Death Penalty And Ethical Analysis

Now, in order to truly look at the topic at hand, I feel that it is necessary to examine a few different viewpoints when it comes to this ethical issue. These viewpoints are called deontological, and utilitarianism. Each approach provides a unique look in the idea of capital punishment and will help to look at the consequences at the present time, as well as in the future. The question of whether it is ethically acceptable to take the life of someone is at the heart

Science has played a role in the debate over the death penalty for some time. One question concerning science and the death penalty include, questioning the ethical appeal of using executed bodies for anatomical research. People can understand the benefit of doing so since the bodies are “fresh” and they allow researchers more control of their subjects, since they know how the person died, when the person died, and the exact time of death; etc. but the concern is encompassed around the consent and knowledge of the criminal about how their bodies will be used after their execution. Another issue is the people who administer lethal injections are rarely properly qualified due to many physicians refusing to participate in the executions. Anatomists have been using the bodies of executed criminals for years, but there is a need for an ethical law code regarding where and how anatomists acquire bodies. (HILDEBRANDT) This is because some people question using executed criminals for research since they are usually not asked or aware of the potential use of their bodies after death.

Ethics are society's idea of what is right and wrong. They follow rules set by powers like government and other organizations. (“Ethics vs Morals”). When doctors receive their license to practice, they take an oath. It is called the Hippocratic Oath. It originated in Greece and since evolved to serve modern medicine. The Oath states, “I will keep them from harm…” Helping a patient commit suicide would go against this vow to keep patients from harm. It also states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” Giving a patient a lethal drug with the intent for them to die is a direct violation of the oath they take. Suggesting that a patient misuse a drug to overdose and kill themselves also goes against the oath. (Tyson). Furthermore, the oath declares, “Above all, I must not play at God.” This sentence means that a doctor should not be able to choose who lives and ideas. They must always help to the best of their abilities. The cannot wittingly and willingly kill their patient or help the patient be killed. (Medical Definition of Hippocratic Oath). Undermining the Hippocratic Oath undermines the foundation of the relationship between a physician and his

Even if assisted suicide were to be permitted under some conditions, a second issue is whether physicians should ever participate in it. This is where the moral and ethical issues arise? Physicians may not want to have the burden of essentially killing a human being. A life is sacred and doctors avoid putting patients in severe pain. The law can get involved if a physician does administer this lethal dose of medication to their patient. For example, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was arrested for performing physician-assisted suicide on his patients. He clearly did not view assisted dying as an immoral type of procedure. “The site of most activity surrounding physician-assisted suicide is Michigan because Dr. Kevorkian practiced physician-assisted suicide there despite its illegal status. From 1990 to 1999, when he was convicted and imprisoned, Kevorkian assisted in more than 130 physician-assisted suicides” (Grosswald, 2002).

Before convicts are executed, it is a requirement by the law that they be treated to ensure that they are not only physically fit but also healthy. I am convinced that all types of prescription are ought to cure people, not readying them to experience death through statutory execution, whether one is on death row or not. It is the duty of every doctor under the law to ensure that each convict is healthy before the government can deprive his or her life. The law is unethical since it does not recognize that the duties of physicians are to render support to the people, save individuals’ lives as well as help individuals enhance the standard of their lives. When physicians graduate from their processional training, they vow on oath to assist in

People like to feel as if their loved ones are protected by doctors, they do not want to think of the doctors as murderers. Should a doctor be considered a murderer if they are just fulfilling a patients request? Sometimes doctors are unable to convince a determined patient of any other options, which may lead to them fulfilling the patient’s requests. Is it right for a person to see the doctor as a murderer if they are giving the patient what they want? Just because a doctor try’s to give a patient what they want, does that make him wrong? Many may say that doctors should not have consequences because they are helping a patient out of his pain and agony. What a lot of people do not consider is how is physician-assisted suicide any different than a doctor taking someone off of life support or a physician respecting a person’s DNR and not resuscitating them? When a doctor respects the family’s request and removes a person off of life support they do not receive

