Euthanasia:
When it comes to the topic of euthanasia, most of us will readily agree that it is a debatable topic. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether euthanasia should be given to end suffering. Weather some are convinced that there is better ways to go about pain such as hospice to provide them with more comfort, others maintain the idea that euthanasia should be given because people are free to choose how they want to die to end their suffering. My view is that euthanasia should not be legal because euthanasia is still a form of murder and ill people who are depressed tend to be capricious. People who are terminally ill should seek hospice instead of thinking of ending their life with euthanasia.
…show more content…
Euthanasia should not be legal that is why doctors, nurses and medicine are there for to make ill people feel better. Medicine should not be used as a form to end someone’s life. For example, the Hippocratic Oath by physicians enjoins “Do not harm and states I will give you no deadly medicine, even if asked” Thomas Reardon, past president of the American Medical Association states, “physicians are healers, the inability of physicians to prevent death does not imply that they are free to help cause death” (Reardon). In other words, by giving euthanasia physicians are not keeping the oath they made when they became physicians it is wrong to not keep that promise to ill people and doing something that they do not believe in. They took an oath that they should stand on as long as they are practicing medicine. The argument of euthanasia is a paradox because both could be right depending on how certain people view things. Euthanasia is expedited but it is not worth cutting your life shorter than it is already going to be. The American Medical Association expresses, “physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer” (AMA 5). In other words, physicians are scrupulous because they maintain their beliefs and oath they took when becoming a physician. Euthanasia is superfluous when physicians could
Furthermore, euthanasia is a disgrace to humanity. An individual person or group shouldn’t decide how, when, and if another person should die. The act of ending someone’s life just because another decided that the individual’s life gives no worth to the person or to society is unjust. That is simply the person’s opinion, and their opinion shouldn’t end a precious human life. Usually, people with disabilities who request euthanasia, do so because of how others treat them, not because of their actual disability. If we were to respect those with disabilities, that would remove hardships, not death. Another reason why euthanasia is wrong is that a person who can’t think straight or is a human vegetable, a person who does not have mental or physical abilities (O’Steen). She/he can be killed by a guardian’s request according to law, even if the patient never showed a desire to die. The Declaration of Independence states our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and euthanasia goes against that. If the right to live is reduced, all over rights are worthless (“Euthanasia Statement”).
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.
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
Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.
I do understand that there are ethical codes that must be upheld by those practicing medicine. I also understand that euthanasia pushes the boundaries of those ethical codes. Physicians have a responsibility to do what is thought to be in the best interest of their patients. Who says that a peaceful death opposed to an unbearably painful one isn’t in the best interest of the patient? Dr. Philip Nitschke explains that “at Exit International [their] motto is ‘a peaceful
Many people would argue that it’s okay to end your life or someone else’s life, if they do not have the possibility of getting better and are terminally ill. Another reason is that maybe they have a mental illness or are a harm to themselves and others. On the other hand, some people believe that life has value and great worth and that being euthanized takes away that value in having life. There is much argument and debate over whether or not Euthanasia is ever justified. At the end of the day, it’s based on what a person believes is right. Everyone has the right to believe what they want to. However, Euthanasia can never be justified because it makes people believe that life is not worth living if you are terminally ill, deformed, in a coma, have a disability, feel that you are a burden to someone, in unbearable pain or have the right to commit suicide. No matter how bad life gets, people should know that life is always worth living. When someone consents to being euthanized or having someone else be euthanized, they may miss out on memories and life’s joys. There is a lot of pain in life that people have to deal with, but that does not mean that anyone has the right to decide that they or anyone else should die. This also does not give anyone the right to inject drugs into someone in order to kill them peacefully. It doesn’t matter if you are just trying to help
Many doctor's go against the idea of euthanasia. They are there to protect their patients and help them live, whatever that may suggest. However, when they are terminally ill and have a limited time to live, they need to respect not only their job, but their patients. This can be done by doing their duties as a doctor and helping their patient die painlessly. Those may argue they are not protecting their patients because they are shortening their life. However, their quality of life is very poor. The doctor has a duty to do what is not only best for their patient, but also relieve their pain. If they were refused euthanasia and still had to live for the next 5 months in pain, would that be moral? No, it would not be because the doctor has a duty to fulfill.
Active euthanasia is a subject that is raising a lot of concern in today’s society on whether or not it should be legalized and under what circumstances should it be allowed. This is a very tricky subject due to its ability to be misused and abused. There are a wide variety of things that need to be considered when it comes to who should be allowed to request active euthanasia such as, is it an autonomous choice, do they have a terminal illness, is their quality of life dramatically decreased, and are they in pain and suffering. Both James Rachel and Daniel Callahan have very different opinions on active euthanasia and whether or not it should be allowed. However both authors manage to provide a substantial argument on where they stand regarding active euthanasia.
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.
A physician is supposed to be a healer and assist in promoting life or in “natural” death. It goes against all values to be the physician in an assisted suicide death. There are claims that with all the advances made in medicine in today’s world no one should be suffering through any such pains to the point of wanting to die. Arguments regarding euthanasia often depend on the method used to take the life of the patient, in some jurisdictions it is seen as being a criminal form of homicide. Some of the arguments are also based on religious beliefs. Many Christians believe that taking a life, for any reason, is interfering with God's plan and is comparable to murder. Although there are those who also think that God gave man the knowledge to make the drugs so they are “God given” and should be used to end pain and
Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many people believe that doctors should not prescribe any medication that ends a person’s life since it is considered to be against the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath states that doctors are professionally obliged to save lives. Some consider euthanasia to be immoral and others say that it is murder. Euthanasia should
Euthanasia is one of the most complex and morally critical health care practice and policy issues that doctors and nurses must face and advocate for (Gardner). Even though doctors and nurses must follow some sort of code of ethics, following those codes can be difficult for some because their personal feelings about end-of-life care come into play making it problematic for them to truly rationalize the situation. Doctors are required to take the Hippocratic Oath, which in relation to euthanasia, states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this
Euthanasia goes against the Hippocratic Oath doctors take at the beginning of their career and places them in an unsafe environment. Lynn Pasquerella, president of Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Massachusetts, who has a PhD in philosophy states, “ . . . health care providers are likely to experience ever-increasing moral distress over how to abide by the Hippocratic Oath’s
Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and
Some believe that euthanasia should be ethically viewed similarly to suicide because of the idea of choosing to end one’s own life, which is considered unethical. However, some oppose this belief, and believe