Euthanasi Why Killing Someone Should Be Considered Murder

"Euthanasia is a long smooth-sounding word, and it conceals its danger as long, smooth-sounding words do, but the danger is there, nevertheless". As Pearl S. Buck explained through this quote, Euthanasia and medically assisted suicide to present a real danger. Although society refuses to see these dangers, euthanasia creates countless problems that shake society. Euthanasia remains a conditional based issue; therefore, the laws created rely on weak ideas that allow for easy manipulation, as can be seen through the mistakes and laws of the Netherlands and Belgium who legalized Euthanasia. Medically assisted suicide and Euthanasia use unethical ideology, and legalization cause extreme strain and opposition to America’s moral code.

I agree with the point the author makes about the fact that it is all about personal motivation and gain from the scenario. If you having a kid dying of cancer and is in a lot of pain maybe it is the best decision to help him die easily and pain free. On the other hand of this argument there has been cases where people have recovered from rare illness and been a miracle. If you kill someone you will never truly know whether or not they can survive. I loosely equate this to the death penalty. The issue with both is that you never truly know whether someone is guilty or not. The same applies in some cases to illnesses. There can be some cases where it looks like someone is going to die and somehow survives. If you kill them then they you can be robbing them of their

Almost everyone has been stuck in a situation where they were having trouble determining what they should do. In those situations, the actions that are available to them to choose from are either classified by our society as right or wrong. It is obvious to most people what the right option in a situation is as well as why they should choose it, but why do part of those people still choose the wrong option if they are fully aware what they chose is awry.

James Rachel, a philosophy professor at the university of Alabama, wrote a paper called "Active and Passive Euthanasia" where he argues against the distinction between killing in letting die. He says that the distinction is made on morally irrelevant grounds. He says that the distinction between passive and active euthanasia should not be based on whether or not wanted more morally permissible then the other. To prove his point Rachel uses three dif-ferent examples, which included different circumstance where euthanasia is involved. He looks at each example and argues why active euthanasia would be the same or even better then passive euthanasia in the situation.

The second case involves Jones in the same situation as Smith: his baby cousin stands in the way of him receiving a large inheritance. Jones sneaks into the bathroom, planning to drown the child, only just as he enters, the child slips, hits his head and falls face down in the water. Jones passively watches his cousin drown, all the while overcome with happiness. The only difference between the two cases is that Smith actually killed the child, whereas Jones simply let the child die. “That is the only difference between them. Did either man behave better, from a moral point of view? If the difference between killing and letting die were in itself a morally important matter, one should say that Jones’s behavior was less reprehensible than Smiths’s. But does one really want to say that? I think not.” It is at this point that the decision of euthanasia stands as a strictly moral issue, with the Smith and Jones case proving the fine line between human morality and personal gain. This does not apply however, to the world of medicine.

I never have thought about euthanasia in such depth until this assignment. It isn’t something completely new to me because I have heard about it, it happens everywhere, even if you or I don’t see it. But, I never gathered my thoughts about such a serious topic. Reading such opinions from these authors made me find out more about this topic but I cannot say I have came to a clear and set decision or opinion about euthanasia. As James Rachels states, “I can understand why some people are opposed to all euthanasia, and insist that such infants must be allowed to live. [But] I think I can also understand why other people favor destroying these babies quickly and painlessly” (Rachels 155).

The English scholar, Francis Bacon, was the first to examine prolongation of life as another medicinal assignment, Preservation of wellbeing, cure of infection and prolongation of life. Bacon additionally affirms that, 'They should get the ability and give the consideration whereby the diminishing may pass all the more effectively and unobtrusively out of life.”Bacon affirms that this other form of palliative care is really Assisted suicide.

In most people’s eyes when one person killed by another it is a horrible thing. But, think about if your grandma had stage 4 cancer. She stopped breathing and was put on a ventilator, then her kidneys started to fail. The doctor gave you to option of keep her alive on the ventilator and never waking up or taking her off the ventilator and end her suffering. You choose to end her suffer and let her die. Killing another person can be a justifiable act depending on the situation such as euthanasia, military ethics, and George and Lennie.

For example, killing Joan benefits Bill. Whether Bill kills him directly or lets him die doesn’t affect the morality of the situation. Thus, both the situations would be considered equally immoral. The conclusion following the example above would be that there is no difference between killing (active euthanasia) and letting die (passive euthanasia). According to Rachels, accepting that there is a distinction between active and passive euthanasia would result in decisions about life and death being made on irrelevant grounds. For example, autistic infants sometimes have correctable secondary problems, such as having an intestinal obstruction; but decisions are made to forego corrective surgery (and thus let the infant die) simply because the parents do not want the burden of having an autistic child. In Rachels opinion, passive euthanasia may generally be preferable to active euthanasia which doesn’t seem right. Being allowed to die can be an incredibly painful process. A lethal injection, however, is less painful. Assuming a terminally ill

The issue of whether active and passive euthanasia are distinct continues to be important to philosophers, ethicists and health care professionals. Euthanasia is the act of ending a patient’s life when the circumstance for that patient is unbearable or untreatable by medical treatment (Ozcelick, Tekir, Samancioglu, Fadiloglu & Ozkara, 2014, p. 94). Namely, there is active and passive euthanasia. Both are indicative of the acts that root in the intention to end a patient’s life. For the purpose of this paper, we will establish that active euthanasia is the physical or direct act of causing death, as to inject a patient with a lethal injection (Ozcelick et al, 2014, p. 94). In similarity, passive euthanasia defines the act from which a health care provider withholds life-sustaining treatments such as not providing water or food as to inevitably cause death (Ozcelick et al, 2014, p. 94). I will argue that there is a spurious moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia, as both are contingent on the same line of the intention to end ones life. Although there are compelling arguments that will establish the difference between active and passive euthanasia, it fails to seek the definitive conclusion of both. This conclusion is that both, in any such way, lead to the end of ones life. To support this argument I will first invest in explaining that that the health care provider will always have the knowledge that either active or passive euthanasia will lead to death.

Life and death unavoidably go hand in hand; where there is life, eventually there must be death. However, in the cases of some individuals death arrives much sooner and stays with them for much longer. Life is unpredictable, and health can deteriorate in unimaginable ways in a matter of minutes. Individuals suffering from prolonged and untreatable diseases often wish for their time to come and for their pain to be ended. What if ending their suffering was as easy as taking a pill that their doctor had prescribed to them? When the treatments become useless and ineffective and the quality of life becomes nonexistent, Physician Assisted Suicide could be the answer to the suffering patient’s prayers.

Did you ever think about what you would do once you were no longer able to take care of yourself? The pain and the suffering that you may go through, and without your consent a doctor decides to pull the plug on you. Although that may be what you want, that would be known as human euthanasia.

I have been taught morals and ways of believing and I never really question my beliefs, Although, after taking this course I have opened my eyes that everyone doesn 't think alike and even though we may all look the same we are different. The way we process information and the way we think and believe depends on so many different factors in our lives. I have learned in this class it is good to always keep an open mind and have respect for others opinions.

Sometimes in life, things don’t turn out how one may have planned. Accidents happen, people grow old, and people get sick. These different events are not always comfortable, and sometimes even cause one to want to end his or her life. In extreme cases, when a person’s quality of life is beyond toleration or they feel as though there is no point to living, the issue of euthanasia often arises. Euthanasia is technically defined as “the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering (Merriam 1). In America people should have the right to end their life if they chose. The right to life and the right to private and family life under the European convention on human rights should be interpreted broadly to include decisions about the topic of euthanasia is one that is highly disputed among people over the world.” Euthanasia means killing someone who is very sick to prevent more suffering” (Weaver 1). An example of this is “Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage following cardiac arrest in 1990. She entered what doctors call permanent vegetative state. In other words, a person seems to be awake but is not conscious. Ms.Schiavo’s husband and her parents fought about whether she should be kept alive by a feeding tube. The public and press argued over the issue as well. The case was so hotly debated that even then-President George W. Bush got involved. He signed a law aimed at keeping Ms. Schiavo alive. In 2005, Michael

Euthanasia is “killing or passing up opportunities to save someone, out of concern for that person.” Arguments for euthanasia is the prevention of the unnecessary prolonging of suffering of the patient who is diagnosed with a terminal illness, and their families, also, there is the argument of using resources, economic and human, in efforts to keep people who have incurable diseases alive. Arguments against euthanasia is that the thought of having assisted suicide could be a result of misdiagnosis from a doctor, and also, that euthanasia is the process of killing someone, which is immoral. These views can be analyzed by using two different theories of ethics, consequentialism, or utilitarianism, and deontological theories.