The Ethical Dilemma Of Euthanasia

Euthanasia is argued to be defined as depriving of life or causing the death of a living being. A primary and controversial component to euthanasia is the idea that the physicians are acting in “God” like form. Christians are thought to believe that “thou shall not kill.” Christians believe that all human beings have been in created in God’s image and should be cherished in all circumstances. However, according to the article written by Ann-Marie Begley, she explains, “if only God can end a life, then clearly all instances of killing are wrong, including killing in war and self defense” (Begley 300). The only way this philosophy can be upheld is with complete pacifism in which most Christians would not agree with. The other argument opposing euthanasia is the concern about the perceived public role of the physician. The metaphorical stance of doctors seen around the country is that they are the ‘enemies of death.’ The fear is that the image would be eroded resulting in the lost of trust within the public. Ann-Marie Begley explains, “the trust does not rest with the cure and healing but with the compassion and a recognition that there comes a time when the healer has reached the limits of his or her ability” (Begley 303). The argument of depriving someone of life is also seen in equivalence to murder. Scholars also differentiate murder from euthanasia in that euthanasia there is no malice

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.

Contemplating euthanasia is to consider if a person’s life is worth living or ready for termination. Euthanasia should be considered in all aspects of the medical field because people should be in charge of their lives, what critics have stated, and the critical evaluation process when chosen. First off, euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. A person should reserve the right to terminate their life because no one can truly say how one feels unless being asked personally.

The ethical debate on non-voluntary euthanasia is a complex issue due to its multifaceted nature. This topic examines the morality of ending a human’s life in circumstances where the person is incapable of issuing explicit consent. These cases would include utilizing euthanasia on very young children or someone in a vegetative state. There lacks consent with young children since they cannot speak to provide consent. Explicit consent is lacking with someone in a vegetative state since they are incapable of deciding at that moment to continue living or end their life.

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.

Moreover, euthanasia is restricted by the church. This is another important point that we should consider, especially for religious people. According to “Death and Dignity” it is emphasized that “Life is a gift from God and it is only God who can take it back”. Christian’s point of view considers euthanasia as a crime against church, religion and God. Christians consider this as an immoral act. When considering the religious factor as well, we can conclude that no one has the right to take control over our lives, especially when we are unconscious.

Euthanasia has been a difficult controversy all over the world throughout time. Generations of people have been arguing the ethics and morality of this practice. I propose to unearth new discoveries, share issues surrounding the topic, and to explain to the reader why they should care.

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,

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.

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.