Euthanasia Ethical Dilemma

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-

Assisted suicide questions personal values and ethics. Morality, consequences and religious ramifications play a role in the decision to legalize assisted suicide. Support for assisted suicide is support for the freedom of choice: the objections for assisted suicide are support for the right to life.

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.

Another, for prescribing physicians make a deciding factor of the disease, Once a patient is approved by physician- a patient can finally have the authority and independence, an option whether he or she want to be euthanized. Weir claims some patients continously and persistently cannot alleviate all the pain and dying patients that are suffering. would have to process think rationally to request to die. Furthermore, due to moral differences on public and legal policy should permit one but not the other? As opposed to supporters of assisted suicide, some argue that a patient must meet the final act resulting the death . In this case may be true, but there are greater certainty than when a patient “performs that act” (Weir,87) All things considered,

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

Ethical dilemmas and concepts are a part of our daily lives. How we deal with these ethical concepts or dilemmas shape our character. A major ethical dilemma that will be discussed in this paper is on euthanasia. The issues involved with euthanasia and a case study will provide on an insight into this ethical concept as well as the non-Christian view and the Christian view.

The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek words “eu” and “thanatos” which translate to “good death”. Euthanasia is also known as “mercy killing”. Ancient societies allowed the death of many babies who were born with birth defects. Also, elder people would starve themselves to death. In the military, soldiers were allowed to shoot a partner if he or she were seriously injured. In the nineteenth century, the use of anesthetics and painkillers made euthanasia less painful because before that, people would commit suicide using violent and uncertain methods. Euthanasia has been practiced for centuries, however, it became more of an issue throughout the twentieth century. Euthanasia is a controversial topic because some people believe that causing the death of another person is not ethical, but others think that euthanasia is a way to help relieve people from suffering.

The word “euthanasia” comes from the greek, meaning “good death”. The word itself means the act of ending a the life of a person suffering from a terminal illness, and or an incurable disease. In my opinion I go for this ethical dilemma for two reasons, the main reason being to end a loved one’s pain, and or seeing them live an unfulfilled life. The second reason being important because they have the right to make their own choices and don’t have to be forced to stay alive.(S. C)

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, medical technology has advanced enough to provide certain measures to keep the body "alive," but not necessarily the brain or the cognitive functions that make up quality of life. Despite the fact that death is a cyclical part of life, humans still have a very difficult time dealing with issues surrounding terminal illness: hospice, do not resuscitate, costs for survival, euthanasia, and conversations about end of life planning.

In recent history not many topics have stirred up as strong or divided opinions as that of Human Euthanasia. This is partly due to the fact that our medical technology is far superior then even just a few decades ago. Modern day human beings, especially Americans, have the benefit of living far longer lives than our predecessors. People with terminal illnesses formerly doomed immediately are able to live for longer periods of time, the elderly receive better care and are able to be kept alive longer then they would be able to survive naturally, and people who would normally perish while in comas or a persistent vegetative state are able to be kept alive through the technology we have all come to marvel at and appreciate. While the new technologies and breakthroughs in medical care are of course a testament to the hard work and diligence of brilliant minds they have spawned questions that are as perplexing as the aforementioned technology is amazing. I intend to discuss some of these questions here and although I am not a scholar in this field and my opinions are humble I ask only that you respect them for what they are.

According to James & Stuart Rachels (2015), psychologist Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) fell into a peaceful sleep once his life was deliberatley ended by Doctor Max Schur at Frued’s own request. After many years smoking cigars, oral cancer formed swelling in the back of his mouth and he was told he would have no more ‘good’ days left. Schur would argue that he was “motivated by noble sentiments...because he loved his friend and wanted to relieve his misery” (pg. 101). However, many would believe what Schur did was morally and ethically incorrect if the dominant moral tradition in our modern societal culture is to be followed. To many people, euthanasia is seen as a worthy death- but many disagree to this statement as it has become an increasingly

Professor Bill Talbott from University of Washington defines killing and letting die as follows: killing is the direct action of a person involved in the process of ending another life, while letting die is consciously not taking actions to preserve someone’s life [1]. For example, if a terminally ill cancer patient without hope for a cure or improvement decides to end their life, then is the way they choose to end their life significant? Many circumstances commonly encountered that raises the question of the ethical implications and differences between killing and letting die are physician assisted suicide for terminally ill patients, euthanasia for terminally ill patients, do not resuscitate (DNR) command by next of kin, withholding all care and nourishment from a vegetative or comatose patient, or unwanted premature infants [2]. The concepts of killing a patient or letting a patient die are only considered under extreme medical conditions, mostly at the request of the patient. At which point, the distinction between killing and letting die becomes significant to appease the moral stigma that may follow from aiding in the act of ending life. Kantian moral theory states that every rationale person is equal, entitled to autonomy and every life is equal. It also states that each life is valuable and it is our moral duty to protect life [2]. Both direct action (killing) and indirect action (letting die) are morally wrong because they are both conscious acts of aiding in the

Euthanasia is most commonly known when used to put down an animal. What about using euthanasia on humans that wish to end their life due to medical reasons? According to Merriam-Webster’s online Dictionary, euthanasia is “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” (n.d.). This practice is also known as assisted suicide. In the paper I will discuss the ethical issues of euthanasia, why some may think it is the answer, as well as the Christian perspective on euthanasia.

Euthanasia is defined as, “the practice of intentionally ending a life to alleviate pain and suffering” without legal consequence (“Euthanasia”, p.1). Euthanasia is a Greek word meaning “good death” and it is also known as physician assisted suicide or mercy killing. This topic has been a controversial topic of debate all over the world, and there is even controversy among doctors. There was a survey conducted in the United States on physicians’ opinions about euthanasia, which indicated that fifty-four percent concur that it should be allowed, and forty-six percent oppose it. Currently in the United States it is only legal in six states: California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, Montana and Washington. This means forty-four states do not allow patients the right to choose their own death. The focus of this paper is on the controversy over euthanasia, the physician assisted suicide of patients who have been diagnosed terminally ill and have asked to die rather than live in pain.

Life is a blessing; therefore, people should cherish and preserve it as much as possible. Patients in critical situations such as dealing with a terminal illness should be able to decide whether they want to end their lives or to have a physician do it for them. An arguable debate is whether euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal in many parts of the world. The question has grown and raised concerns: should physician and medical experts end the life of a patient who wills it? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal in the United States and other areas of the world because patients should not have to live life with an unbearable pain and suffer the whole time through it.