Positive And Negative Aspects Of Euthanasia

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.

Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.

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.

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

In the debate over euthanasia, the opponent concludes that euthanasia should be illegal because it is goes against nature, dignity, personal-interests and has a practical effect. On the other side of the debate, the supporter concludes that euthanasia should be legal because moral principles, what it really mean to kill, end suffering, the difference between injury and not injury. In this essay I will conclude that euthanasia should be legal.

Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an

Euthanasia is a word that comes from ancient Greece and it refers to “good death”. In the modern societies euthanasia is defined as taking away people’s lives who suffer from an incurable disease. They usually go through this process by painlessness ways to avoid the greatest pains that occurs from the disease. A huge number of countries in the World are against euthanasia and any specific type of it. One of the most important things being discussed nowadays is whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. This essay will focus on comparing positive and negative aspects of euthanasia in order to answer to the question whether euthanasia should be legal or not.

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.

On May 6th 1997, Dr. Nancy Morrison was charged with the first-degree murder of Paul Mills by the means of non-voluntary active euthanasia. Paul Mills was a terminally ill patient who suffered from esophageal cancer. In October of 1996, Mr. Mills had undergone nine surgeries as the result of a post-surgical infection (Fisher, p. 262). As the infection progressed, a Do Not Resuscitate order was put in effect and his family made the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, which should consequently cause a natural death to occur, known as passive euthanasia (Fisher, p. 191). However, Mr. Mills did not then die as expected. His attending nurse Elizabeth Bland-MacInnes described him as suffering and struggling to breathe. After being begged by Ms. Bland MacInnes to end the patient's suffering, Dr. Nancy Morrison injected Mr. Mills with nitroglycerin which should have decreased his blood pressure and as a result, decreased his suffering (Fisher, p. 262). However, this attempt failed and Dr. Morrison proceeded to inject the patient with potassium chloride, consequently ending Mr. Mills life. In acting upon the biomedical ethics principle of beneficence, Dr. Nancy Morrison’s decision to inject Paul Mills with potassium chloride is ethically justifiable.

Euthanasia and the closely related procedure, assisted suicide, are some of the most highly debated topics in ethics. Although the procedures are different in name, their definitions are quite similar. Euthanasia can be defined in two ways: passive or active. Passive euthanasia is defined as allowing the patient’s illness to kill them; refusing medical treatment. Active euthanasia, however, is defined as killing through lethal injection, which also happens to be known as assisted suicide. From the perspective of the deeply religious to those who just value the life of both themselves and others, euthanasia and assisted suicide are fancy terms for murder. From my perspective, euthanasia and assisted suicide are procedures that should only be allowed for those who are suffering from incurable and physically painful illnesses that incapacitate them to the point where they cannot properly function in society. What constitutes “proper function in society” will be discussed later on, but it plays a pivotal role in the decision that one makes to die or not. Now some may disagree and say that no matter the circumstance, one does not have the right to end their own life; this too will be discussed in further detail. This essay will focus on the aspects mentioned above and will provide the necessary answer to this debate between life and death.

Due to the concern of many incurable patients, it is rarely known that Euthanasia, a termination of one’s life with his/her self-willingness, is a release of permanent pain. On the other hand, it is committed by the doctors. Among Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary Euthanasia, only is Voluntary Euthanasia being universally concerned by human beings. Various fascinating facts, Australia has already approved this act and many people from other countries have also committed Euthanasia. Regarding this topic, people have been in many debates about whether performing Euthanasia. The majority of the debates is talking about in two areas of knowledge, Ethics and the Human Sciences. Some say Euthanasia is still a way of killing and more importantly, most of the doctors cannot manipulate their mental pressure after “murdering” the patients. Unlikely, some believe that Euthanasia helps the patients to quickly end their torture from the incurable illness. Therefore, I will address the concern of Euthanasia in the United States and also propose some possible solutions to the Department of Health in the United States. As a result, I support establishing Euthanasia into the United States’ constitution of the Department of Health.

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 is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.

Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the stronger argument.

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