Analyzing Catechism's Argument Against Euthanasia

It is morally unacceptable”. It believes that this murderous act is inexcusable no matter if the intention is to relieve the suffering of the person. The catechism also deems that the only way to treat one in palliative care is to continue with the ordinary treatment and to help lead them to live as ordinary lives as possible in the given situation. The argument that using euthanasia to end one’s suffering is an error of judgement (CCC,

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

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.

The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.

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

Present-day society and modern medicine face difficult decisions every day. In all terminally ill cases, there is important agreement among many religious traditions who believe that preserving life is considered to be morally obligated. However, the euthanasia supporters argue it should be private that an individual’s decision to volunteer to die because it does not harm others. Regarding the issue of legalizing euthanasia, the government should offer psychological therapy for those who perform the act of helping the patient in need rather than commit so called murder. In efforts to change the law to allow patients to legally receive an assistance to die might be the only way to prevent such suffering. Ultimately this decision to change the law is to give human right of all individuals to decide how to lead their own lives, which would include how and when to die in order to provide them peace of mind as their suffering and means of life deteriorates rapidly. To prevent abuse of these such assisted suicide practices, there must be laws that would have to be set and followed by patients and health professions. Independence and choice are important values in any society, but they are not without limits.

review the right of life, which everybody has the right to decide his or her destiny to live and die. The author uses data gained from the previous cases of euthanasia in Europe to try to identify the main reasons why those people requested euthanasia as an alternative. Their research focuses on the factors that drive people at the terminal phase of life needed to die. The article is useful to my research topic, as Quffa et al. suggest that there are reasons and rights of a person, who are having incurably ill to choose their destiny at the end of their lives. The main limitation of the article is that the research was restricted to the thought of the author. Thus, there should be some ideas from the relatives of the person who has completed euthanasia. The article will form the basis of my research, as the research is describing the right of the individual to voice their choices that best suit for their

In this chapter the author describe the issue of euthanasia and the issue of end of life practice in Australia. Euthanasia is refers to a practice being done intentionally to end the life of the people who are suffering from illness in order to relieve the pain and suffering. The main ideas in this chapter are about the arguments in life or death issue and the debate happening about what is right or wrong in euthanasia. Although some other countries already accept this practice of ending life, euthanasia in Australia is still illegal and the federal government continues the debate about the issue. It was found that majority of the Australian are already accept and support the legal option of ending life for those people who are suffering from

In the 21th century, human understanding for life and death reaches a new level. With great advance in medical technique and quality of life, people not only attach importance to the sanctity of life, but also think highly of value and quality of life. Based on such shift in people 's concept and comprehension, in recent years there arises a series of physician assisted suicide cases throughout the world. Assisted suicide means the deliberate hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a doctor, family member or another individual. In contemporary world, there has been a continuingly heated debate on this highly controversial issue, especially whether or not for legislative bans. So far doctor-assisted suicide is still illegal in most countries. Later in 2000, the Netherlands became the first country to legalize euthanasia. However, to local government 's shock, their country became the destination of suicide-committing tourists. Assisted suicide involves our rights about living and death, involves the dignity of life, at the same time, it associates with unclear relationship between medicine and law. Generally, assisted suicide should not be legalized. Anyway, it is a murder or suicide, which is always irrational behavior, thus our society should in no case encourage its occurrence.

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.

But on the issue of euthanasia distance itself from the Stoic current. And the Church's conviction that "God is the only master of life and man is his mere administrator." The Vatican also act in a very tough way against euthanasia, mentioned by the abortion, suicide and genocide: "All these practices and others like themselves are degrading, degrade human civilization, dishonor perpetrators more than the victims and militate against the honor due to the Creator" (GS

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.

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.

In current times we have made many technological advances that have boosted the medical productivity in hospitals. However, the rapid development of medicine is far from being a long term resolve for many health issues. We have a plethora of people whose quality of life is very low and has no chance of improving. During these situations allowing the person to end their life via euthanasia should be allowed. I will argue that Euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases because there are several moral justifications that argue for ending one’s life.