Comparing Euthanasia In The Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll And

Euthanasia refers to the intentional bringing about of the death of a patient, either by killing him/her, or by letting him/her die, for the patient's sake to prevent further pain or suffering from a terminal illness. Euthanasia is a complex issue in many underlying theological, sociological, moral, and legal aspects. Its legalization is heavily debated around the world, with strong arguments made for both sides of the issue. The supporters of euthanasia often repeated that "We have to respect the freedom of the patient" or "people should be able to exercise control over their own lives and death." However, Euthanasia, by nature, is "wrongfully killing" or "mercy killing", and if we allow any type of euthanasia, all sorts of negative

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

Many people would argue that it’s okay to end your life or someone else’s life, if they do not have the possibility of getting better and are terminally ill. Another reason is that maybe they have a mental illness or are a harm to themselves and others. On the other hand, some people believe that life has value and great worth and that being euthanized takes away that value in having life. There is much argument and debate over whether or not Euthanasia is ever justified. At the end of the day, it’s based on what a person believes is right. Everyone has the right to believe what they want to. However, Euthanasia can never be justified because it makes people believe that life is not worth living if you are terminally ill, deformed, in a coma, have a disability, feel that you are a burden to someone, in unbearable pain or have the right to commit suicide. No matter how bad life gets, people should know that life is always worth living. When someone consents to being euthanized or having someone else be euthanized, they may miss out on memories and life’s joys. There is a lot of pain in life that people have to deal with, but that does not mean that anyone has the right to decide that they or anyone else should die. This also does not give anyone the right to inject drugs into someone in order to kill them peacefully. It doesn’t matter if you are just trying to help

Death is a touchy enough subject for people; add in the idea of assisted suicides and there’s an uproar in society. Euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is a very controversial topic in our society today. Physician assisted suicide by definition is “suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent (Merriam-Webster). There are two modes of looking at assisted suicides; either it’s seen as an absurd immoral decision to take away the life of someone or it’s seen as a logical and peaceful release from pain and misery. There’s this idea that asking a healthcare provider to help you end your life is unfair and unnecessary, no matter how much a person is suffering suicide is not justified. People fear patients changing their minds, physicians being severely impacted by this, and families not agreeing with the decision making it hard to cope. On the other side people believe that it’s freedom of choice to choose to be medically assisted with a suicide; this is a right the patient has. Some believe if you’re in pain and dying why should you be forced to stay in a painful state of life. Freedom of choice versus life isn’t ours to take away. If you were in a terminally ill patients position, what would you do?

It is morally and constitutionally wrong for the state to take its citizens “right to die” away, when they have stayed in the legal boundaries. How could a law forbidding euthanasia possibly include every instance? It is just not possible for those who think it is morally wrong to understand what that patient is feeling, and it is most certainly not their life to choose either. This is why euthanasia should be legal, so citizens can have control of their own lives without being controlled by the

The publics opinion on the right to die has a drastic range, due to the fact this matter spans all groups of people. A popular opinion from the public is that the government has no right to decide whether someone can or cannot end their lives, pertaining to the case of Vacco v. Quill and euthanasia. This statement is a very true one, why should the government be involved in the death of a free person? This may be the case for euthanasia, but there is another factor in the right to die debate.

In today’s modern society, to prohibit a law or practice takes greater effort and stronger argument than permitting a law or practice. In result of this, the rights and liberty of an individual are very important and would require captivating reasons to overrule it. Since the decision to choose for physician assisted suicide or euthanasia is extremely personal, the famous “innocent until proven guilty” is to be stressed to a great extent when dealing with this topic on debate terms. An individual has a basic right to determine the course of

It’s one’s right to decide what happens to their body. Deciding one wants to end their life because they’re terminally ill and in pain should be permissible. It's no worse than a cancer patient refusing treatment, or a person being taken off life support. In fact, it might be better for people to be able to access physician assisted suicide as those suffering with chronic pain and no hope for a better future will be able to choose to die painlessly and with much more dignity. When the government refuses patient’s physician assisted suicide, people do at times decide to take matters into their own hands and attempt to end their own lives. This can go wrong and cause the patient to be in even more pain. This only includes those who are mobile enough to attempt suicide as well. The law against physician assisted suicide can also drive loved ones to end the patient’s suffering: so they no longer have to see them live in agony and misery. This causes many issues as the loved one may go to jail, or deal with psychological guilt for the rest of their lives. It seems better to allow people the ability to access physician assisted suicide as it’s no different than when one refuses treatment which is only prolonging

First, If the harmed vulnerable are in majority of the physician-assisted euthanasia, very unlikely, there is clearly something wrong here and euthanasia should never be legalized because it is causing way more harm than good. However, if the physician-assisted euthanasia is not legalized due to few cases of those vulnerable being harmed by it, we are potentially ignoring the majority of the competent patient who want it now cannot get it because it is illegal to everyone. (650c1) Secondly, legalizing physician-assisted euthanasia would reassure the right to the patient, similar to patient’s right to their own treatment. lastly, legalizing physician-assisted euthanasia allow those terminally ill patients now have second options rather than coursing through life-sustaining treatment that in most cases are painful and agonizing, it is more humane to end life quickly and peacefully. (651c1) Therefore, even if few cases of vulnerable populations being harmed by physician-assisted euthanasia, we should not ignore the fact that legalizing it would yield much higher good than

Life is a struggle and some people want to end that struggle, either by suicide or with the assistance of a physician. Sometimes that struggle puts some people in an unconscious state of mind for weeks, months or even years, so the rational being despite close relations to the individual would command them to be euthanized. Autonomy and Paternalism are at odds when it comes to the topic of euthanasia, an individual should have the autonomy to request a physician’s assistance for suicide. As well as physicians should have the paternalism to euthanized those in a vegetative state if they believe euthanasia is the moral choice because their survival is a devastation on medical resources then so be it.

But then you have these people who want assisted suicide to be legalized. This is when the pros come into play. There are two views on human life. Doctors in question think, in my opinion, should be able to kill a patient, if patient is willing. Physicians in question do not inflict the death that the patient overcomes. If the government would legalize euthanasia, then people wouldn’t have to pay thousands of dollars on the simple drugs. The only thing that people have to think about is what an Oregon man said; Palliative care has been the main beneficiary of the Oregon death with the Dignity Act. In which the Dignity Act legalized assisted suicide by the physician. Ask yourself why not? If a person is on the verge of killing themselves, it’s like killing them at the same time.

and are in a great deal of pain and distress with no real quality of

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 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.

Pro-life groups contend that if we allow any type of euthanasia, sooner or later, we would begin killing off not only the terminally ill, but also the handicapped, the poor, the elderly and anyone else who becomes troublesome. The view that we should not make a decision because it could lead to other less prudent decisions later is not a reasonable foundation for setting policies, unless later decisions are definite, and are absolutely wrong. I would hope that the virtue of society would lead us to know where to draw the line between going far enough and going too far. At the present time, it is not clear if where the line is drawn now is where it should be drawn. 5. Euthanasia is killing. Most people believe that there are circumstances when killing is allowed, such as self-defense. The only question is whether or not the killing is justified under the circumstances. In the case of self-defense, killing is justified. The same is true of euthanasia. 6. People who request euthanasia may be requesting it because they are depressed and they may change their minds. I believe that psychological evaluation will detect the mental condition of a patient, and depression, if it exists, can be treated. Patients can be given