Is Euthanasia Wrong

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

For physicians, participating in euthanasia is against the Hippocratic Oath. This is the oath for anyone in the medical practice that states the conducts and moral practices of physicians. Physicians must respect and value all human lives. Not only will this practice violate the oath, but it also will break the respect and trust between the patient and the physician. There are actually two versions of the oath. The first is the original version. The second is the modern version. Both have the same meaning but different wording. One difference between the two is the content of euthanasia and abortion. The modernized version says “If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life..”. Although this new version of the oath allows euthanasia, there is still the original version which does not allow physicians to assist any patient in death. Within the original Hippocratic Oath it states: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect... '. This

For those that oppose Physician Assisted Suicide, their concerns are practical. An article from Newsweek points out that, when a doctor takes the Hippocratic Oath it proclaims, “I will keep the sick from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked

There are several reasons why physician-assisted suicide is such an ongoing argument between people in this day and age. Whether they want it legalized or don’t want anything to do with it, it’s safe to assume that this topic is rather controversial in our society. In the debate titled “Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Unethical and Dangerous” written by Ira Byock at the New York Times, he states, “Legalizing assisted suicide fixes nothing. The principle that doctors must not kill patients stands. Two moral wrongs don’t make a right” (Byock, 2015). Some may agree with Byock, but others truly believe that the patient should be able to make a choice about their end-of-life treatment and no one else should be able to tell them otherwise.

In the Jo Cavallo article, he also mentioned the cons to physician assisted death. One of the major cons is that doctors would violate their Hippocratic oath. When a doctor is in medical school, they are required to take an oath, most oaths says “first, do no harm” (Cavallo). The oaths were created so patients could be reassured that their doctors were there to help them and not harm them (Cavallo). A weakening in oaths may cause patients to begin to wonder (Cavallo).

It is the responsibility of those in healthcare to promote wellness, health and quality of live. Yet from early on the concept of promoting life has existed. The Hippocratic oaths states that, “I will not give poison to anybody when asked to do so.” This is a clear statement against euthanasia. The Hippocratic oath interestingly, also does not allow for the use of abortive agents, showing the concern for the sanctity of life. It does also go on to say that I will not put the knife to any patient, which could be interpreted as assisted suicide or pagan practice of cutting and blood letting. As a surgeon today I would take a more liberal stance on this later statement of this part of the oath which is often omitted from modern reading of the oath, as we now are able to cure disease by the use of the knife. Some would also argue the use of poison to treat, such as chemotherapeutic agents which are also acceptable. Pushing this to the extreme, some may say that much of this oath is no longer applicable and euthanasia also falls under a new area of enlightenment. However, most Doctors to believe that it is their job to relieve pain and suffering and cure when possible and this can be obtained without the use of euthanasia. Hospice care is readily available. Patient can establish living wills in order to make their decision known. Patients have a right to refuse treatment and this include, nutrition and hydration. Refusal of these will will result in datth in less than one week. Patient can be kep comfortable without promoting active death and

Some feel that physician assisted death is unethical as medical doctors take the Hippocratic Oath which states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” (MedicineNet). The Hippocratic Oath has been used for a long time and has not evolved in the way that medicine, technology or society has. The Hippocratic Oath also states, “First do no harm” (MedicineNet). When medical doctors oversee assisted deaths they are not harming the patient. They are overseeing the patient in one of the scariest, dramatic, or peaceful times in their life. They are

Although assisted death gives an option for suffering patients, it violates the doctor’s Hippocratic oath. A portion of the oath states: Doctor’s will not give a deadly medication or suggest anything in that matter (Hippocratic oath). Even though most doctors swear to this oath, it does not take their privileges away if broken. The oath is more of a symbol to the duties a doctor is responsible for. A doctor’s job is to cause no harm, but another part of their job is to care for their patient with respect and

Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.

The first oath a doctor ever takes is the Hippocratic Oath. It distinctly states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” Doctors swear to do no harm, yet some violate the very oath they pledge their profession to. Assisted suicide should not be an option to patients with terminal illnesses because the end of a patient’s life should be morally acceptable, decided rationally, and lived out in comfort.

Death has always been a controversial topic throughout the world. There are many theories as to where we go and what the meaning of life truly is. How one dies is important in today’s society, especially when it comes to the idea of suicide. Active euthanasia, also referred to as assisted suicide, is the intentional act of causing the death of a patient experiencing great suffering. It is illegal in some places, like France, but allowing patients to die is authorized by law in other places under certain conditions. Doug McManaman constructed an argument, “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified,” to defend his view that active euthanasia is never morally

On the stance of Euthanasia, I feel like I’m against it. I feel against it because as the book stated that, “human life is a gift from God” (241) It is our life to make choices freely, however “Euthanasia and PAS are morally wrong because they are a rejection of this sacred gift from God” (241) I feel like this is a strong argument when people state that it is their life to decide how they should live and die.

The controversy of a doctor assisting their patient who is already dying, end their life sooner to save them from continuous unnecessary pain and agony has been the topic of controversy for years. The practice of euthanasia is in my opinion a mercy and should not be banned because in reality it doesn’t physically hurt anyone. You could say it hurts the patient but then again that patient is already in tremendous pain or in an incapacitated state of no recovery, as in paralyzed or brain damage etc., so in reality it would actually help them by assisting ending their pain by assisted suicide. A doctors job is also always help their patients and the practice of assisted suicide in many ways is actually helping the person. However there has and probably always will be people who do not agree with the idea of a dying person end their life for sooner than nature had intended. This demographic would suggest that by dying by your own hand or assisted by a physician for medical reasons is still considered plain suicide. And for the religious people it is a sin by their beliefs. The people could also argue that it is not a person’s right to make that decision.

A second form of euthanasia is mercy killing. This method is the deliberate active killing of a person suffering from a terminal illness for the sake of mercy. Mercy killing is illegal everywhere. A famous case of mercy killing involves a man known as “Dr. Death”. Dr. Jack Kevorkian was a pathologist with a strong stance towards mercy death. What brought him up to the spot light was when he assisted in the suicide of Janet Adkins.

According to James & Stuart Rachels (2015), psychologist Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) fell into a peaceful sleep once his life was deliberatley ended by Doctor Max Schur at Frued’s own request. After many years smoking cigars, oral cancer formed swelling in the back of his mouth and he was told he would have no more ‘good’ days left. Schur would argue that he was “motivated by noble sentiments...because he loved his friend and wanted to relieve his misery” (pg. 101). However, many would believe what Schur did was morally and ethically incorrect if the dominant moral tradition in our modern societal culture is to be followed. To many people, euthanasia is seen as a worthy death- but many disagree to this statement as it has become an increasingly