Constitutionality Of Euthanasia

Terminally illness is any disease that curtails life even for a day. Once euthanasia is socially acceptable and legalised it would widen the practice to any medical condition, not just for terminal illness, we will consider euthanasia as a treatment option. Dr Gunning states: ‘once you accept killing as a solution for a single problem, you will find tomorrow hundreds of problems for which killing can be seen as a solution.’ Dutch doctors have been killing terminally ill, to killing chronically ill, killing physical disease to killing mentally distressed, who has no physical illness, to killing newborn babies just because they have birth defects. The experience of Netherlands and Belgium in legalising, points the fact that once legalised it cannot be effectively controlled.

Euthanasia has been one of the most controversial and debatable topics in recent years. Even though the debate about euthanasia seems to be very complex and problematic, it is important to analyze very deeply some problems and questions related to this issue in order to indicate adequate solutions in terms of possible legislation. First step is to identify the proper definition of euthanasia as an act of causing a person's death to end unbearable pain and suffering. In addition, there are many forms of euthanasia; categorizing those forms and highlighting the development of understanding this concept over time, is necessary to understand, that involuntary euthanasia is unacceptable as it violets the basic human rights.

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 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

In United States, Euthanasia is a highly controversial subject among politicians, legislators and society members. Just the mention of this issue polarizes different groups on opposing ends as some either support it and others want to keep it illegal and unlawful(Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, &Zwahlen, 2013). The main ideology that is discussed in the situation is whether an individual has a right on his own life in cases of terminal illness where there is no way of recovering according to medical professionals. The argument that is for the provision of assisted-death for terminally ill can be understood by other names of Euthanasia which are- mercy-killing and dignity-death. These names are given to the practice of physical assisted-death as it allows the terminally ill patients to avoid the extreme pain, constant awareness of certain death and humiliating medical conditions that are part of some terminal illnesses. In this report, the present state of Euthanasia has been evaluated in context of United States. The goal is to look for the existing political and legislative environment for and against Euthanasia and identify an appropriate solution.

In the debate over euthanasia, the opponent concludes that euthanasia should be illegal because it is goes against nature, dignity, personal-interests and has a practical effect. On the other side of the debate, the supporter concludes that euthanasia should be legal because moral principles, what it really mean to kill, end suffering, the difference between injury and not injury. In this essay I will conclude that euthanasia should be legal.

Because the individual circumstances regarding the judgment of patients’ conditions and the implementation of assisted suicide can vary quite profoundly, a policy solution to the regulation of these practices must be flexible and capable of reacting appropriately and adjustably in the assessment of each individual case. The way the Dutch have handled the variance of these cases may provide the United States with a practical model to follow for a future system of conduct since they have “left as much room as possible for medical professionals to apply the norms of medical ethics and the medical standard to unique situations” (Griffiths 265). Additionally, the openness of the Dutch situation concerning the practices of PAS and euthanasia has helped foster public confidence in what doctors are doing an how authorities are handling it (Griffiths 269). It would jeopardize patients’ autonomy, the handling of palliative care, the basis of medical ethics and our society’s value for life and transparency if criminalized, unregulated and secretive practices of PAS and euthanasia were to continue. Therefore, legalization and open regulation must be seriously considered as possible policy

Craig Gannon and Eva Garland, authors of “Legalization of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: A Professional’s View,” argue the moral and legal rights and wrongs of euthanasia in America and in the United Kingdom. Gannon and Garland explain “Both ‘sides’ have similar aspirations; to respect patients’ wishes and to reduce any suffering.” (131)

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are actions that hit at the core of what it means to be human - the moral and ethical actions that make us who we are, or who we ought to be. Euthanasia, a subject that is so well known in the twenty-first century, is subject to many discussions about ethical permissibility which date back to as far as ancient Greece and Rome , where euthanasia was practiced rather frequently. It was not until the Hippocratic School removed it from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate? More so, euthanasia raises

The philosophical theories and ethics of two philosophers, Aristotle and Kant, offer two differing views on the morality of euthanasia. Margaret P. Battin’s “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do It” offers three countries’ perspectives on and laws regarding euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide, as well as evaluations and critiques of their policies. To determine which of these points of view has the most pertinence, all of these arguments will be outlined and consequently analyzed, both separately and in relation to each other. Their differences and similarities will be enumerated and described, consequently their merit will be discussed. Ultimately, Aristotle’s moral theory centering around eudaimonia will be shown to be superior to Kant’s categorical imperative, because of its flexible nature when evaluating the acceptability of euthanasia under different circumstances.

People across the world, including the Americans, view the theme of active euthanasia differently. Some oppose while others propose depending on the issue at hand. Basing on the arguments, it mostly depends on the effects that come out from it. I argue that the justification of

This paper examines how countries around the world have dealt with euthanasia as an upcoming issue. Looking into the stances, arguments and opinions surrounding the issue of legalizing Euthanasia. It goes into detail about why citizens are requesting legalization and also reviews who are the people specifically that chose to be euthanized. Furthermore, it discusses the negative stance and the positive outcomes of this issue over a person’s quality of life. We will answer questions such as, what is and what is the background of euthanasia? What are the views of other countries? And, will it be legalized in the future?

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.

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

One of the highly valued principles of American democracy has always been the idea that