Euthanasi A Controversial Issue Around The World

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

Euthanasia has become one of America’s biggest issues in recent months, with the decision that 29 year old Brittany Maynard made. Brittany Maynard was a young woman that had severe brain cancer, and doctors told her that with treatment and medication she would only be alive for a certain amount of time. Britany had lived in California all her life, but later after noticing the impact of her illness decided to move to Oregon, a state in which a person can “Die With Dignity.” With her decision many people believed that what she was doing was immoral, Brittany had now interfered with God’s will, she’s also messing with the natural way. This caused backlashed and sparked many debates on wheatear or not Britany Maynard should have the right to pretty much kill herself. Another impactful correlation to this topic, were the T.V episodes that we watched in class that dealt with doctors who had euthanized the patients. While people might think that a person who wants to die with dignity is messing with the natural law, it is not immoral for someone who is in serious pain and is suffering, it can’t be immoral if they are going to die anyway from complication or by the doctor’s hands.

The ethical issue is Euthanasia, there are many groups that support or oppose this issue. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The different viewpoints are based around whether it is humane to assist someone in dying and whether it should be illegal for someone to assist the death of someone who has a terminal illness and are suffering incurable pain. Groups that oppose the issue generally believe that it is inhumane to end someone 's life early, these groups generally believe these people should be given care and as much comfort as possible until their last days. Groups that support the issue generally believe that if someone has lost their mental state or are suffering unbearable pain that cannot be cured, that they should be allowed the option of euthanasia because it is inhumane to make someone suffer unbearable pain if they do not need to. An ethical issue brings systems of morality and principles into conflict, ethical issues are more subjective and opinionated and generally cannot be solved with facts, laws and truth. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because there are two equally unacceptable options. It is considered wrong

For many years euthanasia has been a controversial topic. The argument of euthanasia is vastly criticized by Richard T. Hull and Margaret A. Somerville. Richard T. Hull talked about the “yes” argument, saying that euthanasia should be legalized. Margaret A. Somerville presented the “no” argument, saying it is not alright to end someone’s life in any circumstance. After reading and analyzing both sides of the argument, I have decided which argument is stronger from my perspective.

1. For this assignment I chose the moral issue of Euthanasia. The case study is about a 20 year old woman dying of ovarian cancer and decides to be euthanized. I feel that this case was extremely relevant, especially with the rise of trend in today’s society. Euthanasia is currently a very popular thing that is continuing to grow in other states as congress decides whether or not to make it legal or refuse to pass it and keep it as illegal. I feel that by looking at this case study I hope to determine whether or not Euthanasia is ethical or moral and the circumstances that would inhibit Euthanasia from being ethical or the circumstances that would make it ethical. I will first discuss the case and discuss the background information on the case, after this I will look at the case through an ethical lens and identify all the possibly moral and ethical issues involved with the case. I will reach my own conclusion on the case and determine, in my own opinion, on whether or not I believe the case is moral/ethical. I will also give evidence for my beliefs and how I reached the opinion and final decision that I hope to reach by the end of this paper. Finally, I will discuss the Bible and any specific cases that it discusses the moral issue of euthanasia involved with this specific and delicate case. After approaching it biblically with what the Bible says, I hope to be able to infer completely whether or not this case can be successfully judged as morally right or wrong, as

Euthanasia is a controversial topic throughout today’s society. As euthanasia is illegal in America, Singer fights for the legalization of voluntary euthanasia, which means the patients make voluntary request to be assisted to die. While religious views value that the life cannot be taken away so easily, Singer focuses on the human rights that enable their choices to die or not to die. However, I do not agree with singer’s respect for autonomy on the issue of voluntary euthanasia because this issue involves two parties. It is not sufficient to consider the single patients’ will; the option of voluntary euthanasia brings lot consequences for community in moral and academic aspects. My utilitarian view on euthanasia maximizes the large amount of happiness rather than the individual happiness.

The term “euthanasia” is derived from Greek, and means “Good death.” It is a broad term for mercy killing, which is a plea to euthanasia. It represents a serious socio-legal debate. People do not always die well. Some afflictions cause people to suffer extreme physical pain in their last days, and euthanasia may seem a compassionate way to end the pain. The case of Karen Ann Quinlan set a precedent for patient’s right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. However, the credit of bringing euthanasia to the public goes to Jack Kevorkian.

