Phil 120 Dialogue Paper

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.

It is inhuman to continually allow a person to suffer when there is no chance of them improving. Even animals are put out of their misery when injured or sick beyond repair as to not prolong the suffering, humans should be allowed that same option. Long term pain can severely affect a person, sometimes causing the patient to be mad and hateful without meaning to . Giving a person a choice to end their life while they still hold on to the personality they have always had is not for the government but for the patient. A dying person should not be tortured in the process unless they choose to be. Terminating one's life to escape from excruciating pain is an excellent reason to legalize Euthanasia.

The right to die with dignity should be every person’s legal right in times when medical treatment does nothing but pro-long an individual’s suffering and ultimately fail to save their lives. There are many moral and ethical reasons why physician assisted suicide should be legalized however, there is also opposition to euthanasia.

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

Furthermore, the right to die, according to the book, Euthanasia, by Linda Jackson, is considered a basic human right. Medical professionals have claimed to have had their patients not wish to undergo the heaviness of sedation. Today, relationships between doctors and their patients have appeared to be more equal, instead of just relying on the doctor, when it comes to making decisions about the patient’s health (Jackson 30). Given these points, allowing euthanasia to terminally ill patients would give them the chance to choose to end their distress, which therefore allows the right to die and the right to decide which type of treatment the patient would receive.

The right to die should be available to those who are in serious pain and beyond the help of Doctors, Also people who have been diagnosed with terminal diseases such as cancer; some doctors even say people with serve depression should have to the right to doctor assisted suicide. People always question if it’s morally okay to even allow people to choose when they can die which is why major religious groups are against the idea of doctor assisted suicide mainly because they believe God has a certain time for you to go and you

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 defined as deliberately putting to death someone who is suffering from an incurable disease. The word ‘euthanasia’ has Greek roots, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia, the deliberate hastening of a person 's death, was supported by Socrates and Plato in ancient Greece and Rome. The Hemlock Society, a national right-to-die organization, likely took its name from the practice of using hemlock “as a means of hastening death” (S. Biswas). Should terminally ill patients be allowed to end their lives through euthanasia? Is it morally or ethically wrong to allow doctors to assist patients in killing themselves? What are the limits? Who sets the rules? Where has the value placed on human life gone? Euthanasia is morally and ethically wrong and

Terminally ill patients, who are mentally competent and have less than six months left to live, should have the right to choose how they will end their life. Active Euthanasia will eliminate any suffering and pain from that patient by ending the patient's life. Therefore, terminally ill patients, with less than six months to live, should have the right to exercise active euthanasia. Active euthanasia should be limited to a select few of patients who meet the requirement.

I’m sure just by the introduction of our topic that you already have a preconceived idea of this contentious topic. We are here to provide you with the facts, that people should not be left to suffer for extended periods of time. To be clear, we are speaking of legalising euthanasia in terms of medically diagnosed patients who are classified as terminally ill and are still competent enough to make this decision and fulfill the requirements according to the governing body.

The basics of euthanasia or “assisted suicide” is that terminally ill people who have taken a test to ensure they are in a sound state of mind should have the right to end their suffering with a quick virtually painless death. Opponents of this state that doctors have a moral and ethical responsibility to keep their patients alive and do to the best of their ability to get them well.

The word euthanasia has a Greek meaning “the good death". On the other hand, in the society today, there are deeper and more meanings to euthanasia than before. Voluntary euthanasia concerns itself with the consent of the person to die through the assistance of others. Voluntary euthanasia can be divided into two areas: passive voluntary witch is holding back medical treatment with the patient’s request, active voluntary killing the patient at that patient 's request informing the assistant on how they desire to die. As with everything there is supporters and non-supporters when it comes to legalizing euthanasia. Euthanasia has become legal in a few countries and states in the United States. The question is if dying human beings should be left to suffer horribly within their last few weeks, months, or even days on this earth if they prefer to be euthanized instead The answer is no. Yet, voluntary euthanasia should be legalized for terminally ill people

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.

Originating in Greece in the 1640's, euthanasia introduced a way to painlessly end a suffering person’s life. The Greek meaning of “eu” is ”good” and “thanatos” is ”death”, when combined it means “an easy or happy death”. Today we often mistake euthanasia with negative connotations such as mercy killings or permitted deaths, when it is in fact the suffering individual’s choice to end their life. Euthanasia is meant to give a terminally ill individual the choice of a peaceful death to avoid pain and suffering. Shouldn't everyone possess this right of a formal death or should patients with a terminal illness be forced to suffer? This has been a question of morality widely discussed for years among the medical field. Today euthanasia is only legal

The word euthanasia originates from Greek; eu meaning good/well and thanatosis meaning death. In other words, it means “Good Death, Gentle and Easy Death, and also known as mercy killing.” (A General History) In the old times there are different cases where euthanasia was practice towards incurable patients, mentally and physically ill persons, children and adults with disabilities, and many more, this practice was regarded as a way to protect the society from unnecessary burden, or as a way to 'save ' the person from the burden of existence. Today, many diseases have no cure, they cause suffering for the individual and suffering for the family. People should have the right to die if they are suffering from incurable diseases, therefore, euthanasia should be legalized. There are three main reasons as to why euthanasia should be acceptable.