Euthanasia Dbq

Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.

Throughout the years, the colonized inhabitants of a conquered nation have responded to the threat of imperialism by encouraging violence and rebelling against their captors. This behavior is shown when Moulavy Syad Kutb Shah Sahib writes about the Sepoy Mutiny in India and when he states in Document 2 that, “We must unite in their slaughter for by this alone will the lives and faith of us both be saved.” [..] Perhaps the English may try to assure the Hindus that they have consented to give up killing cows from respect for the Hindu religion. But no sensible man will be gulled by such deceit, for the promises of the English are deceitful.” This passage demonstrates how Sahib promotes violence through a letter and encourages the Muslims and

Albert Camus once quoted, “But in the end, one needs more courage to live than to kill them self.” Today I will be discussing the topic of Euthanasia also known as “assisted suicide.” The word originated from the Greeks, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia refers to the ending of one’s life, primarily to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and generates many political and religious debates. Although euthanasia is illegal in Canada, in some jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, euthanasia is a legal and common practice.

You, Jack Kevorkian, Pennsylvania, your parents, the government, the church, doctors? Who has the right to make the decision to end one’s life? The controversial topic of euthanasia has been in existence since ca. 460 BC – ca. 370 BC with its origination in the Hippocratic Oath and continues to gain popularity with the advancement in media and technology (Nordqvist). In this paper, we will examine the benefits of voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and why, in the year 2017 it should be nationally legalized.

Active euthanasia is a subject that is raising a lot of concern in today’s society on whether or not it should be legalized and under what circumstances should it be allowed. This is a very tricky subject due to its ability to be misused and abused. There are a wide variety of things that need to be considered when it comes to who should be allowed to request active euthanasia such as, is it an autonomous choice, do they have a terminal illness, is their quality of life dramatically decreased, and are they in pain and suffering. Both James Rachel and Daniel Callahan have very different opinions on active euthanasia and whether or not it should be allowed. However both authors manage to provide a substantial argument on where they stand regarding active euthanasia.

One of the highly controversial topics in today’s society is the idea that euthanasia has many effects on the world’s stance on whether someone should be allowed to die on their own terms. Euthanasia can end the suffering of those who need it, but may have long term effects on people outside of the patient. People do not have a right to euthanasia because it is viewed as unethical, may have negative emotional effects, and is currently illegal in the world.

Euthanasia is largely contested and debated because many people in society deem it does not fit with their idea of how they should behave and believe (Botton, 2000). The main debate within the issue of euthanasia is that the individual is able to understand their own experiences (Mills, 1959) and they are capable to interpret the value of those experiences (Kymlicka, 2002) in a manner which constitutes them being able to make major decisions involving the future of their life. Unfortunately due to almost all of the individuals that wish to be euthanised having serious and terminal illnesses, they are not able to freely choose how they want to live their life, and are constantly being penalised by society (Kymlicka, 2002). Some people see the issue of euthanasia a public issue, in which the value of life is threatened for the community, many see it as a private trouble for the individual (Mills, 1959). Currently euthanasia is legal in only four countries while assisted suicide is legal in four more and five US states, while debate about the legalisation in other countries, such as Australia is non-existent. This gives a sense of marginalisation to those whose wish to practice euthanasia and their families, which in tern leads to a lack of involvement in society (Mills, 1959). The choice to end ones life

Craig Gannon and Eva Garland, authors of “Legalization of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: A Professional’s View,” argue the moral and legal rights and wrongs of euthanasia in America and in the United Kingdom. Gannon and Garland explain “Both ‘sides’ have similar aspirations; to respect patients’ wishes and to reduce any suffering.” (131)

There continues to be a lack of consensus in regards to the legalization and implication of euthanasia. The Euthanasia Society of America was founded in 1938 to help educate people on why this process should be legalized (Wells 1284). Through the society, ordinary citizens could learn about all the advantages and disadvantages. The society tries to educate the ill on all of the options that they have in regards to the end of life treatment. Also when medicine can no longer help someone the person should have the right to end their life and alleviate their pain (Diaconescu 474). It should be up to the patient to decide if they are ready to die or if they want to put up a fight to survive. However, if the patient is in a coma or brain dead, family members and doctors should look at the advanced directives that the patient has given. In some cases, patients do not want to be kept alive if a machine is breathing for them (Meisel and Cerminara 2859). The patient should be able to have a choice in the quality of life that they want to live. Another argument is that people believe that church and state should be separate in hospitals as well. Patients do not want doctors being influenced by their religious beliefs when practicing medicine (Sharp, Carr, and Macdonald 275). The legalization of euthanasia shows to have many benefits for the families and patients that are suffering. Also with

