Can Euthanasia Be Justified Morally? Essay

This case is the case of Rodriguez v. British Columbia in 1993. Sue Rodriguez had been diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; more commonly know as Lou Gehrig’s disease, in 1991. Rodriguez was aware that this disease would eventually lead to her not being able to breathe on her own, move on her own, or even eat without a feeding tube. Rodriguez had the attitude that she wanted to enjoy as much of life as possible, but when the time came that she could no longer enjoy life, she wanted the assistance of a doctor to end her life. In her own words, she asked, “If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?”(Windsor Sun). In the opinion of Rodriguez, she should have the choice to end her life, and that if she could not do the act without assistance, it should be legal for a physician to help her. She ended up losing her case in a Supreme Court appeal. The decision stated, “No consensus can be found in favour of the decriminalization of assisted suicide. To the extent that there is consensus, human life must be respected.” (Windsor

One of the Ten Commandments put forward by God to Moses at the top of Mount Sinai. The killing of another human being is morally wrong and unacceptable. No one has the right to take away another persons life, whether it be through hatred and disgust, or compassion and love. Murder is murder. So why should those select few who work in the clinics of Switzerland, whose occupation is to assist in a person’s suicide, become immune from this law against murder. It is them who provide the patient with, and administer, the method of how they are going to die. To me, that sounds like murder.

Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death.

The subject of good will for Kant is controversial. Kant believes that good will is not based on a reaction to the consequences, either negative or positive, merely by the intention of which the act was made. When an action is done in good will, the reasoning is not emotional (Johnson, 2008). It does not done out of sympathy or empathy for the individual, rather by a sense of duty. This is the controversial part because many believe that while good will is based on positive intentions, the act is performed through a feeling of love for the fellow man. Kant believes that good will focuses on all human beings regardless of feelings of love, friendship, bond, hatred, or lack of caring. This is why the best way to describe it is duty. However, Kant was not implying that no other motivating factor fuels good will. He was simply stating that when there is a dilemma that has the individual questioning the good will or morality of a decision that it is best to look at it from an unbiased view (Johnson, 2008). Removing emotional attachment from the situation has already proven to be helpful in making rational decisions in an otherwise difficult moment.

As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations,

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.

According to Webster’s Dictionary, Euthanasia is “conceding painless death to a patient who is considered to be hopelessly ill, because of a non-curable disease”. The term is used to refer to the act of deliberately taking the life of a sick person, especially those who are sick from terminal illnesses. Patients in this category are normally those who are nearing their death from a persistent terminal illness and medicine does not to have much effect on them. Different scholars hold different opinions on whether to legalize the practice. Some stage a very strong that attempt to justify euthanasia. They argue that it is a common practice in the US and that it serves to end a person’s suffering and save the family members a lot of emotional

In cases of involuntary euthanasia, the patient is able to provide informed consent, but does not do so. For example, a young man is in agony after being severely injured in a car accident. He begs the doctor to do anything to save him. Knowing that the young man’s pain is only going to get worse and that he will die in a matter of hours, the doctor gives the young man a lethal dose of medication in order to spare him additional pain and end his life. Despite the fact that someone’s motive for euthanizing another person against their will could seem moral, I believe the practice of involuntary euthanasia is highly immoral and equivalent to murder. Not surprisingly, involuntary euthanasia is almost universally condemned in civilized society.

Humans, like all animals, attempt to evade death. Though death is usually seen as an unwanted end, some see it as an alternative to suffering. Most people cringe at the thought of suicide, but is euthanasia the same thing? Do human beings have the right to choose death?

A teacher I once had in high school would often talk about her father who lived in hospice care. Her father suffered from dementia and had been for years. She would often talk about how on his “good” days he would plead her husband to put a pillow on his head and suffocate him, to take him out of his misery. If it was legal, her husband would have willingly helped her father and put him out of his misery, however in the state of North Carolina, physician-assisted suicide is illegal. Luckily, her father passed away this year and is finally free of pain and suffering. However, if physician-assisted suicide was legal, her father would not have had to suffer as long as he did.

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.

The patient voluntarily wanted to end his life because he was suffering from Lou Gehrigs’s disease (Siu, 2008). Since then, the controversy over active euthanasia has remained an ethical dilemma for healthcare providers, patients and their family members in America and the rest of the world. The general public’s belief is that, health-care providers have professional obligations to save the lives of their patients regardless of their health status. The majority of the public feels that, healthcare workers’ involvement in the euthanasia practice is a betrayal of the “do no harm” oath. When a healthcare worker is involved in either active or passive euthanasia, it can be viewed as a disregard to this value. However, the proponents for euthanasia claim that a physician turning down a suffering patient’s request to end their life is also a violation to the “do no harm” oath (Siu, 2008). The right to die falls under patient’s autonomy and the basic question is whether individuals should be allowed to end their lives if they choose to do so (Sanders & Chaloner 2007). Those in the healthcare sector grapple with this notion on a daily bases because they have to practice under the codes of ethics guidelines. Nurses and doctors should be cautious in their practice as they balance the patient’s autonomy and their professional ethics and guidelines. Sanders & Chaloner (2007) pointed out that nurses and doctors know that a patient's autonomy

“Active euthanasia defines the practice where death is caused by direct administration of a lethal substance” (Sayers, 2005). Dr. Jack Kevorkian is a physician well known for his cases of physician assisted suicide. “In his writings and statements, Kevorkian advocates a society that allows euthanasia for the dying, the disabled, the mentally ill, infants with birth defects and comatose adults; and he sanctions experiments prior to their death and organ harvesting.” (Betzold, 1997). Many other physicians and also nurses have performed euthanasia causing public alarm that some cases are actually murder. In one such case a physician and his nurse, Dr. James Gallant decided to take a Ms. Clarietta Day life into his own hands: “Day collapsed on the phone while calling 911 in the early morning of March 22. She was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a subarachnoid hemorrhage (burst blood vessel in the brain), a condition that is invariably fatal. Sometime before she died, Day had filled out an advance directive, which included instructions from August 1995, in which she wrote that should she become unconscious, she wished to be kept alive for at least forty-eight hours. However, following the diagnosis, Day received painkillers every five to ten minutes for a four-hour period, even though there was no documentation that Day was in discomfort or agitated. She was removed from a respirator and had a magnet applied to her

    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.