Euthanasia Should Be Carried Out On Sick Patients

Moreover, from the legislation perspective, the height of arbitrariness, injustice and abuse is reached if euthanasia is legalized, since there is no sufficient legal resort to exercising euthanasia. It is accepted the possibility that even other people may sign a request for euthanasia on behalf of the incapacitated patient and in the presence of witnesses. In addition, the law doesn't provide any specific punishment against physicians giving euthanasia without the necessary requisites. The choice of euthanasia becomes serious when it takes the form of a murder committed by

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.

When a patient is terminally ill or is experiencing extreme pain, often Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide can both be plausible options to end any suffering. Euthanasia is currently legalized in seven countries and parts of the United States (New Health Guide). This number is not likely to increase soon because of the high controversy, which is due to the very serious topic of this matter: a person 's life. The general process of these medical methods is usually understood as a doctor somehow deliberately causing the death of a patient or helping with their suicide. Many believe that it is unethical and violates laws, oaths, and more. Though people believe this, it is truly unethical to not give a person a choice in the manner in which they will perish.

People base euthanasia and physician assisted suicide on a moral and legal stand point. A health care physicians obligation is to provide support to their patients and to the families throughout treatment and death. Autonomous individuals should be free to decide their own fate when an important life choice concerns a private matter, and when the individual making that choice is near death and suffering without relief, then the state should not interfere unless it can prove that interference is necessary to protect vulnerable third parties (Schafer). People should have the right to request that their life be terminated through medical methods.

In today’s modern society, to prohibit a law or practice takes greater effort and stronger argument than permitting a law or practice. In result of this, the rights and liberty of an individual are very important and would require captivating reasons to overrule it. Since the decision to choose for physician assisted suicide or euthanasia is extremely personal, the famous “innocent until proven guilty” is to be stressed to a great extent when dealing with this topic on debate terms. An individual has a basic right to determine the course of

The main objective of this chapter is to highlight the predominant arguments in favour and against assisted dying. The analysis of these arguments and the provision of an extensive list of safeguards that would be included with the legalisation of assisted dying support the overarching argument that a liberal society must uphold the right to individual autonomy. And therefore, as long as strict safeguards are in place must allow suffering individuals the choice to end their

Physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, has been a hot topic as of late. If you do not know what this is, physician-assisted suicide is the taking of ones life. This usually occurs when a patient is in a irreversible state, and must live through a tube. With multiple cases occurring in the past, current and the more to occur the in the future, this looks to remain a hot topic. Some of those cases include Terri Schiavo, and Scott Thomas, which have both resulted in court cases and conversation all around the globe. Physician-assisted suicide is one of those topics that can be looked at multiple ways, and have multiple different solutions. Someone could look and justify it through the lens of Natural law and could bring up the doctrine of double effects, or the preservation of human life. Another person could go against it by using utilitarianism and could bring up how it maximizes the good, and produces the greatest overall good. Whether you find it to be murder/suicide or just a smarter decision if you cannot life properly, you must realize this is an issue that does need to be discussed more. Even with the attention it has gotten, it still is not discussed politically, and is not up there with other popular topics in our media today. If someone is in a state where he or she has to live off a tube is he or she really even alive?

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.

In United States, Euthanasia is a highly controversial subject among politicians, legislators and society members. Just the mention of this issue polarizes different groups on opposing ends as some either support it and others want to keep it illegal and unlawful(Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, &Zwahlen, 2013). The main ideology that is discussed in the situation is whether an individual has a right on his own life in cases of terminal illness where there is no way of recovering according to medical professionals. The argument that is for the provision of assisted-death for terminally ill can be understood by other names of Euthanasia which are- mercy-killing and dignity-death. These names are given to the practice of physical assisted-death as it allows the terminally ill patients to avoid the extreme pain, constant awareness of certain death and humiliating medical conditions that are part of some terminal illnesses. In this report, the present state of Euthanasia has been evaluated in context of United States. The goal is to look for the existing political and legislative environment for and against Euthanasia and identify an appropriate solution.

Euthanasia, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, religious, philosophical, legal and human rights debate in Australia. Euthanasia is defined as the intentional act of terminating one’s life, who is suffering from an incurable illness or a terminal disease. This act requires explicit consent from the person who wishes to die and it must also be done out of concern and compassion for that person who is suffering. Several legislative attempts have been made to legalise euthanasia in parts of Australia. However, at the present time, it remains unlawful. With Euthanasia being illegal all across Australia it has forced our citizens overseas to unregulated medical centres in hope of having access to a

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

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

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.

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

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.