The Debate Concerning The Morality Of Euthanasia

Euthanasia, defined as the act of “putting a person to painless death especially in case of incurable suffering,” is a controversial subject surrounded by many moral dilemmas (Murkey, 2008). Although euthanasia is the overarching term used to describe the act itself, within it are three principal forms: voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary, each of which pertains to case specific issues. Following The Supreme Court’s recent decision deeming Canada’s controversial law against physician-assisted suicide unconstitutional, I will focus here on the morality of voluntary euthanasia (VE) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS), as well as the legal limitations to which their implementations shall be bound.

In life there are countless experiences a human being will go through. Experiences is the encounter that life is all about. Unfortunately, some of these experiences will involve terminally ill individuals. These people are or will be plagued with mental health issues, physical sickness, and rare diseases. It is at this stage that the practice of medicine and doctors in specified fields will play a vital role to serve humanity. It is also a point, where some will find pain and suffering intolerable and will call on doctors and love ones to assist them in euthanasia.

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.

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

Dr. Kevorkian is a physician in Michigan. He is a well-known physician, although to some, he is known for the wrong reasons. He is known to most for assisting in the suicide of those who ask for help in their deaths. He has assisted in the suicide of over 140 people. This essay will discuss the financial benefits of allowing physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, doctors’ opinions on euthanasia, the consequences of Dr. Kevorkian’s actions, and why assisted suicide is the right choice for terminally ill people. Euthanasia is the patients’ choice and should be made legal in the United States and Dr. Kevorkian should not be sent to prison.

The issue being discussed in this debate is whether the use of continuous deep sedation is a valuable treatment for patients close to death. The ethical discussion is how far a doctor goes to bring about a “good” death. Euthanasia bans are in all 50 states. Only 2 states have laws that allow physicians to prescribe lethal drugs but are not allowed to administer. In order to respect individual autonomy, the patient has the right to choose which medical interventions they do or do not want. Encouragement in choice is offered with education regarding the use of advance directives. Hospices began in 1970 and provided an option for people who did not want aggressive medical care. (Kaebnick, 2001) One of the drawbacks of hospice

Many of us will never have to consider the serious ethical dilemma of voluntary euthanasia. Is euthanasia murder or a justifiable suicide? Our approach and opinions to this sensitive ethical dilemma is sharply contrasted based in our convictions and ethics derived from our own personal worldview. I will evaluate and examine euthanasia’s ethical dilemma according to my Christian worldview and compare the moral rules, right or wrong, that many believe, allowing man to suffer is immoral.

I am studying nursing here at ORU. With nursing I could be faced with carrying out voluntary human euthanasia. Voluntary human euthanasia is when a person is terminally ill, who feels that their life is not worth living because of intractable pain, and/or loss of dignity and/or loss of capability, who repeatedly and actively asks for help in dying, who makes their decision freely, voluntarily and after due consideration (and is not suffering from treatable depression) (Swanton) and choose to be killed in a hospital setting by receiving a lethal dose of medication ending their life with dignity on their own terms so they are no longer suffering. This concept is also known as assisted suicide because I would be helping a person

Today I am here to talk about the controversial issue of euthanasia. This year, the Greens party has planned to introduce a ‘Rights of the Terminally Ill’ bill into state parliament. This has raised the issue of whether or not euthanasia should be legalised in Australia. Euthanasia is the practice of ending a person’s life in order to release them from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering. There are two types of euthanasia: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia occurs upon request and involuntary euthanasia refers to ending the life of a person who is not mentally competent, such as a comatose patient, or hastening the death of someone who

Euthanasia is a controversial topic. It involves helping someone sick end their life. I am really not sure how I feel about this. I have watched a family member be terminally ill and was with him until the wee hours of the morning the day he died. I honestly don’t know if euthanasia should have been an option in that situation.

There are two types of euthanasia. Passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is when a patient passes away without the help of any kind of medication or assistance. Active euthanasia is when an act is purposely made to end a person 's life whether it is through withdrawal of treatment or any other life ending options. Often times the treatment that the patient wants is not given to them but instead what the physician desires is chosen instead (Cawley 859).

The utilitarian theory focuses on the greatest happiness to all, so the utilitarian person would view euthanasia as a positive understanding because they would see it as a positive result for the suffering patient. For instance, if the patient would follow through with the euthanasia, it would increase happiness to the patient, so they would not feel pain no more, and decrease pain at the same time, then they would view it as morally correct, because its maximizing the “optimific outcome” for everyone.

The ethical issue is Euthanasia, there are many groups that support or oppose this issue. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The different viewpoints are based around whether it is humane to assist someone in dying and whether it should be illegal for someone to assist the death of someone who has a terminal illness and are suffering incurable pain. Groups that oppose the issue generally believe that it is inhumane to end someone 's life early, these groups generally believe these people should be given care and as much comfort as possible until their last days. Groups that support the issue generally believe that if someone has lost their mental state or are suffering unbearable pain that cannot be cured, that they should be allowed the option of euthanasia because it is inhumane to make someone suffer unbearable pain if they do not need to. An ethical issue brings systems of morality and principles into conflict, ethical issues are more subjective and opinionated and generally cannot be solved with facts, laws and truth. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because there are two equally unacceptable options. It is considered wrong

Euthanasia, or “good death,” refers to the practice of deliberately ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Euthanasia’s applications include physician-assisted suicide and mercy killing. Advocates claim that patients have the right to choose a quick, dignified death over a life of “suffering.” Suffering encompasses multiple descriptions, from terminal illness to congenital disorders, such as Down Syndrome—even though it is proven that people with such disorders can live a fulfilling life. In opposition to its proponents, Natural Law theorists consider euthanasia immoral.

Humans, like all animals, attempt to evade death. Though death is usually seen as an unwanted end, some see it as an alternative to suffering. Most people cringe at the thought of suicide, but is euthanasia the same thing? Do human beings have the right to choose death?