An Ethical Framework Stand Point, Utilitarian 's Would Argue For Non Voluntary Euthanasia

Thirdly, from the medical morality perspective, euthanasia is assisting suicide that violates the morals and values of the medical world. Current mindset of doctors is to heal their patients. They have the goal to fight to the end for the lives of their patients. But, if euthanasia is allowed, doctors will be put in a mindset which implies to only help patients if they measure up to a certain standard. Therefore, life is so devalued that it no longer deserves to be fought for until the end. This mentality that once life hits a certain point, it is a hopeless situation and should be brought to an end immediately sets the medical world in the pathway that leads to all types of immoralities.

Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.

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.

Medical ethics and patient care go hand and hand. As health care providers, it is their duty to see that the patient 's needs are met. We are charged to insure comfort and proper recovery. The question here is whether there is a difference for patients who request voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide. These patients have the same rights to quality care of their bodies as we all do. Although, the United States constitution ensures us the right to life, it doesn 't mean that the right to die is taken away. Five states currently allow physician assisted suicide. In each state there has been controversial and contentious debate as to whether states should follow the lead of states that have allowed PAS.

There are several ethical and legal issues that are raised by the majority concerning the legalization of physician assisted suicide and the role of nurses in the process. Assisted suicide is a legal act of assisting those who are suffering from a deadly illness in ending their lives by providing them the means to do it (Griffith, 2014). Netherland was the first country to legalize physician assisted suicide. In 1994, Oregon became the first state to legalize physician assisted suicide by passing a bill called “death with dignity” followed by Washington and Montana. The law states that in order to be eligible for gaining access to assisted suicide, the patient must be left with 6 months to live, signed by two physicians and mentally stable enough to make decisions. Euthanasia is an alternative term used to describe the act of putting an end to a life in order to spare the individual’s suffering from an incurable or a painful disease process. It is classified to passive, active, involuntary and voluntary euthanasia. Active euthanasia is an act that is actively done to terminate life, while passive is when treatment is stopped in order to shorten the patient’s life. Involuntary euthanasia refers to a decision that is made by the health care providers without the patient knowledge and voluntary refers to patients that knowingly request to end their lives (Levy et al, 2013).

The ethics of physician-assisted suicide of terminally ill patients is a very ambiguous topic. Critics see physician-assisted deaths as normalization of the growing death culture that started in 1973 with the legalization of abortion.

The right to die act is referred to as physician-assisted suicide or human euthanasia. The concept allows a person to choose to end his or her own life with medication, prescribed by a physician. This act has recently been implemented into the State laws of Oregon, Washington, California, and most recently, Colorado. As a result, the topic of hman euthanasia has increasingly become an ethical dilemma. Supporting and opposing arguments have been stated, analyzed, and ridiculed without any resolution. The present paper is intended to give an overview of such arguments regarding human euthanasia, ethically and legally. In addition to the ethical dilemma, the importance of patient rights, advocacy, and sensitive nursing care is introduced.

In Rachel’s “Active and Passive Euthanasia” he explores how the perception of the difference between active and passive euthanasia has no ethical weight. The American Medical Association, quoted by Rachels in his argument, justifies passive euthanasia via ‘comfort care’ or the cease of care as something that could be deemed as ethically acceptable, medically speaking as the physician is not actively doing anything to cause harm to one whose care they are presiding over. Furthermore the AMA is quoted as being a strong opponent of the practice of active euthanasia due to the physician purposefully aiding the patient in euthanasia violating the Hippocratic oath all physicians must take. Rachel’s argues that ‘allowing’ someone to die puts the bystander

Euthanasia is defined as an 'act of killing someone painlessly to relieve his or her suffering'[1]. It's etymology is derived from the Greek 'eu thanatos' which means a good death. It is a contentious issue that provokes strong arguments for and against changing UK legislation to permit it. The UK currently prohibits active euthanasia. Active euthanasia is an act where the intention is to end or deliberately shorten someone's life.

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

The moral issue that I will discuss about is Euthanasia. Euthanasia simplu means bringing the death of another for the benefit of that person and also known as mercy killing. “When a person carries out an act of euthanasia, he brings about the death of another person because he believes the latter's present existence is so bad that she would be better off dead, or believes that unless he intervenes and ends her life, it will

Another major part of this that has yet to be touched is the subject of passive euthanasia. The main concern with this is the debate as to how important is this person’s life? Are they worth the expensive hospital bill they’re being charged? If they have zero chance of survival or of return, is it worth keeping them alive? Who gets to decide that? The doctor or the family of the patient? Should family members be allowed to speak on behalf of their emotions and what if they don’t have family? Even then it can come back to whether the patient even wanted to be put on life supporting services, or if they accept blood transfusions, is it moral to just let them die? Either way, all of these aspects should be taken into consideration when taking a standpoint with this. Nevertheless, perhaps an attempt at setting the issue in a philosophical framework and examining the ethical value of euthanasia using the moral criteria of Specific Deontology and Mill’s Utilitarianism and how they would deal with topic can help.

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.

When considering whether the piece of legislation titled “The Death with Dignity Act” is morally and philosophically justifiable, the moral and philosophic viability of what is referred to as active voluntary euthanasia must first be evaluated. Because active voluntary euthanasia seeks to reduce the amount of suffering of the patients as well as offer individuals greater control over their life it can be justified, and the “Death with Dignity Act” outlines a responsible method for enacting active voluntary euthanasia.

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.