Euthanasia In Me Before You, By Jojo Moyes

Kara Tippets, a thirty-eight year old married Christian woman with four children suffered from metastatic breast cancer. Tippets strongly did not believe in assisted dying for many reasons. She slowly started accepting her condition over time and knew that her day of death was coming soon. Since her husband was a pastor, they strongly believed in the Christian way to fully live their lives to the best of their abilities. However, a twenty- nine year old woman named Brittany Maynard did not believe in assisted dying. She was diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor and decided to end her life before the tumor progressed and before her suffering worsened. Maynard strongly believed in the phrase “death with dignity” and was forced to move to Oregon from California to make physician-assisted dying legal. Only five states made physician-dying legal and California did not make it legal until after Maynard had passed away. Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and California were the other four states that made the procedure legal to any individual. Brittany Maynard had chosen to inject herself with lethal prescription with the assistance of a physician on November 1, 2014 to take her life away, but Kara Tippetts did not agree with her decision.

Dennis P. Kimbo once said, “Life is 10% what happens to us and 90% how we react to it.” Despite the numerous obstacles of life, people can choose how they react. Today, many people are faced with the obstacle of life threatening diseases. By some diseases being incurable, the cloud of only having so much longer to live hangs over them. As a result, some may choose the option of euthanasia if it is available. In the contrasting pieces of writing, Kara Tippetts use of ethos about euthanasia is more convincing than Brittany Maynard use of logos.

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

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.

In the article, The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia, J. Gay-Williams asserts that euthanasia is both morally impermissible and imprudent. This paper will focus on active-voluntary euthanasia as morally permissible by objecting to some of the arguments made by the author, who defines euthanasia as “intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person. Whether the life is one’s own or that of another…” (Vaughn 278). While Gay-Williams presents four arguments against euthanasia, the second argument, “of self-interest,” argues that euthanasia is imprudent, has short-comings and is thus flawed. In this paper, I will explain Gay-Williams’ argument of Self-Interest, following with concerns to how these arguments do not fully encompass the idea

Does James Rachels in “The Morality of Euthanasia” successfully argue that in at least some cases active euthanasia is morally acceptable? Explain his view and respond to it.

In the debate over euthanasia, the opponent concludes that euthanasia should be illegal because it is goes against nature, dignity, personal-interests and has a practical effect. On the other side of the debate, the supporter concludes that euthanasia should be legal because moral principles, what it really mean to kill, end suffering, the difference between injury and not injury. In this essay I will conclude that euthanasia should be legal.

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.

Patients suffering from terminal illnesses, battle feeling worthless and hopeless on a daily basis. This is due to our jurisdiction forcing them to live. The number of people suffering continues to increase. Although a doctor’s position is to prolong life, euthanasia should be considered in certain cases. Because of the advances in technology euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are now an option for terminally ill patients who are going to suffer from an incurable and painful disease or are in an irreversible coma. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalized because the public supports it, it would only be used for patients who are terminally ill, and it alleviates unnecessary suffering. The word euthanasia originates

As humans, we have the right to life. In Canada, in section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians can expect “life, liberty and security of the person.” This means not only to simply exist, but have a minimum quality and value in each of our lives. Dying is the last important, intimate, and personal moment, and this process of dying is part of life. Whether death is a good or bad thing is not the question, as it is obviously inevitable, but as people have the right to attempt to make every event in their life pleasant, so they should have the right to make their dying as pleasant as possible. If this process is already very painful and unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten the unpleasantness. In February of this year, judges declared that the right to life does not mean individuals “cannot ‘waive’ their right to life.” Attempting suicide is not illegal in Canada, but the issue here is for those whose physical handicaps prevent them from doing so, and to allow access to a safe, regulated and painless form of suicide. It is a very difficult, sensitive and much-debated subject which seeks to balance the value of life with personal autonomy. In this essay, I will argue that the philosophical case for pro-euthanasia is more complete than those arguments against it due to the

A Death of One’s Own sheds light onto the controversial issue regarding end of life decisions, providing a few examples of people struggling with these choices. The film tells the stories of three particular individuals, Jim, Kitty, and Ricky, each with a unique end of life situation. Jim suffers from ALS and has specific care requests, 56-year-old Kitty struggles with her uterine cancer and constant pain, and Ricky is a patient dying from severe liver failure who can no longer speak and make decisions on his own. All of these individuals present different, yet similar issues regarding end of their life care. This film describes the importance of advance directives, the arguments surrounding physician assisted suicide, and this prompted me to form my own opinion on preparing my own directives and thoughts on these tough decisions.

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.

Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.

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.

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