Those that are faced with the inevitable should be the ones to decide whether or not they want to sustain their own life because who else would know their mind better than themselves? The choice to die is filling with dignity, but being forced to stay alive again one’s own will strips patients of their humanity. The cost effectiveness of euthanasia and assisted suicide will be a huge stress relief for terminally ill patients while also benefiting those patients that are not terminally ill. Those against euthanasia and assisted suicide often claim that its legalization will lead to murder, but with protective policies in place that will not happen. Assisted suicide is legal in less than five countries and euthanasia is legal in fewer, but soon more and more counties are going to start considering legalization. It is important for the citizens of these countries to understand what will happen if euthanasia continues to be illegal and what will happen if it is legalized. It will affect them, their loved ones, and their fellow citizens. Taking a life is a serious matter and so is the autonomy of each person. A patient facing the end of their life should not be forced to face it in pain, rather they should be the ones to decide when they are ready to

Today, voluntary euthanasia is getting closer to being legalized in more than just one state in the United States. “‘Voluntary’ euthanasia means that the act of putting the person to death is the end result of the person’s own free will” (Bender 19). “ Voluntary euthanasia is an area worthy of our serious consideration, since it would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose death rather than continue suffering” (Bender 19). The question of whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be legalized is a major debate that has been around for years. Because the issue of whether people should have the right to choose how they want to live or die is so complex. With the advances in technology today we have made

People who are proeuthanasia believe that it should be used if patients do not have control of their bodily functions, are not mentally competent and are experiencing severe pain (Ashcroft, 2003). They also believe that those who do not commit to the patient’s request are deceitful (Ashcroft, 2003). People who are anti-euthanasia believe that it is completely wrong under all circumstances (Ashcroft, 2003). According to Ashcroft (2003), some arguments used demonstrated that physicians are humans too and it is not right that they are dehumanizing their patients by providing them with an option such as euthanasia. Making euthanasia an option will make the concept of killing a norm and psychologically “salient” (Ashcroft, 2003). Ashcroft (2003) also stated that there would be an increase in involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia if voluntary euthanasia is allowed and authorized. Ashcroft’s (2003) last argument declared that it is inaccessible to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia as well as passive and active euthanasia. As the barrier between these processes become transparent and active voluntary euthanasia is legitimized, other forms of killing may become legalized as well (Ashcroft,

Euthanasia, an extremely controversial topic, has been occurring for centuries. “Until the time of Hippocrates, physicians had two duties: one to cure and, if that was not possible, a duty to kill” (Global). During this time, physicians did not have the technology to perform the necessary medical procedures as physicians do today. Physicians did not have a wide variety of medicine or equipment to treat patients. In ancient times, euthanasia was tolerated because there were not many ways for a physician to help their patient. In fact, there was a vast amount of support towards euthanasia (Stefoff). “Euthanasia has been used as a label for “mercy killings,” but there have been times when it was used

Those who oppose the idea of euthanasia argue the ethical, practical and moral issues not addressed by those in support of the practice. It has been argued that there are several reasons that prevent doctors from accurately assessing whether or not the patient is emotionally stable or mentally capable enough to decide whether they genuinely wish to die. Psychological factors that cause patients with such illnesses to think of or request euthanasia include depression due to acknowledging their inevitable death, fear of losing control, dignity and dislike of being dependent on others. In addition, opponents of the practice claim that physicians, or any other medical professional should not be the ones causing death. Many go to the extent to say that doctors who practice euthanasia are in violation of the Hippocratic oath, the oath in which their career is built from. “..and I will do no harm or injustice to them” is a line directly taken from

Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, has been a controversial issue for many years. It usually involves ending a patient’s life early to relieve their illness. Most of the controversy stemmed from personal values like ethics or religion. The euthanasia debate puts a huge emphasis on what doctors should do for their patients and how much a person’s life is worth. Supporters of euthanasia primarily focus on cost and pain alleviation. Opponents of euthanasia tend to focus on morality. Whether euthanasia is legal or not could significantly affect future generations’ attitudes about death. Euthanasia should be legalized nationally because it helps patients that could be in unimaginable pain, offers more options for more people, and it is relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives.