Euthanasi A Dangerous And Disputable Proposition

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

A. Restatement of Thesis: Overall with current situations happening around the world Euthanasia and Assisted suicide has become a very controversial topic, however there are many interpretations that should be looked upon before deciding that huge decision.

Euthanasia got its modern connotation beginning in the late nineteenth century (Dowbiggin 1). The Great Depression caused a major spike in discussion concerning suicide and controlled dying (Dowbiggin 33). Suicide rates rose about four percent at the beginning of the Great Depression, but slowly began to decrease across the entire decade. Several important figures killed themselves, which alerted several people to the need to talk about suicide and methods people killed themselves (Dowbiggin 34). Voluminous topics of euthanasia lead towards a conversation about Hitler, and the way he sterilized and euthanized people, bringing the negative connotation into the discussion (Singer 201). What some fail to see is that in the medical community, the

The Nazi Party wanted to get rid of all who were not healthy enough to work. Contrary to this fear, there are important “safeguards” to prevent anything like the holocaust from happening with euthanasia or physician assisted suicide (Brock 59). According to a survey done by the Louis Finklestein Institute for social and Religious Research and HCD in February of 2007, fifty-four percent of the doctors who participated believe the government should not control or regulate physician-assisted suicide (Friedman 35). It should be a matter between the patient and his or her medical practitioner. Also, those who oppose euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide may also fear those who are physically or mentally disabled may one day be grouped with those who are terminally ill (Friedman 62). This would not be a problem. Oregon's Death with Dignity Act has a safeguard―the patient must have a predicted lifespan of only 6 months to live to even qualify for being eligible to partake in using this act (Friedman 59). This safeguard is in place so neither the doctor nor the patient can falsely apply. Additionally, euthanasia for terminally ill children is still “morally repugnant” in many of the European countries today. This hatred for the euthanasia of children stems from the Nazis, who killed thousands of

Assisted suicide looks good and innocent on paper, but the legalization of mercy killing carries a dark side. Once that door is opened, it may not be easily closed. Regulations can be in place but fraud is rampant in insurance and in the medical field no matter how much it is regulated. In Taking Sides, Clashing Views in Lifespan Development, a statement is made that directly shows the slippery slope of legalized assisted suicide; “In the words of an Australian politician, when we are past our “best before” or “use by” date, we should be checked out quickly, cheaply and efficiently as possible.” This view sums up the argument of why not. The mystery of life and death are taken away and humans become industrialized as a piece of meat. Legalization would also affect medical education and training of physicians. The goal of doctors is to save lives, but if euthanasia is legalized that could all change.

Physician-assisted suicide, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means or by information provided by a physician aware of the patient's intent” (Merriam Webster), has been debated over for many years. It has often been called a death with dignity, “but there’s nothing dignified about the methods they advocate” (Torr et al. 56). Physician-assisted suicide has been a widely publicized controversy, and yet there have been many misunderstandings about the issue. It is not only a means of death for a comatose or dying patient, but it is also a way to kill people with depression and even infants in some places of the world. Although others may argue that physician-assisted suicide is an opportunity for the elderly and the disabled to make a choice about their death, euthanasia would threaten them more than give them freedom. Permitting this malicious practice does not just discard religion and ethics, but it also desensitizes society to killing, advertising physician-assisted suicide as a simple solution.

While many define euthanasia as physician-assisted suicide with “informed and voluntary consent” or “a gentle and easy death,” (80) others view it in a more demeaning light, but with reasonable concerns. From its beginning rooted in the fifteenth century to the recent efforts for its legalization, the practice of euthanasia has become a very controversial issue. In J Donald Boudreau’s commentary, “Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” he argues against legalizing euthanasia because it would challenge the traditional medical values, ideals, and instruction of healing.

Supporters of euthanasia argue on behalf of the Constitutional rights that allow use to make our own decisions for our own lives. In addition to that, Mr. Steinbeck, those patients most likely possess suicidal thoughts, compelling them to use more painful solutions. And sometimes, their attempts fail, forcing them to experience that amplified pain after the shock. However, defending opponents showcase the fact that assisted suicide “could result in serious consequences,” like misunderstood public views, thinking their patient received a “cheaper alternative” instead of proper treatment. This debate commenced in the mid-1930s during the tragic Nazi Holocaust

Euthanasia remains highly controversial in the U.S. because even a state such as Oregon which upholds the Death with Dignity Act “passed by a margin of 51% to 49% as stated by the Oregon Health Authority. Thus, even though Niles suggested that Oregon supports euthanasia, the Death with Dignity Act seemingly remains controversial because almost half of the population in Oregon is against Euthanasia, and there are stakeholders who still challenge its implementation. In the context of this paper, euthanasia refers to an instance in which “the physician would act directly, for instance by giving a lethal injection, to end the patient’s life” (Niles 254). Clearly, euthanasia remains illegal in most parts of the country, and this is because it is a contentious moral and legal issue according to Haberman. There are numerous arguments which support and oppose euthanasia. Even so, the benefits of euthanasia outnumber its detriments. This implies that euthanasia should be legalized across the remaining states in the U.S. The legalization of euthanasia would have economic, ethical/moral, legal, and personal benefits.

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.

During the Euthanasia Program, 200,000- 250,000 disabled children and adults were murdered. It began with the killing of small children, then gradually expanded to older children, children in the German-Occupied East, and adults with disabilities, and was a significant source for training soldiers in the Holocaust, preparing them for other murders they would carry out. “Euthanasia” literally means “good death,” although its connotation is the exact opposite, and it was used to “purify” the country. The Euthanasia program was an extermination of the mentally and physically disabled, and was an elaborate killing system formed by soldiers and physicians that took hundreds of thousands of lives.

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

Euthanasia often surfaces in mainstream news as being a highly controversial issue, with strong arguments for both positions. To be clear, euthanasia can be defined as the following, “Intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person” (Gay-Williams, 781). There are also several other distinctions that classify euthanasia as either active or passive, based on the level of action involved, or as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary, based on the level of consent (Dittmer). However, in this paper, when I use the term euthanasia, I am speaking of euthanasia in any of its forms. Thus, I will argue that all forms of euthanasia are morally impermissible. Lastly, I will assess an objection to my argument, but in the end show that

Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the stronger argument.