For centuries capital punishment has been used to “punish” criminals for a severe enough crime that they committed. It dates back to hundreds of years ago and has been enacted in many different countries, some that still have it today. Death penalty/capital punishment is the punishment of death an offender receives after having a court hearing and being convicted of a crime (ProCon.org, 2008). Once someone receives a death penalty sentence, they go on death row awaiting their execution. For a very long time, the controversy regarding whether or not the death penalty is ethical or just has been a topic of debate. I believe that the

Medical ethics and patient care go hand and hand. As health care providers, it is their duty to see that the patient 's needs are met. We are charged to insure comfort and proper recovery. The question here is whether there is a difference for patients who request voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide. These patients have the same rights to quality care of their bodies as we all do. Although, the United States constitution ensures us the right to life, it doesn 't mean that the right to die is taken away. Five states currently allow physician assisted suicide. In each state there has been controversial and contentious debate as to whether states should follow the lead of states that have allowed PAS.

Moral behavior of a murderer is considered lacking in many cases, but how are physicians who administer a lethal dosage of drugs any different? There are many physicians who are participating in assisted suicide, but they all have lives within their hands. They are responsible for the lives they have been entrusted with. In Norway any physician that helped with assisted suicide was charged with “accessory to murder.” In the United States there are many laws regarding murder, but accessory to murder is also a charge. A person who is considered an accessory to murder is “not typically present at the scene of the crime, but contributes to the success of the crime before or after the fact.” This statement creates a controversial wave within the country. Those physicians who are prescribing deadly doses of medication are knowingly providing a means to kill someone. Even though the physician does not administer the drugs themselves, the patient is still being killed because of the physician’s prescription.

The topic of physician-assisted suicide has become very controversial because of the ethical questions. The physical state of health of the patient, the patient’s personal life, and even the financial pressure of the patient are all factors to consider when contemplating whether or not to legalize this controversial cause of death. Physician-assisted suicide regarding medical ethics states that a physician cannot legally give any patient a lethal injection to end their life, but they can take the patient off of life support in order to increase the process of death. Physician-assisted suicide should be legalized at a federal level and should be morally acceptable for patients who are terminally ill and can no longer be treated to improve their medical situation.

For those that oppose Physician Assisted Suicide, their concerns are practical. An article from Newsweek points out that, when a doctor takes the Hippocratic Oath it proclaims, “I will keep the sick from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked

The United States is a nation founded on freedoms and liberties, giving each citizen the ability to make their own life decisions. This freedom includes all aspects of one’s life, including medical care. With freedom comes responsibility, and this is true in terms of physician-assisted suicide. The ongoing struggle between those in favor and those opposed to this subject has ravaged the medical field, bringing into question what is morally and ethically right. The fact of the matter is that physician-assisted suicide is neither morally nor ethically acceptable under any circumstance. Not only is it a direct violation of a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath, but it is not constitutionally binding. Physician-assisted suicide would also lead to

Death penalty is punishment by death, it is also referred to as capital punishment and execution. I believe that the death penalty is an ethical issue because you are taking the life of someone due to the fact they took the life of someone else, basically stating an eye for an eye. It's unethical to me because the government is killing a human being therefore committing

“Doctors and nurses have sworn to preserve life and relieve suffering – but how to do this when the only way to end suffering is to end life?” (Lewis Vaughn, “Bioethics Principles, Issues, and Cases” pp.594) Should there be an upper hand to make these decisions for our healthcare practitioners? Laws have been set in each state that determine the legalization of physician assisted suicide. Although Louisiana is a conservative state when it comes to the issue of physician-assisted suicide, it should be legalized in my opinion. Ethically, there are theories that support this as well as laws given to our practitioners. By rejecting physician-assisted suicide, patients and their families are suffering needlessly.

Philosophy branch which streamlines, protects and guides the concepts of being correct or incorrect is referred as Ethics. People learn this concept from their parents who got it from their parents and it is a chain. However philosophers claim that it is people’s belief which decide ethics along with human intuition. An individual at singular level conscientiously decides what is right and wrong and define a limit of pushing ethical behaviour and morality in being. Moral acceptability of any action can be judged from the points if action is understood by an individual well, the consequences of that action on public, fair treatment of action with all people respectfully and the way action is being performed, the motivation of people for it.