Euthanasi A Controversial Issue

Utilitarian approach would argue that euthanasia is morally acceptable because it decreases the misery of everyone involved such as the patient, the physicians, and the family and

To fully understand the issue at hand, one must understand the various forms of euthanasia. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals…in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient is relieved of medical treatment and is allowed to die naturally. Active euthanasia occurs when either a physician or a family member actively takes the life of the patient, perhaps through lethal injection, and eliminates a natural death process. Many people commonly use the word “euthanasia” to refer to assisted suicide. Essentially, assisted suicide is a form of active euthanasia in that a person, usually a physician, aids in the suicide of a patient.

The morality of euthanasia from an extreme utilitarian perspective means acting on what’s best for the vast majority based on one’s particular actions. The morality of euthanasia is determining what is considered to be wrong and right in the eyes of someone with a utilitarian perspective.

Those who are in favor of physician-assisted suicide attribute utilitarian theory to justify the act. In the context of physician-assisted suicide, the doctor takes the decision for termination of patient’s life with the intention of ending suffering and pain. It can be concluded that the physician aimed to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. An ethical theorist stated that “physician-assisted suicide is the right choice to provide relief not only to the sufferings of terminally ill patients but those family members who are also on a suffering spree and yet there is no hope for the recovery” (Snyder, 2017). Moreover, they believe that one is a proprietor of his life and enjoys a prerogative to end his life if his life becomes a burden on him. In addition, patients suffering from terminal diseases such as cancer last stage go through peak emotional and physical pain. Some of these patients request for options that end their lives with the minimal suffering as they want to escape from unbearable

Utilitarianism attempts to consider the interests of others. However, when focusing on happiness, we fail to consider aspects such as rights and justice (EMP 115). When taking into consideration someone who is wanting to perform a deliberate suicide, overall happiness should not be the only issue to consider. This does not seem plausible since, if happiness is the only factor, anyone could justify any case of Euthanasia on grounds that they were unhappy and the world would be a better place without them. Doctors would be able to justify assisted suicide, which could quickly lead down a slippery slope where anyone who wanted to end their life would be able to do so at any time. Utilitarianism considers the feelings of others, correlating with the minimum concept of morality, which states that we take all individuals involved, into account. However, this theory considers everyone’s happiness equally important, which would take away, the intimacy and bonding from those we have close relationships with, as their happiness is no more important than the stranger walking down the street (EMP 116). Utilitarianism poses a strong theory, however it fails to address moral issues based on reason, as their only consideration for moral issues is the overall happiness achieved.

Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an

A topic that has been around for a while is voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide. Our book states that “a person who is virtually certain to die within a given amount of time and is experiencing or will experience a lot of pain before he or she dies should be able to choose an earlier, les painful death (Mosser, 2013). There are reasons that arise or illnesses that occur that should be reason enough for a person to choose if they want to continue to suffer through the illness or the pain or if they should instead be able to decide if they wish to continue this unhappy existence that they are faced with. Everyone should have a right to end their life when they see fit, especially if they are suffering or perhaps they feel that those around them are suffering because of seeing the pain they are going through. This brings us to the utilitarian few of the world and how sometimes assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia can be associated with utilitarianism and the view that actions should be done for the greater good or the good of many. When looking at the pain that someone else’s pain can cause to others, the best course of action could be to allow the assisted suicide to occur. Others would think that any sort of assisted suicide it’s not an acceptable course because we are taught that no one should take the life of another because it is morally wrong.

There is, of course, no single ‘utilitarian perspective’, for there are several versions of utilitarianism and they differ on some aspects of euthanasia. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. According to act-utilitarianism, the right action is the one that, of all the actions open to the agent, has consequences that are better than, or at least no worse than, any other action open to

Intro: The Hippocratic Oath clearly states, “I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked [for it], nor will I suggest the way to such counsel.”Steven Miles, a professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School published an article, “The Hippocratic Oath,” expressing that doctors must uphold the standards of the Hippocratic Oath to modern relevance. Euthanasia continues as a controversial policy issue. Providing resourceful information allows us to recognize what is in the best interest for patients and doctors alike. Today, I will convince you that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal. The United States must implement a policy stopping the usage of euthanasia for the terminally ill. I will provide knowledge of euthanasia and how the medical advances in technology and hospice can prevent the widespread of euthanasia.

The controversy of a doctor assisting their patient who is already dying, end their life sooner to save them from continuous unnecessary pain and agony has been the topic of controversy for years. The practice of euthanasia is in my opinion a mercy and should not be banned because in reality it doesn’t physically hurt anyone. You could say it hurts the patient but then again that patient is already in tremendous pain or in an incapacitated state of no recovery, as in paralyzed or brain damage etc., so in reality it would actually help them by assisting ending their pain by assisted suicide. A doctors job is also always help their patients and the practice of assisted suicide in many ways is actually helping the person. However there has and probably always will be people who do not agree with the idea of a dying person end their life for sooner than nature had intended. This demographic would suggest that by dying by your own hand or assisted by a physician for medical reasons is still considered plain suicide. And for the religious people it is a sin by their beliefs. The people could also argue that it is not a person’s right to make that decision.

The term ‘euthanasia’, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, refers to a controversial practice of accelerating the death of a terminally or incurably ill patient in order to alleviate their suffering. This act has been known since the beginning of the 20th century but only over the last decade has it become one of the most talked about aspects of bioethics. Due to the fact that the debate about assisted suicide is a highly emotional one, it is only natural that the practice has both its supporters and critics.

First of all, it is inevitable that the argument “euthanasia being morally permissible” is relevant to the philosophical theory “Utilitarianism” which generally fixates on increasing happiness and decreasing misery to an

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

As a utilitarian, who focuses on the best consequence for the greatest number of people, they could be both for and against euthanasia. The utilitarian who is for euthanasia might say that allowing a person who is suffering to die can help others out. Euthanasia would be helpful in the way that it would provide those who are in dire need of organs with the organs of the person who was euthanized. Although it is immoral to kill someone, as a utilitarian, looking at the benefit of saving many lives with one life is the best consequence. Also, another argument the utilitarian would make for euthanasia is the unnecessary use of resources, human and economic, devoted to keep a terminally ill person alive, when they could be used to help people who have a

The term euthanasia comes from ancient Greek and it means “easy death” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Compared to the ancient times in which this word originated, it seems much harder in today’s society to achieve this epitome of a good death. In the ancient times, people died due to diseases that doctors could not cure, and their lives were ended earlier because it was considered cruel to watch a person die a slow and painful death. Today, thanks to the great advancement of technology, more and more diseases are becoming easier to cure and create a better living environment for the person affected. However, there are still many patients who have incurable diseases and disorders that disallow them to have a