Pros And Disadvantages Of Euthanasia

Euthanasia refers to the intentional bringing about of the death of a patient, either by killing him/her, or by letting him/her die, for the patient's sake to prevent further pain or suffering from a terminal illness. Euthanasia is a complex issue in many underlying theological, sociological, moral, and legal aspects. Its legalization is heavily debated around the world, with strong arguments made for both sides of the issue. The supporters of euthanasia often repeated that "We have to respect the freedom of the patient" or "people should be able to exercise control over their own lives and death." However, Euthanasia, by nature, is "wrongfully killing" or "mercy killing", and if we allow any type of euthanasia, all sorts of negative

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.

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.

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.

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.

Conclusion: Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is a very complicated topic to discuss with heavy roots in past traditions and religious beliefs. The debate in the U.S. is still ongoing. These issues will most likely be a topic of discussion for a very long time due to the ethical and moral standpoints, and we will see what the next years bring in relation to the advancements or halts of their

Firstly, people who choose to end their life due to a terminal illness are freeing hospital beds and resources for other patients who have a chance of getting better, or wish to continue living. Such resources can be used to research the disease which the terminally ill patient was suffering from, which can be to the benefit of future patients with that disease. Most importantly, euthanasia relieves the patient from a slow, painful death, depending on their illness. Although pain medications can be used to ease the pain the patients are experiencing, most of these medications have unpleasant side effects. Someone who wishes to be relieved of their life due to a life crippling illness should be granted their wish and should not have to suffer further. With this in mind, euthanasia is a procedure which should be offered to

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

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.

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

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.

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.