Pros And Cons Of Voluntary Active Euthanasia

The issues of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) are both emotional and controversial. Some argue PAS is ethically permissible for a dying person who has chosen to escape unbearable suffering at the end of life; it is the physician’s duty to alleviate the patient’s suffering and justifies aid-in-dying. These arguments rely on the respect for individual autonomy. “Individual autonomy is an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one's own person, to live one's life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one's own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces.” (STANDFORD REF)

People base euthanasia and physician assisted suicide on a moral and legal stand point. A health care physicians obligation is to provide support to their patients and to the families throughout treatment and death. Autonomous individuals should be free to decide their own fate when an important life choice concerns a private matter, and when the individual making that choice is near death and suffering without relief, then the state should not interfere unless it can prove that interference is necessary to protect vulnerable third parties (Schafer). People should have the right to request that their life be terminated through medical methods.

In today’s modern society, to prohibit a law or practice takes greater effort and stronger argument than permitting a law or practice. In result of this, the rights and liberty of an individual are very important and would require captivating reasons to overrule it. Since the decision to choose for physician assisted suicide or euthanasia is extremely personal, the famous “innocent until proven guilty” is to be stressed to a great extent when dealing with this topic on debate terms. An individual has a basic right to determine the course of

The main objective of this chapter is to highlight the predominant arguments in favour and against assisted dying. The analysis of these arguments and the provision of an extensive list of safeguards that would be included with the legalisation of assisted dying support the overarching argument that a liberal society must uphold the right to individual autonomy. And therefore, as long as strict safeguards are in place must allow suffering individuals the choice to end their

It is mostly debated that as an expression of autonomy i.e. one’s right to make independent choices without any external influences, a competent adult can refuse medical treatment, even in situations where this could result in his/her death. However, when it comes to actively ending a life via euthanasia it becomes an extensively debate regarding the rights of an individual to make that choice. The article “A Doctor-Assisted Disaster for Medicine” loosely examines the negative implications of assisted suicide laws on patients. Toffler’s article sheds light upon how the law has changed the relationship between patients and their medical provider.

Pressing for families and their loved ones, an act to be decided for somebody suffering from pain – physician-assisted suicide is a touchy subject for many. In cases where the intolerable suffering can be judged by the patient, physicians should extend their hands to initiate euthanasia through ethical means. I would say that it can be justified when terminal illnesses restrict the patient in a hospital bed with only the plug binding themselves to their bodies. I would say that it can be justified when the hastened death of somebody would benefit others, when the burden of a human, so sick, carries onto others. It is a fact that a life support program for somebody without the will to live can cost thousands of dollars, in contrast to the smaller

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.

Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.

The issues surrounding assisted suicide are multifaceted. One could argue the practice of assisted suicide can appear to be a sensible response to genuine human suffering. Allowing health care professionals to carry out these actions may seem appropriate, in many cases, when the decision undoubtedly promotes the patient's autonomy. From this viewpoint, the distinctions made between assisted suicide and the withholding of life-sustaining measures appears artificial and tough to sustain. In many cases, the purpose and consequences of these practices are equivalent. On the contrary, if

Today, voluntary euthanasia is getting closer to being legalized in more than just one state in the United States. “‘Voluntary’ euthanasia means that the act of putting the person to death is the end result of the person’s own free will” (Bender 19). “ Voluntary euthanasia is an area worthy of our serious consideration, since it would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose death rather than continue suffering” (Bender 19). The question of whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be legalized is a major debate that has been around for years. Because the issue of whether people should have the right to choose how they want to live or die is so complex. With the advances in technology today we have made

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

Firstly, one of the main arguments for euthanasia is autonomy and patients’ rights to make their own decisions.

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.

The European Convention on Human Rights protects the value of life and upholding individual's right to life. However, this core value creates difficulties for the right of self-determination, this is because the right to life constricts a person's right to make autonomous decisions about his/her life (Tiensuu, 2015, p251). Which results in a paradox for the rights based argument the convention is primarily based on. The idea behind having a ‘right’ is that one can waive this right, if one wished. Therefore, with assisted dying one is making a request to waive his/hers right to life, and this should be respected (Singer, 1993, p195). A democratic government, as discussed in Chapter One, should protect all liberties; this includes the liberty to make decisions about the end of your life. Until 1961, committing suicide in England and Wales was considered a criminal act. The decriminalisation of suicide is used by supporters of euthanasia as a tool to highlight the inconsistencies and discriminatory nature of the legal system. If an individual is unable to take his own life, due to an illness or disability, and is assisted this constitutes as a criminal