Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia

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.

Radical assumptions have been made on whether or not physician-assisted death should be legalized in the United States because of its citizens’ uncertainty about this delicate subject. Physician-assisted suicide is the method by which an individual is provided with the drugs or equipment needed to commit suicide. The terms “aid in dying” or “death with dignity” are preferred over “suicide” due to their distinction from "suicide," where assisted or not, it remains illegal while “aid in dying” is permitted. This allows for the patient to have control over their life and have the right to be able to choose whether to live a life filled with tedious pain and/or suffering, or end their misery and be able to rest in peace.

Physician-assisted suicide is a prominent topic of discussion in the bioethical community. The main concerns of these discussions are the different types of euthanasia involved in physician-assisted suicide, as well as the legality of a physician’s right to aid in the death of a patient, and the patient’s right to choose death over life when there are no active treatments to forgo. The legalization of active physician-assisted suicide would coincide with a person’s right to self-determination, or autonomy, as well as a person’s right to their own well-being. However, there is concern that legalization would lead to abuse, and would also cause patients to feel pressured into choosing death. The arguments against active physician-assisted suicide are rooted more in hypothetical situation than fact and could be seen as blanket statements rather than cohesive thought. This topic has been unnecessarily broken down and analyzed to the point of exhaustion. After implementing specific guidelines for physicians to follow, the legalization of physician-assisted suicide would be plausible, ethical, and safe.

Imagine living with a terminal illness that causes immense pain and suffering. It’s likely that many of us have not given it much thought. It’s much easier to believe that it won’t happen to us. The reality, however, is that people are diagnosed with these terrible illnesses every day. So, what options do patients have? For many years’, members of the medical community have discussed the practice of physician assisted suicide. This would allow terminally ill patients, many of whom have cancer, to make the difficult decision to end their lives peacefully. Doctors are able to simply write their patient a prescription, designed to end a person’s life in a non-painful way. Doctors and medical personnel have struggled with this topic, exploring the various consequences and benefits that come with making assisted suicide legal. Currently, physician assisted suicide has been made legal across a handful of states in the U.S; however, many people continue to question the ethicality of this practice. There are many different arguments to explore for and against physician assisted suicide. Some believe that physician assisted suicide will lead to involuntary euthanasia, while others say patients should have the choice to live or die. While each individual conviction may seem vastly different, they do share something in common: Their concern for the well-being of others.

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS), refers to self-administration of medication prescribed to a patient by their physician to end his or her life, and euthanasia, the administering of lethal drugs by a physician to end a patient’s life (Lachman, 2015) are extremely controversial topics. For several decades, supporters for the legalization of PAS and euthanasia have served as advocates for terminally ill patients who wish to have an alternative to a long, drawn out, painful death. These supporters have argued that death with dignity should be an option for these patients based on the ethical principles of autonomy and self- determination. With PAS being legal in several European countries as well as several US states, this provocative

Physician assisted suicide is the process of ending one’s life with the administration of lethal injection with the assistance of a physician. Throughout the years, euthanasia has become a controversial topic, determining whether not it is ethical for a doctor to end a patient’s life. On one side of the argument, the negative term suicide creates this illusion of sin and many citizens believe that the task of ending one’s life should not be placed in the hands of a doctor. Doctors have a code that they must follow, promising to do as much as possible to save a life. But when there is nothing more a doctor could do, is physician assisted suicide wrong? Those who support euthanasia often state that this is a form of regaining control of a horrific situation, and with the assistance of their trusted doctor, they are able to die with dignity. Physician Assisted suicide should be the choice of the patient and not the state.

Throughout the course of history, advances in medical technology have prolonged the length of life and delayed death; however, terminal illnesses still exist and modern medicine is often unable to prevent death. Many people turn to a procedure known as Physician-Assisted suicide, a process by which a doctor aids in ending a terminally ill patient’s life. This procedure is painless and effective, allowing patients to control their death and alleviate unnecessary suffering. In spite of these benefits, Physician-Assisted suicide is illegal in many places both nationally and internationally. Despite the fact that Physician-Assisted suicide is opposed by many Americans and much of the world on ethical and moral grounds such as those based on

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, 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

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 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.

“Autonomy is the right of a person to control his or her own body and life decisions” (Manning 26). This is absolutely correct. Governments, groups, and various people can argue against autonomy forever. The simple fact is we have control over ourselves, whether people like it or not. It gives us an added responsibility to thoroughly think about what it is we do with our bodies. These are decisions for the individual. Many of us go through life trying to control everything that happens around us and, at times, situations that do not involve us. The one thing we can control is ourselves. Everyone passes judgment and often overlooks what is within. Nobody takes euthanasia more seriously than those considering it. The choice is not a split decision. This is something people deeply meditate upon before going through

The entire idea of human controlling life and death is seen as taboo; however, the choice should be that of the patients. If a patient is suffering from a terminal disease and wishes to end their life, what can be considered morally ethical to help them to be rid of their suffering. If their intentions are not evil, which is what hinders it morally unacceptable, and the patient is completely informed and has given full consent, then people should respect the decision of the said patient. If someone has put enough thought and research into wanting to receive assistance in a suicide rather than continuing suffering, for whatever the reason may be, and it is not harming anyone or anything, I believe that demonstrates responsibility and rationalization.

In cases where an individual's quality of life is irreparably diminished by terminal illness, one may seek to end their life with the help of a doctor. This has been a solution for patient suffering in neighboring countries, but there are ethical and legal issues that make it an impractical solution for American healthcare. Considering the results of negative potential of euthanasia practices exposes its flaws, and sheds light on better alternatives. Therefore active euthanasia, not to be confused with physician assisted suicide, should not be legalized in the United States.