century.

that it was on death that the soul either went to Heaven or Hell, thus

I would like to begin by defining the issue of the article by Patrick Nowell-Smith. The issue of his article is legalizing euthanasia and giving people a right to decide when and how to die.

One of the Ten Commandments put forward by God to Moses at the top of Mount Sinai. The killing of another human being is morally wrong and unacceptable. No one has the right to take away another persons life, whether it be through hatred and disgust, or compassion and love. Murder is murder. So why should those select few who work in the clinics of Switzerland, whose occupation is to assist in a person’s suicide, become immune from this law against murder. It is them who provide the patient with, and administer, the method of how they are going to die. To me, that sounds like murder.

be fed orally because of blistering in the mouth and throat. Any movement of the

Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as “intentional killing” ( Patelarou, Vardavas, Fioraki, Alegakis, Dafermou, & Ntzilepi, 2009). Euthanasia is a controversial topic which has raised a great deal of debate globally. Although euthanasia has received great exposure in the professional media, there are some sticky points that lack clarity and need to be addressed. Euthanasia is a divisive topic, and different interpretations of its meaning, depend on whether the person supports it or not. While a few societies have accepted euthanasia, there are

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and

When someone is inevitably dying and in inexplicable pain is it really a crime to grant their wishes and end their suffering? As of right now euthanasia is illegal in many countries and is a very controversial topic. Is it compassion for the patient helping them in ending their life or murder? The doctor is not giving death as an option, it is the patients choice and even where it is legal there are many rules. Euthanasia should not be considered a crime because the patient is not being murdered; they are having their suffering end in a painless, humane way out of compassion for the patient and their family.

Is it right to intentionally bring about the death of a person? The vast majority of people would instinctively answer this question “no,” unless it related to an act of war or perhaps self-defense. What if taking the life of the person would benefit that person by ending their suffering? Would it be morally acceptable to end their suffering? Questions like these are debated by those considering the morality of euthanasia, which is a very controversial topics in America. Euthanasia can be defined as “bringing about the death of another person to somehow benefit that person” (Pojman). The term implies that the death is intentional. Because there are several different types of euthanasia, it is difficult to make a blanket statement