The Moral Issue Of Euthanasia

For most people the topic of death can be very disheartening or painful to talk about not only in regards to their own death, but in regards to that of a loved one, family member, or even a friend, so generally they try to steer clear of that particular subject. However if euthanasia is brought up into the conversation views change and people want to make their voices and opinions heard, especially when it is in regards to their religious beliefs about the matter, sometimes it just sparks a flame deep down inside of an individual that they did not even realize they had. Euthanasia is, “the act or practice of killing hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.”(www.merriam-webster.com). The majority of most religions are against euthanasia because they feel as though it goes against their beliefs, Roman Catholics, Judaism, Islam, Buddhist and Protestant just to name a few. There are plenty of reasons why these religious groups feel so strongly about euthanasia each has their own view on the matter, but they come together to an understanding about this topic. The major reasons why they feel as if euthanasia violates a religious standpoint is that collectively these groups feel that only God has the power to take life away, it devalues human life, it is seen as murder or even suicide and religious scripture has taught against a person or another person ending someone’s life.

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 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.

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

There is, of course, no single ‘utilitarian perspective’, for there are several versions of utilitarianism and they differ on some aspects of euthanasia. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. According to act-utilitarianism, the right action is the one that, of all the actions open to the agent, has consequences that are better than, or at least no worse than, any other action open to

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.

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.

Dr. Kevorkian is a physician in Michigan. He is a well-known physician, although to some, he is known for the wrong reasons. He is known to most for assisting in the suicide of those who ask for help in their deaths. He has assisted in the suicide of over 140 people. This essay will discuss the financial benefits of allowing physician assisted suicide and euthanasia, doctors’ opinions on euthanasia, the consequences of Dr. Kevorkian’s actions, and why assisted suicide is the right choice for terminally ill people. Euthanasia is the patients’ choice and should be made legal in the United States and Dr. Kevorkian should not be sent to prison.

The major moral controversy or issue that is of interest to me that I will be focusing on throughout this paper is the issue of Euthanasia. Euthanasia is the term used to describe physician assisted suicide. In most cases, this practice is used to relieve excruciating pain that a patient may be facing or a patient who has a mental illness such as depression and can longer continue living with their circumstances. Hopelessness, anxiety over dependence, and a sense of loss of control are all other reasons as to why a patient may be considering euthanasia. The article, "Doctors should kill the pain, not the patient; Euthanasia debate should not be confused with the need for pain-relief management," from the Gazette focuses on the question of whether

In recent history not many topics have stirred up as strong or divided opinions as that of Human Euthanasia. This is partly due to the fact that our medical technology is far superior then even just a few decades ago. Modern day human beings, especially Americans, have the benefit of living far longer lives than our predecessors. People with terminal illnesses formerly doomed immediately are able to live for longer periods of time, the elderly receive better care and are able to be kept alive longer then they would be able to survive naturally, and people who would normally perish while in comas or a persistent vegetative state are able to be kept alive through the technology we have all come to marvel at and appreciate. While the new technologies and breakthroughs in medical care are of course a testament to the hard work and diligence of brilliant minds they have spawned questions that are as perplexing as the aforementioned technology is amazing. I intend to discuss some of these questions here and although I am not a scholar in this field and my opinions are humble I ask only that you respect them for what they are.

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

According to Webster’s Dictionary, Euthanasia is “conceding painless death to a patient who is considered to be hopelessly ill, because of a non-curable disease”. The term is used to refer to the act of deliberately taking the life of a sick person, especially those who are sick from terminal illnesses. Patients in this category are normally those who are nearing their death from a persistent terminal illness and medicine does not to have much effect on them. Different scholars hold different opinions on whether to legalize the practice. Some stage a very strong that attempt to justify euthanasia. They argue that it is a common practice in the US and that it serves to end a person’s suffering and save the family members a lot of emotional

Is it right to intentionally bring about the death of a person? The vast majority of people would instinctively answer this question “no,” unless it related to an act of war or perhaps self-defense. What if taking the life of the person would benefit that person by ending their suffering? Would it be morally acceptable to end their suffering? Questions like these are debated by those considering the morality of euthanasia, which is a very controversial topics in America. Euthanasia can be defined as “bringing about the death of another person to somehow benefit that person” (Pojman). The term implies that the death is intentional. Because there are several different types of euthanasia, it is difficult to make a blanket statement