Pros And Disadvantages Of Euthanasia

Thirdly, from the medical morality perspective, euthanasia is assisting suicide that violates the morals and values of the medical world. Current mindset of doctors is to heal their patients. They have the goal to fight to the end for the lives of their patients. But, if euthanasia is allowed, doctors will be put in a mindset which implies to only help patients if they measure up to a certain standard. Therefore, life is so devalued that it no longer deserves to be fought for until the end. This mentality that once life hits a certain point, it is a hopeless situation and should be brought to an end immediately sets the medical world in the pathway that leads to all types of immoralities.

To fully understand the issue at hand, one must understand the various forms of euthanasia. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals…in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient is relieved of medical treatment and is allowed to die naturally. Active euthanasia occurs when either a physician or a family member actively takes the life of the patient, perhaps through lethal injection, and eliminates a natural death process. Many people commonly use the word “euthanasia” to refer to assisted suicide. Essentially, assisted suicide is a form of active euthanasia in that a person, usually a physician, aids in the suicide of a patient.

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

Within the scope of euthanasia are passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient refuses access to medical care or treatments, as is allowed by their freedom to legally choose whatever treatment they wish to receive or withhold (Stoyles et al 683). However, their decision to withhold from receiving treatments may result in a hastening of their death. Passive euthanasia is legal in the United States (Stoyles et al 683). However active euthanasia is illegal and is often misconstrued as being identical to physician-assisted suicide. Despite similarities, they are different in technical terms. Both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the same intent and end result. However in euthanasia, the doctor is responsible for administering the lethal injection or other agent of death. In physician assisted suicide, the physician prescribes the patient a lethal injection which the patient will themselves administer (Boudreau et al 2). In both cases, the patient consents to the treatment, but only physician-assisted suicide is legal in certain states within the United States.

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 is a form of doctor assisted suicide. There are many different types of Euthanasia and all are currently illegal in the United States with the exception of the state of Oregon. When a patient is being Euthanized they can be given an injection intravenously which causes their death this is called Euthanasia by action. A person could also be assisted to death through euthanasia by omission; this is when the patient is not provided with the appropriate things such as food or water. Also patients can be given a medication that renders them into a deep sleep in which they are left to die, either through the progression of their illness or through starvation. The most important aspect of doctor assisted suicide is whether it is voluntary, involuntary or non voluntary. The difference between non voluntary and involuntary is that non voluntary is when the patient does not request to be euthanized but they are. Involuntary euthanization is when a person specifically asks that they not be euthanized and they are. Although euthanasia is illegal some forms of it are still regularly practiced in today’s healthcare system.

On the medical side there is questions to be answered. Like, is it ethical to take someone 's life even when they asked you repeatedly? A doctor takes the Hippocratic Oath to best treat their patient 's life. The question is, should we release them from suffering or continue in trying to help the individual during their time on earth? In the article "A problem for the idea of involuntary euthanasia", Neil Campbell analyzes ethnic and moral question of involuntary, voluntary and furthermore the restraints of physician assisted suicide. Campbell believes involuntary euthanasia may not exist because, "When a person asks to die under such conditions there is good reason to think that the decision to die is compelled by the pain and hence not freely chosen" (Campbell, 242) Is that request what the patient wants, or is it to end the pain? Another point to examine is their quality of the person 's life. Has their life disintegrated to the

Obviously, suicide or any form of it is very negative. Quite possibly, the largest controversy on the case of euthanasia comes from the appearance that this is authorizing murder. As well as several countless religions that straightforwardly do not consider any kind of suicide. Another dispute on the subject could be doctor mismanagement. In an article titled, "Euthanasia Pros And Con List” by OccupyTherapy the anonymous writer says, “It might be a way for incompetent doctors to get away with pure stupidity, and in other cases, it can mean doctors can get away with murder, by saying it was the patient’s choice, and since the patient won’t be there to defend himself.” This has turned into a progressively dicey topic for many people across the

According to Webster’s dictionary the term euthanasia Is defined as, “ the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering.” Now then there are two primary types of euthanasia according to Rachel’s. We have Passive Euthanasia in which the physician does nothing to bring about the death of the patient. By this physician doing nothing, ceasing treatment, the patient dies of the illness he already was diagnosed with. The patient dies of natural causes. The doctor is therefore letting the patient die. Then we have Active Euthanasia were the physician does something to bring about the death of the patient. The physician gives the terminally ill patient a lethal injection therefore now making the doctor the

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

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.

It’s important to start by understanding the different types of euthanasia. Allowing someone to die is, “Forgoing or withdrawing medical treatment that offers no hope of benefit to the total well-being of the patient, or that imposes

Euthanasia is the killing of a patient who is painfully suffering with the help of a doctor. The classifications of euthanasia are voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is the consent of the patient and involuntary is the consent by another person because the patient is unable to do it themselves. There are also two procedures known as passive and active. Passive euthanasia is when the doctor stops doing something that will keep the patient alive. Active euthanasia is when the doctor does something that will cause the patient to die. Many people believe that passive is more acceptable than active. Active is more a controversial issue due to religious and ethical beliefs. Euthanasia passive and active should be legal everywhere because it gives the patient the right to choose, give them dignity, does not harm others, and helps stop their suffering.

First of all, what is euthanasia? It is something that not many people think about until they or a friend or family member is put in a position where they might actually have to consider it. Euthanasia, in the dictionary, simply is: the action of ending someone’s life in a painless way. It seems pretty simple but in reality it is a lot more complicated, not only for the people involved but for the society in general as well.

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.