Euthanasia Discourse
Introduction
The discourse of euthanasia in a contemporary setting is highly relevant within various institutional systems, working as a means of invoking change and establishing discussion surrounding the legalisation of assisted suicide in a medical setting. The discourse provokes the debate surrounding this medical process whilst allowing for the establishment of considerations from various standpoints such as; legally, medically, culturally and religiously. The introduction of legalised euthanasia practice in various western countries in recent times has further enhanced the relevance of this discourse.
Constructs the topic
Discourse as providing the means of shaping topic is evidently relevant to Foucault’s analysis
…show more content…
Alternatively, arguments against the legalisation of euthanasia are brought forth by Emanuel (1994); alternative pain relief treatments, active and passive euthanasia are significantly morally different, death is not always painful, and its legalisation could force society onto a ‘slippery slope’ (Emanuel 1994, p.27). These opposing arguments display the influence imposed within the discourse, that it is both impacted by varying personal viewpoints whilst also influencing views in regards to euthanasia in …show more content…
The discourse can organise a subject, such as that of a medical professional of whom enacts the procedure of euthanisation in a different light to that of other medical professionals, being associated by the public from various views both in the negative as the professional being seen as a murderer (Emmanuel 1994) or through the discourse as a positive enactor of new capacities to help end the suffering of the patients (Dowbiggin 2007).
Conclusion
The discourse of euthanasia is both highly relevant and controversial within contemporary society (Gorsuch 2006), embodying the characteristics of discourse as defined by Foucault in Hall (1997). Euthanasia encompasses a range of institutions present within society, allowing for a variety of implications and factors to attribute to the discourse as a whole, in doing so producing a deepened means of discourse which in turn establishes the topic of assisted suicide in itself.
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 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.
The ethical dilemma of this highly controversial subject will continue to split our approach to the notion of assisted suicide. As we age, we come to terms with our own mortality, how we choose to leave this world isn’t always up us. For those who suffer from a terminal fate, maybe they should have the choice, and those who understand their current condition can provide them the dignity they deserve without repercussions. The only way we as a society can move ahead, is to find a common
“When we talk about euthanasia we are talking about a death understood as a good or happy event for the one who dies” (Foot 2002 [1972]:34).
Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.
describe the current situation (2013) of the legalisation of euthanasia in Australia. The authors use data gained from the history of legislation and the current situation in seven jurisdictions to try to determine the positive outcomes of voluntary euthanasia and identify the power of politics towards legalising euthanasia. Their research focuses on the experience of how those seven countries strived to legalised euthanasia. The article is useful to my research topic, as Carson et al. suggest that there is a definite benefit of euthanasia, and Australian should strive to legalise euthanasia. The main limitation of the article is that the information was a lack of strong reasons for Australia to legalising euthanasia. This article will form the basis of my research; as it will be useful information about the current situation of euthanasia in Australia and how do other seven countries accept euthanasia to be the
Specific to euthanasia, I admit that I have a better understanding of the terminology that exists now – and I hadn’t realised before that I had been deficient. I at least feel like I have some of the foundational knowledge necessary to partake in a meaningful discussion about euthanasia, whereas before it was more emotive. I also feel that learning about the international context will be very useful in informing at least discussion of, but also legislation of euthanasia if it comes to that. My overall support for euthanasia has not changed but I admit I am a more wary of some of the unintended consequences and the voices that can be lost, or never considered in the first place. I had not considered the inclusion of nurses in the debate, or the practicalities of safeguards that would need to be in place to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable people. In an era where the doctor-patient relationship is already changing, I can see why it is relevant to consider how our opinions and actions could destabilise the trust communities have in their
Euthanasia, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, legal and human rights debate in Australia. Broadly speaking, this term is used to describe the termination of a person’s life to end their suffering, usually through the administration of drugs. The core of this debate is centred on how to mitigate and pacify competing values; an individual's desire to self autonomy and freedom and choice to die with dignity when suffering, alongside with the devaluation of human life as a consequence that is formed through the legalisation of euthanasia. Due to the nature of the topic of euthanasia that is shrouded with ethical controversy and ambiguity, there is difficulty in legal justification and establishment of voluntary
Euthanasia, with a Greek origin meaning “good death” or “easy death,” has been a controversial topic for a fairly long time. In more lexical terms, euthanasia is known as the act of ending a life due to an incurable disease or a suffering that one should not bear. In this paper, I will be providing an in depth look of what passive and active euthanasia is. The lexical distinction between passive and euthanasia is one actively killing another, and the other being the act of allowing one to die. I will also be elaborately declaring how there is not a moral distinction between the two by relating to the views of James Rachels’ Active and Passive Euthanasia. After epitomizing Rachels’ argument, I will finally assess his final argument that we should change our policies around euthanasia and present many claims of why we should not do this.
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
The philosophical theories and ethics of two philosophers, Aristotle and Kant, offer two differing views on the morality of euthanasia. Margaret P. Battin’s “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do It” offers three countries’ perspectives on and laws regarding euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide, as well as evaluations and critiques of their policies. To determine which of these points of view has the most pertinence, all of these arguments will be outlined and consequently analyzed, both separately and in relation to each other. Their differences and similarities will be enumerated and described, consequently their merit will be discussed. Ultimately, Aristotle’s moral theory centering around eudaimonia will be shown to be superior to Kant’s categorical imperative, because of its flexible nature when evaluating the acceptability of euthanasia under different circumstances.
Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.
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.
Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and