The Ethical Debate On Non Voluntary Euthanasia

An incredibly controversial issue clouds the minds of millions of people everyday as death confronts them. The problem revolves around the ethics of euthanasia. Should medical assisted suicide be outlawed in all situations or under certain circumstances, could it be considered ethical? Do humans violate nature’s course with science and advanced technology by playing God? Why should doctors and families witness their loved ones suffer when the solution of euthanasia promises a painless death? Authors Andrea E. Richardson and David Miller of the articles “Death with Dignity: The Ultimate Human Right” and “From Life to Death in a Peaceful Instant” reflect upon their experiences and feelings

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.

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.

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.

The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.

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.

296). In aiding patients with decisions regarding this enormously hard decision, quality of life should be at the forefront of the process. Euthanasia could possibly provide the patient an opportunity to escape a situation that only allows them to have a painful or even miserable quality of life, if this is the circumstance then discussing this as an option for treatment would be in the best interest of both the care team and the patient. In addition, ethical principles are factors that are crucial components in this discussion between the physician and patient, among them; compassion and nonmaleficence. Nonmaleficence, doing no harm, is especially important. However, in cases of chronic care conditions the everyday life of a patient

Envision being diagnosed with lung disease, a fatal malady. Overlooking the difficulties, you keep on dragging out your life compass throughout the years by getting chemotherapy and taking various sorts of drug. The point when slightest wanted, you end up lying on the floor hacking up blood. Notwithstanding you're at the healing center and the specialists are providing for you a desire of six to eight months to live. Mindful that the growth has compound and it is just a matter of time before death, you choose you probably won't have any desire to experience any longer ache or enduring. You, then, propose willful extermination to the specialist.

Euthanasia is defined as an 'act of killing someone painlessly to relieve his or her suffering'[1]. It's etymology is derived from the Greek 'eu thanatos' which means a good death. It is a contentious issue that provokes strong arguments for and against changing UK legislation to permit it. The UK currently prohibits active euthanasia. Active euthanasia is an act where the intention is to end or deliberately shorten someone's life.

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

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

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

The philosophical theories and ethics of two philosophers, Aristotle and Kant, offer two differing views on the morality of euthanasia. Margaret P. Battin’s “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do It” offers three countries’ perspectives on and laws regarding euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide, as well as evaluations and critiques of their policies. To determine which of these points of view has the most pertinence, all of these arguments will be outlined and consequently analyzed, both separately and in relation to each other. Their differences and similarities will be enumerated and described, consequently their merit will be discussed. Ultimately, Aristotle’s moral theory centering around eudaimonia will be shown to be superior to Kant’s categorical imperative, because of its flexible nature when evaluating the acceptability of euthanasia under different circumstances.

A teacher I once had in high school would often talk about her father who lived in hospice care. Her father suffered from dementia and had been for years. She would often talk about how on his “good” days he would plead her husband to put a pillow on his head and suffocate him, to take him out of his misery. If it was legal, her husband would have willingly helped her father and put him out of his misery, however in the state of North Carolina, physician-assisted suicide is illegal. Luckily, her father passed away this year and is finally free of pain and suffering. However, if physician-assisted suicide was legal, her father would not have had to suffer as long as he did.