Euthanasia Is Not Morally Wrong

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.

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.

Philosophical issues have been dissected, analyzed, and discussed throughout a significant part of humanity's history. A myriad of these topics can be polarizing due to the multitude of normative theories that can be applied to the various ethical dilemmas. Since all these ideologies hold some degree of merit, it can be difficult for individuals to participate in healthy conversations regarding ethical topics without tension or conflict, but it is not impossible. As a matter a fact, my father and I engaged in a friendly dialogue concerning numerous philosophical subjects on April 21, 2018. It served as an excellent educational experience for both of us as we were learning each other’s perspectives and the rationale behind them. For the most

In Chapter Three, it is discussing the topic of euthanasia and whether it is considered morally or ethically right. Euthanasia is when you are able to kill someone who has a painful or incurable disease without it hurting the person. There is active and passive euthanasia. Active is when you are trying to make the patient die by giving them some kind of injection, this is usually the more preferable option. Passive is when you stop giving the patient what they need to keep them alive, this is usually seen as the more cruel of the two. If someone is in too much pain they might use the method of terminal sedation, when this is done the patient is being place unconscious or in a coma until they die. Another distinction in discussing this topic

Euthanasia is the act of ending a patient’s life to alleviate suffering from intolerable and incurable pain. In this essay, I intend to discuss the reasons why active euthanasia is morally permissible in some situations, as well as evaluate some arguments against active euthanasia. I believe that active euthanasia is morally permissible when the patient is in intolerable and incurable pain or suffering, and gives a form of consent to do so, as all competent human beings are entitled full rights to control and use their own bodies, as long as the rights of other human beings are not violated.

Euthanasia is defined on dictionary.com as the act of putting an animal or person to death painlessly or allowing them to die rather than permitting them to suffer through an incurable and possible painful disease or condition; to die a painless death. As humans we make decisions on a daily basis whether an animal should be euthanized or not depending on the outcome of certain tests performed on the animal. So why is it so hard to accept the same guidelines for a human life when that person may be stating how painful the situation is for them? Physician assisted suicide is not immoral because a terminally ill person should have the right to die with dignity. If the person has a terminal illness they should have the right to choose to not go through the suffering the disease may entail. Some people may also look at it from a financial point of view. The cost of a fast painless death is better than a long expensive fight that may be painful and finish with the same results, death.

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.

They tend to defend their argument with their own opinion value and rights of human life just as I have here but in a different context. As I have previously mentioned, the right for one to choose euthanasia holds a higher value than the views of society. In any case, the process of consent and administering the drugs is only one between the doctor and patient. This signifies a legal binding agreement between the physician and the patient. Therefore, it is not unethical for the physician nor in violation of one’s human rights. So to argue the value of human rights and that all humans deserve to live, is not a valid argument. As previously stated, it cannot be denied that the majority of patients who turn to euthanasia are terminally ill. Their bodies have begun to fail them to the point where they are unable to carry out daily functions such as eating, putting on clothes, or even breathing without assistance. From my perspective, I find it to be virtuous to let a psychologically capable, terminally ill

Euthanasia is used in many countries. One man was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. His son was by his side the whole time. The man told his son that if he was ever lying on a bed full of tubes and good to nobody, to tell them to let him go (Pratchett). Some would say that the man should be put out of his misery. I believe that the man should be helped until he dies. Some believe in promoting euthanasia because of the good it may bring to the suffering, but I, along with many others, believe that euthanasia is wrong.

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

Medical ethics is always seen by many as an unusual blend; one many always seem to question. The fuse appeals to a range of different temperaments, to the philosopher, the doctor, and to the man or woman of action. It tackles the big questions of the morality of killing and the painstakingly difficult decisions having to be made by many on a daily basis. It also relates to the ethical spectrum as well, when can a mentally ill person be treated against their will? Is it a crime for any doctor to practice a form of euthanasia? Where better to start medical ethics, than with the complex topic of euthanasia.

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

Death has always been a controversial topic throughout the world. There are many theories as to where we go and what the meaning of life truly is. How one dies is important in today’s society, especially when it comes to the idea of suicide. Active euthanasia, also referred to as assisted suicide, is the intentional act of causing the death of a patient experiencing great suffering. It is illegal in some places, like France, but allowing patients to die is authorized by law in other places under certain conditions. Doug McManaman constructed an argument, “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified,” to defend his view that active euthanasia is never morally

In the event of someone with a terminal illness euthanasia, many believe may be the only option where the individual has the option to die and put an end to their pain and suffering. those who stand in agreement with these options, including myself, consider themselves pro-choice and provides the argument that euthanasia grants an individual the autonomy to make the ultimate decision in regards to their life. Others, believe that euthanasia deprives not only the individual affected but their families the ability of happiness or the option of life that that loved one. Euthanasia should be a decision made by the individual affected by the terminal illness and carried out by a licensed physician. Those seeking death through euthanasia should ultimately have the final say so in regards to when and how the individual dies.

In current times we have made many technological advances that have boosted the medical productivity in hospitals. However, the rapid development of medicine is far from being a long term resolve for many health issues. We have a plethora of people whose quality of life is very low and has no chance of improving. During these situations allowing the person to end their life via euthanasia should be allowed. I will argue that Euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases because there are several moral justifications that argue for ending one’s life.