Immanuel Kant Against Euthanasia

While many Americans assume “assisted suicide” or physician aid-in-dying (PAD) is unethical, they may not be fully aware of what it is and how it helps people. Imagine a loved one of yours was near the end of their life. The doctors predict only six months or less remain of their life and these next six months will consist of excruciating pain and will be almost too unbearable to comprehend. As the six months progress this person will lose the ability to eat. They will be forced to a diet of flaky ice chips which will put them in a state of relentless hunger making their body weaker and more painful than it had been before. They will also lose the ability to care for themselves and will find themselves relying on family members or complete strangers at times to care for their most private needs. After all this treatment, pain, embarrassment, and utter helplessness the patient will feel as if they have lost their dignity, they will feel as if they are a burden to everyone around them and will even become depressed in some cases. If the loved one lives in Washington State, Oregon, or Vermont they will then be faced with two options regarding the next six hypothetical months they can decide to take on the most unbearable six months of their life or they can resort to an alternative called “Death with Dignity” in which they will be administered a dose of medication from their physician that will take their life. The process is painless and can only be administered to patients

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

Euthanasia, as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is considered to be, “the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering” (2015).Within this can be found different methods of euthanasia including passive or indirect euthanasia which requires withholding of basic life-saving measures such as oxygen, nutrition, hydration, or resuscitation. Another form is direct euthanasia which can be caused by administered drugs, injections, or suffocation. In its entirety, euthanasia has been debated as an ethical issue through its many forms and reasoning (Methods of euthanasia, 2011).

Euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, is an important and controversial topic in our society today, and (under the correct conditions) should both be considered legal and morally acceptable. In fact, throughout history euthanasia has been a debate in many countries, some areas accepting the practice, whereas others find it unacceptable. Many people and professionals continue to refer to the Hippocratic Oath, an vow stating the proper conduct for doctors, and it's famous words "Do no harm." However, when it comes down to whatever holds people back, whether it is their views on religion or oaths from many years ago, it should be considered a correct practice. In fact, in the case of Vacco v. Quill, one point raised was that "Over time, the Hippocratic Oath has been changed, and deleted. In order to "do-no-harm" one would end suffering instead of prolonging it." With the use of Supreme Court cases, and professional psychologist and medical quotations, one can see the clear reasons that this topic must be allowed. In the end, euthanasia should definitely be considered correct both legally and morally due to one's legal rights, sensible ethical values, and the multiple positive benefits upon the legalization of euthanasia.

In the past, people with terminal diagnoses did not have much time to live. This has changed, but not every terminally ill patient is living a life that they consider to be dignified and free from excruciating pain. Physician-assisted suicide, some people argue, gives people a chance to reject long, drawn-out suffering. It is argued that even though we have the ability to feed someone in a persistent vegetative state for thirty years through a feeding tube, this may not be what every person would want. Some people believe it is unfair to force the technology upon someone and essentially punish them for being alive today instead of in the early 1900’s. Another argument in favor of the practice uses the idea of personal autonomy to claim that people have the right to live, and die, according to their own conception of a good life (as long as they are not harming other people). If the practice is illegal, some argue, it prohibits our freedom to make our own choices about our own lives. However, there are a variety of religious arguments that can be made against physician-assisted suicide, which relate to the nature of suicide itself, but since the Bible (or any other religious text) is not a part of this project or revered as a reliable resource, the

There are several reasons why physician-assisted suicide is such an ongoing argument between people in this day and age. Whether they want it legalized or don’t want anything to do with it, it’s safe to assume that this topic is rather controversial in our society. In the debate titled “Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Unethical and Dangerous” written by Ira Byock at the New York Times, he states, “Legalizing assisted suicide fixes nothing. The principle that doctors must not kill patients stands. Two moral wrongs don’t make a right” (Byock, 2015). Some may agree with Byock, but others truly believe that the patient should be able to make a choice about their end-of-life treatment and no one else should be able to tell them otherwise.

Physician aid-in-dying (PAD) also known as Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is a widely debated ethical issue that surrounds the American court system (Starks, Dudzinski & White, 2013, p.1). PAD “refers to [the] practice in which a physician provides a competent, terminally ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient's request, which the patient intends to use to end his or her own life” (Starks et al., 2013, p.1). Physician aid-in-dying is legal only in three of fifty states: Oregon, Washington and Vermont. It is permissible under “strict patient eligibility criteria” and mental and emotional competence (Starks, et al., 2013, p.1).

With such a controversial topic comes the religious view. The reason most people are against assisted suicide is because it’s against their religion. Some people do believe that even though it’s against their religion, it’s in the best interest for those with terminal illness. According to Religion and Spirituality, the Death With Dignity Act allows the dying to ask themselves the question “What is the meaning of my life?” For most this is a spiritual question and the answer only comes when one is at peace. Not many religions have embraced the Death with Dignity Act as compassion, most are against it because they see it as morally wrong. Baptists have adopted the policy “To advocate within the medical community, for increased emphasis on the

People who are against legalizing assisted suicide claim that any physician who helps a person to die would be violating the doctor 's Hippocratic oath. They also claim assisted suicide decreases the value of human life, and could lead to non-critical patient to abuse of this method. There are a number of religions that believe that if a person decides to commit suicide, they will end up in hell. This is one of the major reasons why many religious

Major religions, such as Christianity and Islam, condemn this practice, as they believe that life is precious and should be preserved (“Introduction”). Along the same lines, the Hippocratic Oath, an oath all physicians take, states, “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan,” (“Assisted”). There has been some speculation, however, that this line does not refer to assisted suicide. This is because, in Hippocrates’ time, assisted suicide was very common. These beliefs against this practice would sentence a terminally ill patient to a life of unbearable, agonizing pain. These patients would also be prescribed treatments to prolong their life, but that would only result in a longer period filled with pain. If not physical pain, then emotional pain as they wouldn’t be able to do the things they love. This could all be easily rectified with the legalization of assisted suicide. In the words of Michael Scott, “You’re not living, you’re surviving.” (Scott)

Despite religious groups disapproval of physician assisted suicide, some patients may suffer emotional distress due to their physical state. A reason many people may disagree on assisted suicide is that people’s religious beliefs are against the practice. Religious institutions believe an individual should not commit suicide, instead they need to die as a result of their illness. Roman

Assisted suicide has been an issue for many decades. There are views of it being considered murder and against God’s will but there are also views of it being a sympathetic release from life. The debating of this topic has not come to any concrete resolution about the legality of the practice. Assisted suicide should be legal even though the act of killing is involved. It provides the escape from life that the person wants and does not harm anyone else in the process. The views on this issue when debating have been outdated for far too long.

Euthanasia has been around for many generations. However it has often been questioned whether or not a patient whom has no hope of recovery has the right to decide when and how to end their life. Euthanasia is often defined as ‘the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering’ (NHS choices , 2014). Euthanasia is also described as Mercy killing, however Mercy killing is occasionally defined as allowing someone to die, by withholding extreme medical measures (Dictionary.com, 2015 ). Euthanasia is a very complex issue and has been a controversial issue for a long time, dating back to the time when ancient romans and Greeks supported euthanasia and its practice after the Hippocratic

Euthanasia is one of the most controversial topics in modern society, and every human being has a different view on it according to their culture, their nation's

The legalization of euthanasia has always been a highly debatable topic since it causes philosophical, religious, moral and ethical controversy where some people believe it reduces our respect for the value of human life and it will be a gateway for other immoral actions to be normalized even though it is a basic human right that patients all over the world are denied to this day.