The Ethical Dilemma Of Euthanasia

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.

The decision to utilize euthanasia in these cases would be made by a doctor or by a close friend or family member. Some argue the optimal decision would be made with the perspective of the young or vegetative person in mind. Whoever makes the decision should be thinking about whether the person would want to be alive in this situation if they were able to make the decision. This is not always the case and the family members may make a selfish decision based on whether or not they want to care for the affected person. Some may actually believe the family should use euthanasia since their lives would be better without the stress of the sick person. The well being of the family and friends is more important than the patient’s life considering she is very likely to die anyways. Another view supports making the decision to utilize euthanasia through the perspective of bettering society. The hospital bed

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.

Say someone had a close family member who was very ill. This person was suffering from an incurable disease and had wished to die. After being given the full consent of permitting this person's death, would you "kill" them? This practice would be known as Euthanasia, the act of deliberately ending one's life to relieve suffering. Euthanasia can be further broken down into different types: active euthanasia – where a person intentionally and directly causes a patient's death, for example, injecting a lethal dose; passive euthanasia – where a person indirectly causes a patient's death by allowing them to die, for example, withhold or withdraw treatment that would sustain a patient's life. It is then further broken down based on the circumstances

From the world’s first stock market to concentric canal rings to the institution of drug, prostitution, and euthanasia policies, Amsterdam has been at the forefront of progress and liberalism. In history, Amsterdam became a think tank for new ideas and has now emerged as a successful liberal experiment. It grew to briefly become a world center, spreading a broad interpretation of liberalism––the ideology centers on individual freedom and heavily influences Western society (Shorto, 2013). Most importantly, the reach of Amsterdam’s influence, on a global scale, is the value placed on tolerance. Amsterdam’s deep,

I believe that it is acceptable for patients who are terminally ill and are in pain to be allowed to end their life. I think physician assisted suicide should only be available if all other treatments have been exhausted. When the patient is in so much pain that waiting until death is physically excruciating I believe options should be available. Advance directives are something that I believe everyone should have whether they think they are going to be in that position or not. I don’t think that the government should have any part in deciding if you are in a position to ask for that or not. It is an extremely personal decision that should be decided by the patient and their

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.

When deciding the most righteous type of way to appropriately end a life of a love one, many thoughts come through as weather the practice of euthanasia is an ethically correct medical procedure. There are many decisions that must be made regarding how to properly treat a individual who want to end there own life. Controversial views have always been made against those who suggest that terminally ill or incurably suffering people should be allowed to ask for and receive help to die if they so wish. The same set of arguments in opposition toward euthanasia is, that life is sacred and by legalizing physician assisted suicide would lead to abuses by the medical field. A fundamental question concerning hastening the death of a terminally ill patient are, evaluating if this act is a virtue of kindness prompted by a sense of mercy and respect for an individual's wishes? If this is not a act of a moral virtue thought then, it is an act of murder and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Some patients who decide that they wish to commit suicide are unable or unwilling to accomplish the act without assistance from their physician. Physician-assisted suicide helps them to die under conditions, and at the time, that they choose. PAS is currently legal only in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. In other states, terminally ill individuals who want to die must continue living until their body eventually collapses or until a family member or friend commits a criminal act by helping them to

This systematic analysis of the professional literature will explore the ethical dilemmas that Canadian medical professionals face while considering euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, the latter of which was made legal in Canada on June 17, 2016 (Chochinov and Frazee, 2016). This paper will discusses the conflicts that healthcare professionals are faced with when looking at the quality of life for the terminally ill or comatose patients and these patients’ desires to end their pain and suffering with physician-assisted suicide (PAS). With the legalization of PAS, just this year in Canada, there is a need to evaluate how healthcare professionals who have dealt with such decisions have fared and how the terminally ill patients have proceeded.

Euthanasia is defined as: the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma (Dictionary Reference). For countless years Euthanasia has been a controversial topic in the Canadian legal system. Many people believe that the act of assisting in a suicide should remain illegal because it can shorten the life of humans; however, others believe that assisting in a suicide should be legal only if the person in question is suffering from a terminal illness. The euthanasia controversy struck Canada when a man by the name of Robert Latimer killed his daughter because she was suffering from a fatal disease. At birth Latimer’s daughter, Tracy, suffered severe brain damage due to an oxygen

The right to die act is referred to as physician-assisted suicide or human euthanasia. The concept allows a person to choose to end his or her own life with medication, prescribed by a physician. This act has recently been implemented into the State laws of Oregon, Washington, California, and most recently, Colorado. As a result, the topic of human euthanasia has increasingly become an ethical dilemma. Supporting and opposing arguments have been stated and continue to be analyzed without any resolution. The present paper is intended to give an overview of such arguments regarding human euthanasia, ethically and legally. In addition to the ethical dilemma, the importance of patient rights, advocacy, and sensitive nursing care is

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.

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

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.