Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

It is regularly contended that doctors are advocated in enabling their patients to die by pulling back or withholding treatment, yet are not justified in executing them. This distinction in attitude toward active and passive euthanasia appears to be acknowledged by medical professionals. Adversaries of active euthanasia depend on the instinctive distinction that murdering somebody is ethically worse than giving them a chance to pass on. It is contended that a doctor who kills a patient straightforwardly causes the death, yet a specialist who pulls back or withholds treatment simply permits their death. Rather than this view, nonetheless, many contend that there isn't any genuine noteworthy good distinction between the two activities. Picking not to act is itself an activity, and we are all similarly in charge of this. and we are equally responsible for this. Indeed, as there is no

But doctors should not be involved in directly causing death. This brings us to the controversial point of active and passive euthanasia. Some people think there is no real difference between the two, since stopping a treatment and administering one are both deliberate acts. But there is a moral difference between letting a person die peacefully and deliberately killing the person. Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep alive.

Active and passive euthanasia has been a controversial topic for many decades. Medicine has become so advanced, even the most ill patients can be kept alive by artificial means. Active euthanasia is a deliberate action taken to end a person’s life, such as lethal dose of medication (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2014). Passive euthanasia is allowing a person to die by not intervening or stopping a treatment that is keeping them alive (Garrard, 2014). There are three main arguments within this issue; Firstly, in the healthcare setting, it is morally accepted to allow a patient to die but purposely killing a patient is not (Garrard, 2014). Secondly, some people believe there is no moral difference between passive and active euthanasia.

Killing is a form of active euthanasia and letting the patient die is a form of passive euthanasia. Rachel, as a virtue theorist author uses 2 examples of killing and letting die. She also questions why let die babies with impairments such Spina Bifida or Down syndrome withholding treatments instead of kill them. Also, in the article by Rachel, she uses an example of a man that wanted the fortune of his family, but there is a boy who is the first to get it if something happened to the person actually in charge of the fortune. So he intentionally kills the boy so he can have the money. However, the same author uses the same case but this time, she changed to letting the boy die. When the boy is taking his shower, he enters, but the boy falls and hits his head causing him to drown, but the man just stands and watches the boy die. Moreover, both of them are forms of death. With letting die you foreseen the outcome that is death you are intending relieve their pain. With killing you are intending the death. Furthermore what is crueler between

Many people have different opinions on the debate of legalizing Euthanasia or Physician- assisted suicide. “The term assisted suicide has several different interpretations. Perhaps the most widely used and accepted is "the intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a doctor, relative, or another person". Some people will insist that something along the lines of "in order relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering" needs to be added to the meaning, “(2) The major debate on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are: the slippery slope to legalized murder, the right to die, and the Hippocratic oath and prohibition of killing. “Proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a quick, dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the right to die is protected by the same constitutional safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage, procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment.” (1) I

Morality, in its basic sense, can easily be interpreted as a view or a response that is influenced by a culture. Given its conditioned thoughts, a single person may not take a stance where they have the ultimate discretion of what deems the distinction of moral things, and those that are not. Instead of attempting to grasp this larger picture, a second thought to ponder is whether or not there is a difference between active and passive euthanasia. Breaking this argument down a bit more, our ultimate goal is to prove that the acts of killing and letting die are indistinguishable. Philosophers such as Phillipa Foot, believes that there is a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die, however the case she presents is not as easy to influence as is James Rachels’ argument in “Active and Passive Euthanasia.” In opposition to Foot, Rachels creates the argument that there is not a morally relevant distinction between the acts of killing and letting die. Although Rachels presents a more influential case, he also suggest that we should be inclined to change the laws and medical policy around euthanasia. Given this implied suggestion, we must ignore his suggestion, because it is not necessarily inclusive to his conclusion.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are great evils in our society that sets a dangerous moral precedent that affects people of all ages and conditions. According to the 2017 USCCB article, “Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: From Voluntary to Involuntary”, euthanasia is defined as, “[the] direct killing of patients by doctors” and physician-assisted suicide is defined as, “providing lethal drugs so patients can take their own lives.” There is a quintessential distinction that needs to be made in order to understand the gravity of the issue at hand. “Deeply embedded in our moral and medical traditions is the distinction between allowing to die, on the one hand, and killing, on the other” (Arkes, Berke, Bradley, et al.). This moral distinction lays the foundation for the argument against the immoral practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are practices that should never be used, regardless of the condition of

