Euthanasia: Ethical Choice or Not?

Euthanasia has been a controversial topic since the ancient Greek physicians. The word euthanasia has been used since the history of medicine. The Greek physicians or Hippocrates took an oath that they would never give their patients anything even if they requested it. The Hippocratic Oath has been used since 2,300 years ago until today (Harrigan). In the seventeenth century, American common law has punished people who have committed mercy killing. Then in the Enlightenment, writers “assaulted the church’s authority” of the teachings of euthanasia (“Historical Timeline”). A author from the Historical timeline said that if someone “condemned suicide as a wrong” and injures people and the community, then it “violates God’s authority over life.” The author says that someone killed a person or was asked to, then it violates God’s authority to give life to that person.

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.

An incredibly controversial issue clouds the minds of millions of people everyday as death confronts them. The problem revolves around the ethics of euthanasia. Should medical assisted suicide be outlawed in all situations or under certain circumstances, could it be considered ethical? Do humans violate nature’s course with science and advanced technology by playing God? Why should doctors and families witness their loved ones suffer when the solution of euthanasia promises a painless death? Authors Andrea E. Richardson and David Miller of the articles “Death with Dignity: The Ultimate Human Right” and “From Life to Death in a Peaceful Instant” reflect upon their experiences and feelings

The idea of non-voluntary active euthanasia is not such a disaster, as euthanasia itself. The problem that comes into consideration is when and why it should be used. When euthanasia is non-voluntary and active, such as on a patient with dementia, the ethical decision comes into play if there are episodes of clarity and the patient has or has not mentioned what they want to do at the end of life situations. Principles of deontology suggest duty and obligation. A medical professional in such situations have an obligation to fulfill the patient 's wishes. The nature of their obligation does not sway based on what they personally think. Patients with dementia have some moments of clarity, but because their brains are still deteriorating, non-

The ethical debate on non-voluntary euthanasia is a complex issue due to its multifaceted nature. This topic examines the morality of ending a human’s life in circumstances where the person is incapable of issuing explicit consent. These cases would include utilizing euthanasia on very young children or someone in a vegetative state. There lacks consent with young children since they cannot speak to provide consent. Explicit consent is lacking with someone in a vegetative state since they are incapable of deciding at that moment to continue living or end their life.

Euthanasia, defined as the act of “putting a person to painless death especially in case of incurable suffering,” is a controversial subject surrounded by many moral dilemmas (Murkey, 2008). Although euthanasia is the overarching term used to describe the act itself, within it are three principal forms: voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary, each of which pertains to case specific issues. Following The Supreme Court’s recent decision deeming Canada’s controversial law against physician-assisted suicide unconstitutional, I will focus here on the morality of voluntary euthanasia (VE) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS), as well as the legal limitations to which their implementations shall be bound.

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

The world is a place full of black and white along with so much gray. Many people who have heated debates usually have them on topics related to ethical dilemmas that range from abortion to politics to religion. No one ever agrees on everything all of the time which can leave a lot of issues unresolved or ignored. Most of the time a person and their worldview determines what they consider is an ethical choice. This paper will cover the ethical dilemma of euthanasia and how the Christian Worldview impacts that choice in comparison to other views.

I believe that it is acceptable for patients who are terminally ill and are in pain to be allowed to end their life. I think physician assisted suicide should only be available if all other treatments have been exhausted. When the patient is in so much pain that waiting until death is physically excruciating I believe options should be available. Advance directives are something that I believe everyone should have whether they think they are going to be in that position or not. I don’t think that the government should have any part in deciding if you are in a position to ask for that or not. It is an extremely personal decision that should be decided by the patient and their

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.

Euthanasia has always been a common topic especially a debatable one talking about allowing patients who are suffering from any incurable disease or condition or even in an irreversible coma to choose to end their live on their own terms painlessly. The following will discuss a specific case and analyzed using the Christian worldview. Since the moral debate of euthanasia is such a topic of controversy, potential solutions towards the issue, and how such solutions can be compared to the core beliefs and the values within the Christian worldview.

Euthanasia, as stated in the Oxford Dictionary, is defined as a •gentle and easy death, bringing about this especially in the case of incurable and painful disease•.The death of a loved one brings a range of emotions but it is comforting to know that our loved one died peacefully. Another emotion death can bring is shock when it happens suddenly, giving no time for our final words. Death can also bring a deep sorrow and fear when we are told that an illness is incurable and death is inevitable. In this instance, we watch our loved ones slowly lose their independence and strength, and although we may

Second to abortion runs the moral issue of Physician assisted suicide (PAS) or euthanasia. As adults we make decisions for ourselves all day, every day. The moral issue is human freedom is overly restricted by legal, religious and irrelevant claims. How could choosing Physician Assisted Suicide be any different than any other type of legal medical decision a person has to face? Currently, US residents have the right to refuse treatment, meaning they are able to stop chemotherapy when and if they choose, even if their physician believes it will help improve their life. Along with chemotherapy, patients can refuse dialysis and other life enhancing treatment plans. Another life changing decision patients are legally able to make are life-sustaining

Source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1174693/ : This article is relevant to the central ethical issues because it explains the back story with Dr. Kevorkian and specifically Thomas Youk’s case; also, it provides opinions of those who advocate for the rights of patients with disabilities. Diane Coleman, president of Not Yet Dead, states that this euthanasia movement that Dr. Kevorkian is overall promoting is seemingly “very threatening to disabled people”; Dr. Nancy W. Dickey, president of the American Medical Association, even adds that “patients can be relieved that the guilty verdict helps protect them from those who would have taken their life early”. Overall, I have learned that the pro-life advocates version of “proper end

The ethical issue is Euthanasia, there are many groups that support or oppose this issue. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The different viewpoints are based around whether it is humane to assist someone in dying and whether it should be illegal for someone to assist the death of someone who has a terminal illness and are suffering incurable pain. Groups that oppose the issue generally believe that it is inhumane to end someone 's life early, these groups generally believe these people should be given care and as much comfort as possible until their last days. Groups that support the issue generally believe that if someone has lost their mental state or are suffering unbearable pain that cannot be cured, that they should be allowed the option of euthanasia because it is inhumane to make someone suffer unbearable pain if they do not need to. An ethical issue brings systems of morality and principles into conflict, ethical issues are more subjective and opinionated and generally cannot be solved with facts, laws and truth. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because there are two equally unacceptable options. It is considered wrong