Pro-Death: On the Absurdity of the Denial of the Right to Die “On the last day of your life, don’t forget to die” is⎯while perhaps sardonic⎯a reminder from poet and lyricist David Berman about the nature of mortality and of man’s inherent ignorance of the inevitable. Berman’s advice brings to mind the question⎯in the face of an intolerable existence⎯should one have the right to choose the last day of their life? Should a person be subjected to the anxiety that accompanies a physician’s estimation that nothing can be done? To allow suffering with no choice of relief⎯is this not cruel? Is this not amoral? Does the pursuit of happiness not include the end of suffering? In these cases, one must consider that a patient capable of expressing their …show more content…
law decrees euthanasia illegal. Assisted suicide however, is legal in some states. Cultural differences on the matter are covered by Susan Orpett Long as she lists the criteria for a person to be legally granted euthanasia in Japan. In her article, “Negotiating the ‘Good Death’ Japanese Ambivalence about New Ways to Die”, the terms for the allowance of this form of death are listed as follows, “1) the patient is suffering from unbearable physical pain; 2) the patient’s death is unavoidable and imminent; 3) all palliative measures have been provided and there are no alternative treatments available; and 4) it is done with the clear consent of the patient (279). This is an important credo to consider. A person lacking any religious or political agenda should view these terms as a reasonable solution to the unnecessary suffering of a human being. The states that still outlaw euthanasia may need to consider these terms⎯specifically the final criteria: “it is done with the clear consent of the patient” …show more content…
A prominent feminist, novelist and sociologist, Gilman, in her final year, 1935, chose death over terminal cancer. Rather than suffering any longer, she made the decision to commit suicide, and made her decision public. She began to receive letters from fans, family and friends. Regarding these letters, in her article, “The Dying of Charlotte Perkins Gilman”, Denise D. Knight notes that, Despite the fact that Gilman’s death took place nearly sixty-five years ago, long before society became receptive to such issues as assisted suicide and dying with dignity, not a single correspondent attempted to dissuade her from carrying out her plans. On the contrary, the letters demonstrate not only an unconditional support for Gilman’s philosophical position but also an extraordinary amount of compassion, respect, and acceptance during a time when it was widely considered that suicide would virtually guarantee eternal damnation
Euthanasia is the practice of purposefully ending someone’s life in order to relieve their pain and/or suffering. Euthanasia is legal in many countries including Belgium, France, India, Japan, and few states
Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an
To fully understand the issue at hand, one must understand the various forms of euthanasia. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals…in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient is relieved of medical treatment and is allowed to die naturally. Active euthanasia occurs when either a physician or a family member actively takes the life of the patient, perhaps through lethal injection, and eliminates a natural death process. Many people commonly use the word “euthanasia” to refer to assisted suicide. Essentially, assisted suicide is a form of active euthanasia in that a person, usually a physician, aids in the suicide of a 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.
July 3, 1860, Charlotte Perkins Gilman was born. Gilman’s life began troubled. Her father left the family, “leaving Charlotte’s mother to raise two children on her own… as a result her education suffered greatly.” Coming back from her troubled past would prove to be a difficult task. At the age of twenty- four “Gilman married… Charles Stetson.” Following their marriage Charlotte and her husband had a baby girl named Katherine. Gilman had always suffered from depression, but it became much worse after having her baby. After spending much time in sadness and despair
Patients suffering from terminal illnesses, battle feeling worthless and hopeless on a daily basis. This is due to our jurisdiction forcing them to live. The number of people suffering continues to increase. Although a doctor’s position is to prolong life, euthanasia should be considered in certain cases. Because of the advances in technology euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are now an option for terminally ill patients who are going to suffer from an incurable and painful disease or are in an irreversible coma. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalized because the public supports it, it would only be used for patients who are terminally ill, and it alleviates unnecessary suffering. The word euthanasia originates
Although depression constantly accompanied Gilman, she learned to manage and accept it as she grew and matured. She was extremely content with her condition and its side effects until she began dating her first husband, Charles Walter Stetson (The Living of Charlotte Perkins Gilman 81). Initially, Gilman relished in Stetson’s company and admired their similarities and faint differences. When their relationship became more serious, she feared she would be subjected and tied to him, but she shortly conceded to be married after a few years. The young feminist soon regretted it (The Living of Charlotte Perkins Gilman 81-84). Gilman’s attitude in her autobiography changes when she talks about
Ultimately, the choice is up to the patient, but it is evident that “Most people on both sides of the debate believe that [assisted suicide] must be handled with extreme care” (Yount). This being said, in a country where freedom is valued heavily, it appears only natural to grant some this right of assisted suicide. Many advocates of assisted suicide go further into how patients have the ability to “choose death in [a] passive way…” (“Assisted Suicide”) rather than going through other, more harsh means to end their anguish. This being said, having an active measure of assisted suicide may not be umoral. With the use of certain regulations and criteria for the patient who wishes to die, it could become a more accepted means of putting people out of their misery. Although, it still remains that this practice may not truly provide the appropriate goal, but instead the easiest
Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.
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.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their
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
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, 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
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.