Why Is Euthanasia Morally Wrong

Euthanasia refers to the intentional bringing about of the death of a patient, either by killing him/her, or by letting him/her die, for the patient's sake to prevent further pain or suffering from a terminal illness. Euthanasia is a complex issue in many underlying theological, sociological, moral, and legal aspects. Its legalization is heavily debated around the world, with strong arguments made for both sides of the issue. The supporters of euthanasia often repeated that "We have to respect the freedom of the patient" or "people should be able to exercise control over their own lives and death." However, Euthanasia, by nature, is "wrongfully killing" or "mercy killing", and if we allow any type of euthanasia, all sorts of negative

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

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.

Euthanasia should be considered in all aspects of the medical field because people need to be in charge of their lives, statements from critics, and the serious evaluation process when chosen. Euthanasia can reserve all rights towards an individual’s choice towards death or not, because it is the person who has to endure and agonize through the incurable illness. An individual’s perspective on a situation is through their eyes and no one else, that is why euthanasia produces the choice of being alive or

According to Linda Jackson in Euthanasia, a total of 42 people in Oregon had passed away due to physician-assisted suicide. This fact proves the efficiency of euthanasia to be successful in helping to relieve the terminally ill of their excruciating pain. Additionally, suicide is in fact legal in the states within Australia, so there are a vast amount of states that do allow suicide, however, they do not allow assisted suicide, which are very similar. Many states have opposed to euthanasia due to religious issues and the argument that euthanasia goes against the doctor’s oath to swear to do their best for the patient and commit no harm (Jackson 5). In contrast, euthanasia is not the only operation that would go against what is known as the Hippocratic Oath because in the original Oath, it also had prohibited abortions, surgery, and charging teaching fees, in which, in certain situations, are all allowed today. Being so, the argument stating that doctors are going against the Oath all because of euthanasia is invalid (Jackson 31). Christian attitudes and other major religions of the world pose a problem as well due to the issue of suicide being considered as a sin.

Opposing viewpoints argue that human euthanasia is inhumane and unethical to patients and the doctors responsible. Many doctors feel that physician assisted suicide stands against everything they stand for. Physicians feel that they have a responsibility to treat patients not murder them. This viewpoint is concerned incorrect to those whom support the Right to Die movement because a doctor's first responsibility to a patient is not only to heal but as quoted in the Hippocratic Oath is to,"First do no harm” which includes allowing an individual to suffering in longing

Many people have different opinions on the debate of legalizing Euthanasia or Physician- assisted suicide. “The term assisted suicide has several different interpretations. Perhaps the most widely used and accepted is "the intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a doctor, relative, or another person". Some people will insist that something along the lines of "in order relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering" needs to be added to the meaning, “(2) The major debate on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are: the slippery slope to legalized murder, the right to die, and the Hippocratic oath and prohibition of killing. “Proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a quick, dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the right to die is protected by the same constitutional safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage, procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment.” (1) I

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are great evils in our society that sets a dangerous moral precedent that affects people of all ages and conditions. According to the 2017 USCCB article, “Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: From Voluntary to Involuntary”, euthanasia is defined as, “[the] direct killing of patients by doctors” and physician-assisted suicide is defined as, “providing lethal drugs so patients can take their own lives.” There is a quintessential distinction that needs to be made in order to understand the gravity of the issue at hand. “Deeply embedded in our moral and medical traditions is the distinction between allowing to die, on the one hand, and killing, on the other” (Arkes, Berke, Bradley, et al.). This moral distinction lays the foundation for the argument against the immoral practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are practices that should never be used, regardless of the condition of

A patient is suffering from lung cancer which has developed into its late stages and the patient's health is very critical. The patient suddenly requests to be given euthanasia or help assist suicide to end the suffering. But the physician denies the patient's request due to being illegal in the state. This violates the patient's right to determine if they want physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia. A well known philosopher, John Locke, once said, "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." A person is given their natural rights since they were born and no one has any right to take them away. The patient has the right to request euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide if

Euthanasia is defined as a gentle and easy death. This term is used for people who want to end their own lives peacefully. There are two types of euthanasia. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician kills the patient by means of drugs. The other type is passive euthanasia. This process occurs when a physician holds water, food, and drugs from the patient. The argument whether humans should help other human beings die due to sickness, old age, disabilities, and even the lack of motivation to live has been an issue since ancient times. Although, this topic has made headlines in recent years (Pickert). Countries have begun to make it legal, and some states such as Oregon have made it legal to have the “right to die” since 1997 (“State-by-state Guide to Physician Assisted Suicide”). Should euthanasia be legal in the United States as a federal law? Euthanasia is ethically and morally wrong because humans would be playing the role of God, physicians would disown the Hippocratic oath, it is against most religions, and it would lead down a slippery slope to where euthanasia becomes a cheap “treatment” for the sick.

Warren believes that failure to meet any of her criteria means that killing the person who fails the five point personhood test is not morally wrong, regardless of how or why someone would choose to do so. I find an objection to Warren’s view because it is absurd and it could lead to controversial actions on behalf of her view’s followers. In most, if not all cases, of nonvoluntary active euthanasia the doctor who performs the euthanasia is charged with murder. This is because almost every country in the world has made nonvoluntary active euthanasia, where a patient wishes not to die but is euthanized anyway, illegal. Despite that, there could be cases in Warren’s view that would make it so the act of nonvoluntary active euthanasia is not morally wrong, and the results of her view could be very controversial. One case is where a patient is found to be in a coma or a persistent vegetative state (PVS) and they wish not to die. When a person is in one of these states they meet none the criteria put forth by Warren, and in her view this would make it morally acceptable to actively euthanize this patient. Not only that, but because the patients are not members of the moral community there is no wrong in killing them, and even worse, any way of actively euthanizing them is acceptable. Therefore, her extreme view can cause those who believe her views to think in the same way. Adopting Warren’s view on nonvoluntary euthanasia could end badly if the person decides to act on it. An

According to the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of ‘liberty,’ “The decision how and when to die is one of the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, a choice central to personal dignity and autonomy.” ( Thiroux & Krasemann, p.184). This law protects the right of the terminally ill patients to receive lethal amounts of medications, so they can die on their own terms however best suited. Morally utilitarian believes in making life better for someone by improving the good things that would reduce pain and creates happiness. Will had a previous experience with his mother suffering from the same disease pattern of cancer. I have worked on the medical unit before the oncology wing was implemented and I have cared for many

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

According to Webster’s Dictionary, Euthanasia is “conceding painless death to a patient who is considered to be hopelessly ill, because of a non-curable disease”. The term is used to refer to the act of deliberately taking the life of a sick person, especially those who are sick from terminal illnesses. Patients in this category are normally those who are nearing their death from a persistent terminal illness and medicine does not to have much effect on them. Different scholars hold different opinions on whether to legalize the practice. Some stage a very strong that attempt to justify euthanasia. They argue that it is a common practice in the US and that it serves to end a person’s suffering and save the family members a lot of emotional

Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, has been a controversial issue for many years. It usually involves ending a patient’s life early to relieve their illness. Most of the controversy stemmed from personal values like ethics or religion. The euthanasia debate puts a huge emphasis on what doctors should do for their patients and how much a person’s life is worth. Supporters of euthanasia primarily focus on cost and pain alleviation. Opponents of euthanasia tend to focus on morality. Whether euthanasia is legal or not could significantly affect future generations’ attitudes about death. Euthanasia should be legalized nationally because it helps patients that could be in unimaginable pain, offers more options for more people, and it is relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives.