Human Euthanasia It is a shared understanding that human life must be valued under any circumstance, and it should not be terminated for whatever reasons unless it is a natural occurrence. The value and respect for human life were behind the debate against “the death row” in many states and countries around the world. In addition, religion places high value in human life, basing on the claim that it is a sin to end one’s life. However, there have been instances where ending the life of another person is the best alternative, especially in medical cases. The idea brought the emergence of euthanasia, where Math and Chaturvedi (2012) explain it as a Greek word that means “good death.” The purpose of good death is to assist a patient who will …show more content…
Math and Chaturvedi (2012) observe that a common claim on euthanasia is the idea that most patients with chronic illnesses do not want to be a burden to their loved ones. In such instances, the patients come to consider it as the best alternative. It is regarded as an honor to the “right of living” through accepting the “right to die” (Math & Chartuvedi, 2012). A CNN report by Ben Tinker claims that in the state of California, one hundred and eleven people died under the right to die law. According to Tinker (2017), the End of Life Option Act took effect on 9th June 2016. It provided that individuals starting from the age of eighteen had the right to request medication that was life-ending from their doctors. The circumstances of such requests were only when the patient was suffering from a terminal illness, and they decided to have a death timetable. As Tinker (2017) reports, the Act enabled two hundred and fifty-eight persons to initiate the process. Such significant figures indicate that people find it okay to end their lives rather than suffer in the struggle to remain alive. It is argued that in doing so, the people preserve their dignity and may even die a “happy death”, as they know they had to choose how they died. BBC (2014) presented arguments against euthanasia and classified it as ethical, practical, and religious. The moral argument was based on the sanctity of life. It presented that by allowing the society to practice euthanasia, it was an approach to
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.
“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.
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.
Euthanasia should be considered in all aspects of the medical field because people need to be in charge of their lives, statements from critics, and the serious evaluation process when chosen. Euthanasia can reserve all rights towards an individual’s choice towards death or not, because it is the person who has to endure and agonize through the incurable illness. An individual’s perspective on a situation is through their eyes and no one else, that is why euthanasia produces the choice of being alive or
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.
With this paper I plan to address the topic of euthanasia. I will cover the philosophy behind why it is not a regular practice, and differentiate between multiple forms. After introducing the issue, itself I will speak briefly on the legality of the issue. This should result in the principles of myself, Peter Singer, Don Marquis, and Michael Tooley all being brought together in this discussion. Ultimately, I will lead this discussion into the direction of why I have found euthanasia to be a morally permissible action.
The first argument for legalising euthanasia indicates to autonomy and fundamental right. Life is extremely precious and must be protected but not at any circumstances, like, a patient who is suffering from physical pain cause of terminal ill and wishing to eradicate from the endless pain. It is a fundamental right to everyone to make decision about those things are momentous to us, like, how we die (Short, 2016). Therefore, many supporters of euthanasia perceive that everyone has the right to control their body and life, and should be free to decide at what time, and in which manner they will die (Brooks,
The right to live one’s life on his or her own terms is a basic tenet in the modern world. In American society, the people are given free reign (within legal and social boundaries, of course) to choose how to live. They can choose where to go to school, what to learn, what they want to work, when they want to retire, and so on and so forth. However, when people reach the end of their lives, this right to autonomy seems to be restricted, especially in those who are terminally ill. This autonomy sees itself at the center of the debate around the practice of euthanasia, a medical procedure in which a patient with a terminal or incurable illness is permitted to die in a painless manner (“Euthanasia”). While one might think that allowing one who
Euthanasia is an act of helping death to relieve the suffering of patients with incurable diseases. Euthanasia has been a controversial issue for a long time and has been partially accepted by some European states, such as the United Kingdom, and some states in the United States. However, our group opposes the euthanasia because it has problems in ethical dimension and medical aspect. The reason for this is as follows.
The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.
The applied ethical issue of euthanasia, or mercy killing, concerns whether it is morally permissible for a third party, such as a physician, to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is in intense pain. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words eu (‘well’) and thanatos (‘death’). It means a painless and gentle death. But in modern usage, it has come to imply that someone’s life is ended for compassionate reasons by some passive or active steps taken by another person. The euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die. Staunch defenders of personal liberty argue that all of us are morally entitled to end our lives when we see fit. Thus, according to these people, euthanasia is in principle morally
The debates of the living will and death have raged for years. People still question how ethical Euthanasia is to human life, but no one seems to have the answer to this controversial issue. According to Medical News Today (MNT), the practice of Euthanasia can be defined as “the practice of mercifully ending a person’s life in order to release the person from an incurable disease, intolerable suffering, or undignified death”(MNT). In all its sadness and complexities euthanasia has the ability of helping those who can no longer bare the pain of their illness. As an individual with choices, one should have the right to die if one feels the pain is unbearable. In fact, euthanasia has been legalized in a small number of countries and states
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.
Euthanasia is the practice of ending an individual's life in order to relieve them from an incurable disease or unbearable suffering. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as “intentional killing” ( Patelarou, Vardavas, Fioraki, Alegakis, Dafermou, & Ntzilepi, 2009). Euthanasia is a controversial topic which has raised a great deal of debate globally. Although euthanasia has received great exposure in the professional media, there are some sticky points that lack clarity and need to be addressed. Euthanasia is a divisive topic, and different interpretations of its meaning, depend on whether the person supports it or not. While a few societies have accepted euthanasia, there are
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.