Allowing someone to die is often challenged to be morally the same as with the act to kill. Philosophers will argue that there is no moral difference between omitting an action with the intent that the action not performed will lead to death and performing the action directly that also has the intent it will lead to death. Both actions are seen as an act to kill and because one shall not kill, both are morally wrong. Common sense would say killing is far worse than allowing someone to die and is often described as murder. But if allowing someone to die is morally the same as killing, then many would be called murderers when they don’t have the means to contribute to a foundation like St. Jude, whose hope is to find cure for children who are dying. If we are

Many argue the Equivalence Thesis, which states how killing and letting die are symmetric in fault. However, if one were to compare a traditional murder with the act of a physician who cordially allows a suffering patient to die, clearly the murder would be concluded to be much worse. Therefore, there are many other factors that must contribute to the bold statement of equally comparing both acts of killing and letting die. H. Tristram Engelhardt describes how “distinctions between intention and foresight, active and passive euthanasia, as well as killing and letting die, cease to have moral significance; they may take on moral weight from different possible consequences in different circumstances” (Engelhardt 343). He also continues to reach a point that “without reference to a moral and/or meta-physical account of pain and suffering, it is difficult if not impossible to explain why such should be endured, or why consensual killing would be in itself wrong” (343). This shows that the distinction between killing and letting die is not morally significant and should not reflect upon acts such as passive and active euthanasia. Hence, there should not be any moral equivalence associated to “killing” and “letting die” because of the ceaseless factors contributing to the good and well-being of the persons’ life

Professor Bill Talbott from University of Washington defines killing and letting die as follows: killing is the direct action of a person involved in the process of ending another life, while letting die is consciously not taking actions to preserve someone’s life [1]. For example, if a terminally ill cancer patient without hope for a cure or improvement decides to end their life, then is the way they choose to end their life significant? Many circumstances commonly encountered that raises the question of the ethical implications and differences between killing and letting die are physician assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, euthanasia for terminally ill patients, do not resuscitate (DNR) command by next of kin, withholding all care and nourishment from a vegetative or comatose patient, or unwanted premature infants [2]. The concepts of killing a patient or letting a patient die are only considered under extreme medical conditions, mostly at the request of the patient. At which point, the distinction between killing and letting die becomes significant to appease the moral stigma that may follow from aiding in the act of ending life. Kantian moral theory states that every rationale person is equal, entitled to autonomy and every life is equal. It also states that each life is valuable and it is our moral duty to protect life [2]. Both direct action (killing) and indirect action (letting die) are morally wrong because they are both conscious acts of aiding in the

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and

Currently the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that physician-assisted suicide really is based on where you live and the states’ right. Only four U.S. states have a law legally allowing physician assisted suicide. Many have questioned whether Physician - Assisted suicide is an okay course of action. According to the 1980 declaration from the Vatican, Jura et Bona, "euthanasia", or "mercy killing" is defined as "an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated." Physician assisted suicide is a disputed, complicated matter that often splits the public. Physician - Assisted and Euthanasia has been a legalized course of action for quite some time, but it has flawed logic, as well as it is immoral.

    America’s founding fathers declared that every person had certain inalienable rights they are born with and cannot be separated from. They listed citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today's government must decide if a right to life equates to a right to death.

Most adults diagnosed with cancer undergo years of treatment in attempts to cure that cancer. However, sometimes these treatments may not work, or the cancer is found too late in a patient to be stopped, and a patient’s cancer can be determined terminal, which means that the cancer can not be cured and will lead to death. If cancer is determined terminal, end-of-life care can be administered patients to control lasting pains, including shortness of breath, nausea, and constipation. However, this treatment does not cure the cancer, and will not prevent death in a terminally ill cancer patient. In some cases, patients decide that receiving end-of-life treatment is not worth it if the treatment does not prevent death. Terminally ill cancer patients may also continue to experience unbearable suffering, despite end-of-life treatments, as it is not always effective. These factors may push some terminally ill cancer patients to request to be actively euthanized. Active euthanasia is the merciful ending of a patient’s life through a single act, such as an injection. Terminally ill cancer patients should have the right to determine if they are actively euthanized. However, only patients who consider their suffering unbearable should have the right to be euthanized.

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.