As a virtue ethisist would undiable attempt to conserve the life as challenged by Euthanasia .It is inevitable to bring about Natural Law when disscuing end of life topics. Since the dawn of exisance humans have held the most primal instinict of survial. We may live with comstant knowledge of our enivitable death but still avoid it at most, if not all cost. .]“Every human being has a natural inclination to continue living…… In our daily lives, we exercise the caution and care necessary to protect ourselves.” (Mackinnon & Fiala, 2015). As indiviudals we all have intrinsic value and wheather by choice or obligation, our life is held to a higher standard. Intrenic value does not diminish extrinsic value but it does hold more importance beacause intresnic value there even if society dosnet acknowledge it, even if as individual we don’t see it we still have it. (quite book on intrerensic value). If we accept that we are valuble beyond our benfinit to society than we must also consider that some choice about our life our not our to make. Even if a person wont awknolede their instresic value as a community we have to know that it still exist and as humans we must uphold it to the proper standard of respect. One may also take a religious stance in correlation to natural law. God is the creator of man and our bodies and lives are sacred. Thus they are not ours for the taking. In actively pursuing our death through euthanasia we are going against god’s overbearing will to hold life

The debates about euthanasia date all the way back to the 12th century. During this time, Christian values increased the public’s opinion against euthanasia. The church taught its followers that euthanasia not only injured individual people and their communities, but also violated God’s authority over life. This idea spread far and wide throughout the public until the 18th century when the renaissance and reformation writers attacked the church and its teachings. However, the public did not pay much attention to the writings and still opposed euthanasia. Then, in 1828, New York became the first state to outlaw assisted suicide as well as euthanasia. After that, many states followed suit and, 40 years later, most states had made assisted suicide and euthanasia a crime. Nevertheless, the fight to legalize euthanasia still went on and, in 1870, Samuel Williams proposed using morphine as a way to quicken the death of a terminally ill patient. His proposal accumulated widespread acknowledgement in medical journals and scientific meetings, but in 1885 the American Medical Association took a stance against Williams’ proposal and ended all discussions.

to die by euthanasia. For example the case of Mrs B in which she is

Protecting life is the ethical view of society today, and legalizing euthanasia offsets that. Religious figures have recently welcomed the idea of getting God back into this debate. Ed Feinstein, senior rabbi of Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, California states that, “It [prayer] recognizes God as the one who decides ‘Who will live and who will die’” (Wood 3). Assisted suicide is a peculiar process and not the intended way to die. Similarly, the constitution of India argues that euthanasia transgresses the right to life in Article 21:

The value of human life and the dignity of the human person have never been so under siege as in our time. Unprecedented scientific advancements, sophisticated technology and new ways of thinking attempt not only to present alternative methods in "creating" new, less flawed and longer lives based on human conveniences and preferences, such as cloning and stem cell therapy. They also offer new options to end unnecessary or unwanted pain and suffering in the hopelessly ill and useless lives through euthanasia or assisted suicide. Is a pain-free existence the measure of living? Who is to decide when and how a life should start or end? Where does human dignity lie and who is to defend it?

Ending an individual’s life intentionally for the purpose of relieving the person from pain or suffering is considered as euthanasia. A good example of euthanasia is a case where a doctor opts to give a cancer patient an overdose of drugs that is supposed to make him die. Encouraging or aiding a person in committing suicide intentionally could be regarded as assisted suicide. An example could be acquiring a powerful sedative for a person who is terminally ill with the awareness that the person will certainly utilize the medication to commit suicide. There are many countries in various parts which have legalized euthanasia including but not limited to Belgium, Australia, Colombia, Netherlands, Mexico, Ireland and some states of America. Further, a number of countries have come up with policies that reinforce the practice of aiding one to die also known as mercy killing. This paper focuses on comparing the accessibility level of euthanasia in two countries, Belgium vs Australia, two countries where the practice of “mercy killing” is fully recognized and legalized.

The hospital is a place where to cure the sickness and to save the patients. Have you ever thought a kind of “killing” could happen in the hospital? It is the “mercy killing”, also called euthanasia. Till now, euthanasia is legal in Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, Albania, Colombia, and Japan and in the US states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, and Montana. “ '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.”(n.d.) Euthanasia should be legalized in china because some patients suffer so much pain from some deadly disease, because the cost of maintaining such patients’ lives for only a short time is huge, and because human should have the right to decide whether to end their own lives or not.

When one analyzes the social consequences that would result from sanctioning practices of killing, one notices that it would involve serious risks of abuse and misuse and, on balance, would cause more harm than benefit to society (Beauchamp 2014, 90). If euthanasia were to be legalized and practiced in a society, there are bound to be negative consequences as a result of it. Euthanasia is the un-natural separation that occurs between the body and the soul. The two are in tandem with one another and can only be or should be separated by the law of nature. Un-natural separation in this manner can only bring about bad energy and over time, can be the cause of numerous problems within the community. Despite the restrictions that society were to place on the number of patients qualified for euthanasia; these restrictions and policies would expand over time, with ever-increasing possibilities for unjustified killing and thus abusing the system (Beauchamp 2014, 90).