The Debate Of Active Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.

Euthanasia as defined by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is a quiet and easy death. One may wonder, is there such a thing as a quiet and easy death? This is one point that I will discuss in my paper, however the question that my paper will answer is; should active euthanasia be legalized? First, I will look at Philippa Foot's article on Euthanasia and discuss my opinions on it. Second, I will look at James Rachel's article on active and passive euthanasia and discuss why I agree with his argument. Finally, I will conclude by saying that while the legalizing of active euthanasia would benefit many people, it would hurt too many, thus I believe that it should not be legalized.

The idea of non-voluntary active euthanasia is not such a disaster, as euthanasia itself. The problem that comes into consideration is when and why it should be used. When euthanasia is non-voluntary and active, such as on a patient with dementia, the ethical decision comes into play if there are episodes of clarity and the patient has or has not mentioned what they want to do at the end of life situations. Principles of deontology suggest duty and obligation. A medical professional in such situations have an obligation to fulfill the patient 's wishes. The nature of their obligation does not sway based on what they personally think. Patients with dementia have some moments of clarity, but because their brains are still deteriorating, non-

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.

Active euthanasia is a subject that is raising a lot of concern in today’s society on whether or not it should be legalized and under what circumstances should it be allowed. This is a very tricky subject due to its ability to be misused and abused. There are a wide variety of things that need to be considered when it comes to who should be allowed to request active euthanasia such as, is it an autonomous choice, do they have a terminal illness, is their quality of life dramatically decreased, and are they in pain and suffering. Both James Rachel and Daniel Callahan have very different opinions on active euthanasia and whether or not it should be allowed. However both authors manage to provide a substantial argument on where they stand regarding active euthanasia.

When justifying medical procedures, it is important to acknowledge the difference between moral permissibility and legal permissibility. This difference is evident in the three medical procedures that end patient’s lives: physician-assisted suicide (PAS), voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) and passive euthanasia. PAS is when a physician intentionally and knowingly prescribes lethal drugs to a patient intending to commit suicide. VAE is when a physician administers a lethal injection to kill a voluntary, informed patient upon request. Passive euthanasia is when a physician withholds treatment and leaves the patient to die. It is commonly thought for passive euthanasia to be ethically permissible, but not for PAS and VAE. This is because it is never permissible for a physician to take direct action to kill the patient. Although in both PAS and VAE, physicians play an active role in bringing about the death of a patient, the patient ultimately kills himself in PAS and the physician ultimately kills the patient in VAE. Regarding moral permissibility, I find that humaneness of treatment and compatibility with physicians’ moral obligations provide convincing arguments for accepting PAS and VAE as moral medical practices. However, the difference in patient’s self-determination makes PAS a more morally justifiable medical practice. Furthermore, the difference in the ultimate causal agent of death creates legal complications and greater possibility for abuse for VAE. Thus, I also

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.

The counter arguments to active euthanasia include: all playing God is wrong, killing is always worse than letting someone die, the slippery slope argument, and all destroying of Gods property is wrong. The argument that all playing of God is wrong is not a very strong argument. There are a lot of counter examples one includes capital punishment. Capital punishment is the killing of a person for doing a serious crime. If all acts of playing God are wrong then why is it okay for people the kill a person with the death penalty? The majority of states in America still has the death penalty and still argues that all playing of God is wrong. If all playing of God is wrong, then how come it is okay is some instances but not in others. Another counter

The legalization of euthanasia has always been a highly debatable topic since it causes philosophical, religious, moral and ethical controversy where some people believe it reduces our respect for the value of human life and it will be a gateway for other immoral actions to be normalized even though it is a basic human right that patients all over the world are denied to this day.

Euthanasia has been a hugely controversial topic over the past decade. Everyone in society has distinct opinions regarding this procedure. Euthanasia is the act of a physician ending a patient’s life by simply not giving them the proper treatment to survive, or injecting lethal substances in their body. Some believe this act is wrong in every way possible, while others believe this procedure can end the suffering of ill individuals who are dying slowly. Euthanasia is morally, socially, and religiously incorrect. It is incredulous that physicians agree to basically kill a human being. It is unethical for physicians to even agree on participating in this act. Euthanasia should be banned, life takes its own course and it should end naturally, not with “help” from physicians.

Euthanasia is the act of ending a patient’s life to alleviate suffering from intolerable and incurable pain. In this essay, I intend to discuss the reasons why active euthanasia is morally permissible in some situations, as well as evaluate some arguments against active euthanasia. I believe that active euthanasia is morally permissible when the patient is in intolerable and incurable pain or suffering, and gives a form of consent to do so, as all competent human beings are entitled full rights to control and use their own bodies, as long as the rights of other human beings are not violated.

It may indeed be true to assert that in our contemporary life there has been considerable debate concerning euthanasia which is not acceptable in societies. I firmly concur with the opinion that euthanasia is not appropriate in the modern world, and it has solutions to remedy this vexed issue, and the doctor must effort for their patients until the last seconds, and there is a hope for their families.

A recent survey by the Canadian Medical Association discovered that “ . . . 44 per cent of doctors would refuse a request for physician-assisted dying . . . ” (Kirkey 2). Euthanasia is defined as assisting a terminally ill patient with dying early. In many countries the legalization of this practice is being debated in many countries. All doctors against assisted suicide, including the 44 percent in Canada, are on the right side of the argument. Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is unnatural, it violates the Hippocratic Oath, and laws are to extensive.

The word euthanasia is defined as good death, but this meaning cannot be taken literally without analyzing its underlying implications (Vaughn 595). The primary issues that must be raised when discussing euthanasia are differentiating between active and passive forms, analyzing the values that people place on their life and realizing that euthanasia is beneficial. Euthanasia provides a means for patients who are in agony to be relieved of their condition while ensuring that doctors follow appropriate and lawful procedures. I will argue that just as passive euthanasia is legal in some jurisdictions, active euthanasia should be made legal as well.

Analysis: Callahan’s argument concludes that physicians should only help patients get healthy but not kill them, and that we confuse alleviation of pain and death. “Many millions of others have undergone all kinds of personal tragedy… but most of them do not turn to suicide” (Callahan, 83). Life consists of ups and downs, and there are times when it a person might lose all hope so they think death is the best option for them. People are always seeking to get out of misery and they confuse themselves thinking death is the only way out. The people who chose death as a way out are a minority because majority does not accept death as a good way out unless it is a case similar to passive euthanasia. “The movement to empower physicians legally to take the