Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia

People, are incensed because in Muslim beliefs one is not allowed to commit suicide, which also applies to Christianity. (Source I). Several Journalists have also stated against euthanasia because they believe that life is truthfully sanctified and that “God” created life, so one cannot choose to die. (Source A). The Hippocratic oath as well specifically reads that doctors or physicians are not sanctioned to kill patients. (Source M). Even though many people are against euthanasia the citizens still want options for the end of their own life. (Source C). If the alternatives are inadequate and regulated the agony of the patients does not go away; numerous places have already legalized euthanasia, such as the Netherlands in 2002 being the first. Similarly, Japan’s Shintoists believe that people and patients should be sanctioned to die if they request for it. (Source C). In the Netherlands, 85 percent of the doctors will and can also consider facilitating patients and people in death. (Source B). Even though the Hippocratic oath states that doctors are not to kill their patients, there are two main forms of euthanasia- passive and active. (Source C). The two central forms of euthanasia do not go against regulations because subsequently those doctors have to be in accordance with the patients and people. (Source C).

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.

The Catholic Church has addressed the issue of euthanasia, and is strongly against the practice. This is evident in the teachings of the church, and through the Catechisms of the Catholic Church. They define euthanasia as, “an act or omission which, of itself or by

Giving someone the right to die has been debated on both moral and religious grounds. Many believe that people have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies. The opposition to this argument is that as a society, humanity should work to preserve all life. Those against assisted suicide also believe that if it is legalized, the service would be abused and people would be trapped, unable to change their minds after deciding to die and possibly being unable to express their thoughts. Religion, Catholicism in particular has a strong view opposing physician-assisted suicide. Pope Francis has stated that he views euthanasia as a part of today’s, “throw-away culture,” that it puts social pressure on the elderly and sick to die and stop draining their families as stated by The Telegraph. Catholicism also views assisted suicide as a sin against God and creation, as publicly stated by Pope

Again, in the words of Girsh; “It should be as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent” (Girsh). In response to this argument, and perhaps the best reason for Catholics to support the church, is the fact that physician assisted suicide is a slippery slope to legalized murder — that the intent to kill is of utmost importance in the matter, and the moral repercussions of killing someone are irreversible (Harriss). In other words, physician assisted suicide inevitably leads to a culture of death. This claim is supported by the current state of healthcare in the Netherlands, where “Studies show that hospice-style palliative care 'is virtually unknown’” (Smith). Additionally, as a final note, it may be important to note that one of the problem with physician assisted suicide for Catholics is one of control; people want to end their own lives to be in control, but in reality, that control is supposed to be left to

As a result of this, many Catholics agree with the Catholic Church’s views on the topic of euthanasia in accordance with their faith. However, as the right of any human, a person can gather their own opinions on certain subjects, and there is also a presence of Catholics who are in favour of euthanasia. As with any human being, our decisions are based upon our moral beliefs and conscience, and this is likewise with Catholics. As stated in the Catechism, a person’s conscience is a very personal and important thing, and is also considered to be God’s voice acting within a person. Although contradictory to the Catholic Church’s teachings about euthanasia, there are also Catholics who approve and encourage euthanasia due to their

During World War II many horrible events took place such as the Holocaust but there are many more specific projects or events that happened such as the Euthanasia Project or otherwise known as Project Aktion T4. The Euthanasia Project was a program of mass murder that took place even the before the actual events of the Holocaust. Hitler had the objective to eliminate those who don’t contribute to the perfect society that he wanted. That included any adults with any minor or major disabilities along with children under any kind of illness. The Euthanasia Project had positives in the sense that at the time in the eyes of Germany or Hitler these were considered positives. But at the same time this project had its flaws that led to the ultimate

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.

The controversy of a doctor assisting their patient who is already dying, end their life sooner to save them from continuous unnecessary pain and agony has been the topic of controversy for years. The practice of euthanasia is in my opinion a mercy and should not be banned because in reality it doesn’t physically hurt anyone. You could say it hurts the patient but then again that patient is already in tremendous pain or in an incapacitated state of no recovery, as in paralyzed or brain damage etc., so in reality it would actually help them by assisting ending their pain by assisted suicide. A doctors job is also always help their patients and the practice of assisted suicide in many ways is actually helping the person. However there has and probably always will be people who do not agree with the idea of a dying person end their life for sooner than nature had intended. This demographic would suggest that by dying by your own hand or assisted by a physician for medical reasons is still considered plain suicide. And for the religious people it is a sin by their beliefs. The people could also argue that it is not a person’s right to make that decision.

I believe that Euthanasia should be accepted in the Catholic church, the church says that God made us in his image and he has the right

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

It has been noted that in places where active euthanasia or assisted suicide has been approved, psychiatric evaluation is not required. This has caused the deaths of some depressed and or mentally ill patients who would have wanted to live if had they received appropriate treatment. (Minnesota CItizens for concerned life) Euthanasia gives way to pressure, elder abuse and coercion. “38.6 percent of patients committing suicide in Oregon have expressed concern about being a "burden" on others. And prescribing physicians are generally not present at the time of death” (Minnesota Citezens for Concerned Life) According to the National Institute of Mental Health, "More than 50 research studies worldwide have found that certain types of news coverage

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.

Euthanasia, good or bad? In this following article I will be exploring euthanasia in more detail, the different Christian points of view, the strengths and weaknesses of the euthanasia argument and finally my point of view on euthanasia and why I believe this.