Similarities Between Euthanasia And Utilitarianism

In the “Catholic Teaching on Euthanasia and Care of the Dying” doctument it states that as a new medical student have finished they’re course of learning in the department of medicine and caring for patients, they must take the Hippocratic Oath. In this oath it incorpurates that as the medical students graduate into becoming a staffed doctors or nurse that will do anything to save a patient’s life before exuding any other options on to them. A particular pharse that has stood out in the translated oath is “firstly do no harm” meaning that as a doctor you do everything in you power to save lives and never intencially end them. ”Doctors are trained to promote life… the deliberate act of killing a patient is unethical”. In another document

After considering the system of utilitarianism, it is important to take a close look at the roots and depth of euthanasia as it has infiltrated our society. This will include an in-depth look at the overall idea of euthanasia, a history of the laws that have defined euthanasia, a specific case of euthanasia, and how the decision-making system of utilitarianism can be applied to a specific ethical communicative issue within.

Act utilitarianism can be used to validate the use of euthanasia in the three case studies that I previously went over. The first case was about the Canadian woman Sue Rodriguez that suffered from ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease. Rodriguez didn’t want the frightening and painful death that was awaiting her in the future if she did not receive physician assisted suicide. Act utilitarianism supports Rodriguez’s right to active euthanasia or physician assisted suicide, because Rodriguez would be receiving a greater amount of happiness through death than she would be by staying alive and suffering the painful and frightening death of suffocation or choking when the final stages of ALS finally destroyed her ability to properly breath. The next two

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

This essay will aim to focus on the arguments that author, James Rachel’s presents in his article, Active and Passive Euthanasia,” In his article Rachel’s argues that both passive and active euthanasia are morally permissible and the doctors that is supported by the American Medical Association(AMA) is believed to be unsound. In this paper I will offer a thorough analysis of Rachel’s essay then so offer a critique in opposition of his arguments. In conclusion I will refute these oppositions claims by defending Rachel’s argument, and showing why I believe his claims that both active and passive euthanasia are morally permissible, to be effective.

One of greatest moral issues facing society today is that of freedom. Freedom is a principle that this country was founded on at the start of its inception. Freedom is still a cause that requires our attention. The great debate on simple liberties such as the right to decide what happens to one’s body is still an issue that society has failed to resolve. It is a moral quandary that will continue to be discussed and a deliberated on as long as humankind are free moral agents with personal moral preferences. The question is do we allow our personal preferences to impede the decisions of other individuals? If we have the right to have our set of moral preferences do, other individuals deserve that same

At any time, patients have the right to refuse medical attention which could lead to the right to die, however, the argument involving doctors is that in no cases do doctors have the right to kill. Doctors are often not thought of much in the euthanasia process, the thought immediately goes to patient and the family. The weight carried by the doctors asked to administer euthanasia and assisted suicide is described in an article by Samantha Gobba, a journalist for World Magazine, when she states, “when you legalize assisted suicide, you’re actually asking physicians to be directly and intentionally involved with giving lethal drugs to their patients” (Gobba, 2017). In other words, Gobba is explaining that the pressure not only lies with the

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

The philosophical theories and ethics of two philosophers, Aristotle and Kant, offer two differing views on the morality of euthanasia. Margaret P. Battin’s “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do It” offers three countries’ perspectives on and laws regarding euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide, as well as evaluations and critiques of their policies. To determine which of these points of view has the most pertinence, all of these arguments will be outlined and consequently analyzed, both separately and in relation to each other. Their differences and similarities will be enumerated and described, consequently their merit will be discussed. Ultimately, Aristotle’s moral theory centering around eudaimonia will be shown to be superior to Kant’s categorical imperative, because of its flexible nature when evaluating the acceptability of euthanasia under different circumstances.

This is why Euthanasia is important and summarizing the research that I found on Euthanasia. Euthanasia is important because there is a lot of arguments about Euthanasia. Some people support it and some people do not support Euthanasia (Euthanasia and assisted suicide- Arguments). Euthanasia allows people to be free from physical pain. It is the hastening of death of a patient to prevent further sufferings (Euthanasia Revisited). The religious argument states God chooses when human life ends. Euthanasia also causes mental suffering because they are in physical pain or they are experiencing with terminal illness. It is a debatable issue. There are many different opinions on Euthanasia.

Utilitarianism, as described in An Introduction to Catholic Ethics, is a philosophy made popular in the early 19th century. This “consequentialist” philosophy had been studied by and branched from two English philosophers by the names of, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism can even be linked back to as far as 341-270 BC with the Epicurates. “What is utilitarianism?”, one might ask. Utilitarianism is an idea that can be simply grounded on the belief of human reasoning. When referring to Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill is the name that is often brought up.

The legalization of euthanasia has always been a highly debatable topic since it causes philosophical, religious, moral and ethical controversy where some people believe it reduces our respect for the value of human life and it will be a gateway for other immoral actions to be normalized even though it is a basic human right that patients all over the world are denied to this day.

Some believe that euthanasia should be ethically viewed similarly to suicide because of the idea of choosing to end one’s own life, which is considered unethical. However, some oppose this belief, and believe

Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, has been a controversial issue for many years. It usually involves ending a patient’s life early to relieve their illness. Most of the controversy stemmed from personal values like ethics or religion. The euthanasia debate puts a huge emphasis on what doctors should do for their patients and how much a person’s life is worth. Supporters of euthanasia primarily focus on cost and pain alleviation. Opponents of euthanasia tend to focus on morality. Whether euthanasia is legal or not could significantly affect future generations’ attitudes about death. Euthanasia should be legalized nationally because it helps patients that could be in unimaginable pain, offers more options for more people, and it is relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives.

Euthanasia is the act of killing hopelessly sick or injured people or animals in a painless way to put them out of their misery. There are five types of euthanasia, but two types are voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is when a person requests to end their life due to a painful illness with no hope of survival, and involuntary euthanasia is the person dying requests a faster death through infancy or capital punishment. Two kinds of euthanasia in particular are suicide; when you take your own life without help, and assisted suicide; when you have a terminal disease and cannot commit suicide, so you allow someone else to do it for you. The interesting thing about euthanasia is that it is only legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, and Luxembourg. Although euthanasia is not legal in the following places, assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Canada, and in the US states of Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, Montana, Washington DC, and California. The ethical theory that agrees with suicide is Ulitarianism, while Kantianism would be debatable.