Active Euthanasia

The history of euthanasia can be traced back to the classical antiquity times when many Greek and Roman philosophers considered suicide a “good death” and an appropriate response to a variety of circumstances (Dowbiggin 7). During that period, people would kill themselves through various means such as fasting, drinking poison, and hanging themselves. Unexplained pain due to certain diagnosis caused a spike in suicide which allowed the given

Euthanasia is argued to be defined as depriving of life or causing the death of a living being. A primary and controversial component to euthanasia is the idea that the physicians are acting in “God” like form. Christians are thought to believe that “thou shall not kill.” Christians believe that all human beings have been in created in God’s image and should be cherished in all circumstances. However, according to the article written by Ann-Marie Begley, she explains, “if only God can end a life, then clearly all instances of killing are wrong, including killing in war and self defense” (Begley 300). The only way this philosophy can be upheld is with complete pacifism in which most Christians would not agree with. The other argument opposing euthanasia is the concern about the perceived public role of the physician. The metaphorical stance of doctors seen around the country is that they are the ‘enemies of death.’ The fear is that the image would be eroded resulting in the lost of trust within the public. Ann-Marie Begley explains, “the trust does not rest with the cure and healing but with the compassion and a recognition that there comes a time when the healer has reached the limits of his or her ability” (Begley 303). The argument of depriving someone of life is also seen in equivalence to murder. Scholars also differentiate murder from euthanasia in that euthanasia there is no malice

Euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, is an important and controversial topic in our society today, and (under the correct conditions) should both be considered legal and morally acceptable. In fact, throughout history euthanasia has been a debate in many countries, some areas accepting the practice, whereas others find it unacceptable. Many people and professionals continue to refer to the Hippocratic Oath, an vow stating the proper conduct for doctors, and it's famous words "Do no harm." However, when it comes down to whatever holds people back, whether it is their views on religion or oaths from many years ago, it should be considered a correct practice. In fact, in the case of Vacco v. Quill, one point raised was that "Over time, the Hippocratic Oath has been changed, and deleted. In order to "do-no-harm" one would end suffering instead of prolonging it." With the use of Supreme Court cases, and professional psychologist and medical quotations, one can see the clear reasons that this topic must be allowed. In the end, euthanasia should definitely be considered correct both legally and morally due to one's legal rights, sensible ethical values, and the multiple positive benefits upon the legalization of euthanasia.

In his book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring? Dr. Michael Manning M.D breaks euthanasia into further subsets: voluntary active euthanasia, involuntary active euthanasia, passive euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. He states that the debate between euthanasia and physician assisted suicide can be defined as such: “Is it morally acceptable, and so ought it be legally permissible, for a physician to take the life of a competent, terminally ill patient who requests it, or for a physician to assist the competent, terminally ill patient in taking his or her own life” (4). The Oregon Legal Glossary website defines a terminal illness as “an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within six months”. Some might wonder why an individual diagnosed with a terminal illness would want to hasten their time of death instead of using the time they have left to be with their family and do what they had always wanted to do. The answer to this can be traced to the ancient Greeks. Manning, notes that during classical Greek antiquity and before the Christian era of the Roman Empire, euthanasia did not mean what it means today. For the individuals of this era, euthanasia was “focused not on the act of hastening death itself, but rather on the manner of one’s

Euthanasia can be a life reliever to the patients in pain and suffering from an illness that is incurable, or can go completely against the morals and values of cultural groups. It is quite controversial, and is debated among society whether it is right to take the life of a patient who requests it or not. The facts must be considered about this issue before any laws and/or guidelines are set into place.

Moreover, euthanasia is restricted by the church. This is another important point that we should consider, especially for religious people. According to “Death and Dignity” it is emphasized that “Life is a gift from God and it is only God who can take it back”. Christian’s point of view considers euthanasia as a crime against church, religion and God. Christians consider this as an immoral act. When considering the religious factor as well, we can conclude that no one has the right to take control over our lives, especially when we are unconscious.

Today, the fact that euthanasia is morality or immorality permissible is a very controversial issue debated and discussed by doctors and philosophers. This point generated a controversial debate. The discussion takes into account the ethics of medical

(Young, 1996) Euthanasia has been the subject of both moral, religious, philosophical, legal and human right’s arguments for a number of years. In the modern day usage, euthanasia has come to imply that someone’s life is ended for compassionate reasons by passive or active steps taken by another person.

Different situations call for different measures. The word euthanasia is associated with ending someone’s life whether it be voluntary or no-voluntary. Euthanasia is categized by two aspects the 1st aspect of euthanasia is considered passive, and the 2nd aspect of euthanasia is categized as active euthanasia. This propose of this paper is to get a basic understanding of euthanasia and the different variations of definitions, and to explore whether active euthanasia should be legal or illegal in the United States.

In today’s time, it is very common to see someone become terminally ill towards the end of their life. Many people are given the chance to live a couple more months in pain and agony, while not getting to do many things. What many people think about, is how to escape this world pain free. Physician assisted suicide, or euthanasia, is a common practice around the world to help accommodate to these needs. According to Dictionary.com, this means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve persistent suffering. People often wonder why a physician would take the life of another human. Euthanasia is a positive part of our society and not a negative one as many people often believe.

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.

The term Euthanasia is derived from the Greek words, Eu (good) and Thanatosis (death) meaning a very gentle and easy death. The definition of euthanasia has now come down to “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Therefore, this term can be also called “mercy killing”. In this sense euthanasia means the active or inactive death of a patient. This form of “easy death” for hopeless and suffering patients has been around since ancient ages as, Mesopotamia strictly forbade euthanasia following the sixth commandment “thou shall not kill”, India practiced it by drowning incurable patients in the Ganges

Euthanasia is one of the most complex and morally critical health care practice and policy issues that doctors and nurses must face and advocate for (Gardner). Even though doctors and nurses must follow some sort of code of ethics, following those codes can be difficult for some because their personal feelings about end-of-life care come into play making it problematic for them to truly rationalize the situation. Doctors are required to take the Hippocratic Oath, which in relation to euthanasia, states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this

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.

The patient voluntarily wanted to end his life because he was suffering from Lou Gehrigs’s disease (Siu, 2008). Since then, the controversy over active euthanasia has remained an ethical dilemma for healthcare providers, patients and their family members in America and the rest of the world. The general public’s belief is that, health-care providers have professional obligations to save the lives of their patients regardless of their health status. The majority of the public feels that, healthcare workers’ involvement in the euthanasia practice is a betrayal of the “do no harm” oath. When a healthcare worker is involved in either active or passive euthanasia, it can be viewed as a disregard to this value. However, the proponents for euthanasia claim that a physician turning down a suffering patient’s request to end their life is also a violation to the “do no harm” oath (Siu, 2008). The right to die falls under patient’s autonomy and the basic question is whether individuals should be allowed to end their lives if they choose to do so (Sanders & Chaloner 2007). Those in the healthcare sector grapple with this notion on a daily bases because they have to practice under the codes of ethics guidelines. Nurses and doctors should be cautious in their practice as they balance the patient’s autonomy and their professional ethics and guidelines. Sanders & Chaloner (2007) pointed out that nurses and doctors know that a patient's autonomy