Should Euthanasia Be Morally Permissible

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

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.

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.

(Young, 1996) Euthanasia has been the subject of both moral, religious, philosophical, legal and human right’s arguments for a number of years. In the modern day usage, euthanasia has come to imply that someone’s life is ended for compassionate reasons by passive or active steps taken by another person.

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.

Taking the perspective of a physician in this case the first ethical ramification to be considered in regards to this new law is what exactly would qualify a patient to choose euthanasia, furthermore, under what circumstances would providing a patient with assistance to end their life be considered unethical. The team relationship between the specialty care team and the family or support system requires them to share common goals, among them is the loyalty and concern for the patient (Purtilo and Doherty, pg. 293). By allowing a patient to make this choice, no matter how thorough the discussion pre-euthanasia has been, it could be potentially disloyal, or portrayed as a physician giving up on providing quality care for their patient, in turn being unethical in their role as a member of the care team.

This essay will aim to focus on the arguments that author, James Rachel’s presents in his article, Active and Passive Euthanasia,” In his article Rachel’s argues that both passive and active euthanasia are morally permissible and the doctors that is supported by the American Medical Association(AMA) is believed to be unsound. In this paper I will offer a thorough analysis of Rachel’s essay then so offer a critique in opposition of his arguments. In conclusion I will refute these oppositions claims by defending Rachel’s argument, and showing why I believe his claims that both active and passive euthanasia are morally permissible, to be effective.

Euthanasia, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, legal and human rights debate in Australia. Broadly speaking, this term is used to describe the termination of a person’s life to end their suffering, usually through the administration of drugs. The core of this debate is centred on how to mitigate and pacify competing values; an individual's desire to self autonomy and freedom and choice to die with dignity when suffering, alongside with the devaluation of human life as a consequence that is formed through the legalisation of euthanasia. Due to the nature of the topic of euthanasia that is shrouded with ethical controversy and ambiguity, there is difficulty in legal justification and establishment of voluntary

The ethical issue is Euthanasia, there are many groups that support or oppose this issue. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The different viewpoints are based around whether it is humane to assist someone in dying and whether it should be illegal for someone to assist the death of someone who has a terminal illness and are suffering incurable pain. Groups that oppose the issue generally believe that it is inhumane to end someone 's life early, these groups generally believe these people should be given care and as much comfort as possible until their last days. Groups that support the issue generally believe that if someone has lost their mental state or are suffering unbearable pain that cannot be cured, that they should be allowed the option of euthanasia because it is inhumane to make someone suffer unbearable pain if they do not need to. An ethical issue brings systems of morality and principles into conflict, ethical issues are more subjective and opinionated and generally cannot be solved with facts, laws and truth. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because there are two equally unacceptable options. It is considered wrong

In today’s society we are constantly being presented with choices that require our judgement on whether we believe that choice is ethical or not. Most of these choices are not things that we will likely ever be confronted with, and yet we are compelled to judge the moral actions of others. Euthanasia has come to the fore-front of these moral and ethical issues. Euthanasia is defined as “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma” and is derived from the Greek words eu and thanatos, meaning “easy death”. There has been much controversy throughout history as to whether euthanasia should be legal or is ethical. In ancient times, doctors have two roles in society; to heal and to kill. Plato said “Mentally and physically ill persons should be left to death; they do not have the right to live” (New Zealand resource for life). This argument makes his beliefs on euthanasia very clear. However, Plato lived in a very non-theistic oriented society in which God was not seen as a personal being or entity. The existence of God as the one Creator changed many people’s views on whether or not they could consider mercy killing to be socially acceptable. Once the foundation of a God became established in society many people’s views changed as they now believed that only God had the right to give or take away life. Euthanasia is now illegal in most nations and is generally viewed as immoral and unethical. I personally find the

Euthanasia comes from Greek as good death or easy death, something that humans and animal wish for. Euthanize is a shoot vets give animals to put them asleep forever. People have been asking is it right or wrong to euthanize. Some say we should not, for how do we know that the animals want to be killed. Others say that we can use it as a way to control the population and to prevent overcrowding in animal shelters. A brief bio of euthanize in history and three pros and three cons of it.

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

The term euthanasia is used differently by most people. Personally, I use it to include all forms of assisted suicide. The question for most people is whether euthanasia can be morally justified. Many people consider this practice to be against all ethics. This is despite whether compassion was the motive or otherwise. There are many dynamics that are involved when a person requires it to alleviate extreme pain or a condition that is considered to be torture towards the person experiencing it. There is need for the act of assisted suicide to be morally justifiable to make it ethical. However, the major question is to whom the act is meant to justify morality to. Every case that requires euthanasia should be considered differently with its own tenets. The use of euthanasia is morally justifiable and is therefore ethically acceptable since the use requires the opinion of medical practitioners.

In current times we have made many technological advances that have boosted the medical productivity in hospitals. However, the rapid development of medicine is far from being a long term resolve for many health issues. We have a plethora of people whose quality of life is very low and has no chance of improving. During these situations allowing the person to end their life via euthanasia should be allowed. I will argue that Euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases because there are several moral justifications that argue for ending one’s life.