The Ethical Implications Of Euthanasia

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.

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.

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.

Medical ethics have played a significant role in shaping societies’ response to suffering, healing and the choice for life or death. In particular, one of the earliest attempts to construct an ethical code, the Hippocratic Oath, continues to be used as one of the main reasons given as to why doctors should not assist a patient to die. Opponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide include United State’s large nonreligious organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, and the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (Foley 3). One of the reasons to oppose is that euthanasia and assisted suicide violates the Hippocratic Oath; the Oath does not say that physicians must continue to treat patients

Euthanasia can be seen in many different ways. Some may see it as ethical while others do not. Ethical standpoints argue that it is the means that matter. A major argument for euthanasia is autonomy. Autonomy make their own decisions for their life, which can somewhat been seen as the theory of egoism. Since many people do believe in autonomy, they also believe that they should have a choice on how their life ends. It is even said that people have a “right to good death” (BBC, n.d.). It can be argued that the individual isn’t choosing the way they die, but the physician does. In Michael Manning MD’s article Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring? it is stated, “the choice rests fully with the patient”(1998).

“She made the decision that her existence had lost its meaning. And you cannot judge that. “ - Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Euthanasia is a practice that has been acceptable as far back as the 5th century A.D. Many largely influential cultural groups such as the Greeks, the Romans and the Pagans had no established regard for the grandeur of human life and frequently participated in abortions, and involuntary and voluntary mercy killings. Many physicians completely disregarded the Hippocratic Oath in order to administer the poison their patients requested to end the prolonged pain and suffering (Historical Timeline). Although some people and doctors believe that assisted suicide and euthanasia is unethical and immoral as would be difficult to regulate,

In cases were “It just so happens that sometimes, when that suffering is so great, the only release from that suffering is death. That is not murder. That is no suicide. That is mercy” (McDonald, 2015) This quote from Lecretia Seales husband helps to put many peoples situations into context when it comes to the debate of euthanasia or assisted suicide.

There are several arguments that favor active euthanasia. One argument is that it’s appropriate for healthcare professionals create a peaceful environment for death of an individual. A second argument is that people have the right to make their own decisions. Lastly, the remaining arguments consist of laws requiring certain safeguards to regulate the use of active euthanasia. There are several arguments that oppose this practice. The first argument in opposition is that doctor’s primary responsibility is to sustain life and to not cause death. The second argument in opposition is that patients that ill to consider this treatment are not’t mental stable enough to fully give consent. Lastly, the remaining arguments in opposition consist of how deeply this practice will affect the culture of medicine.

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

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.

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 term Euthanasia was originated from the Greek word “good death”. However, there is constant debate on whether or not this “good death” is morally right and thus has become an issue of much controversy. Euthanasia is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of a hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy (Mirriam-Webster). This topic is especially sensitive among the general public because it involves a choice of life and death for a single person. There are two types of euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, where the patient has the ultimate decision, and involuntary euthanasia, in which a third party makes the decision for the patient. In this paper I will discuss the details of voluntary euthanasia and why it is considered such a big moral issue. After talking about voluntary euthanasia I will delve into how both Aristotle and John Stuart Mill would view euthanasia. This paper will bring about the ethical theories of both Aristotle and Mill and relate these theories to the topic of euthanasia.

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.