The Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia

Euthanasia has been one of the most controversial and debatable topics in recent years. Even though the debate about euthanasia seems to be very complex and problematic, it is important to analyze very deeply some problems and questions related to this issue in order to indicate adequate solutions in terms of possible legislation. First step is to identify the proper definition of euthanasia as an act of causing a person's death to end unbearable pain and suffering. In addition, there are many forms of euthanasia; categorizing those forms and highlighting the development of understanding this concept over time, is necessary to understand, that involuntary euthanasia is unacceptable as it violets the basic human rights.

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.

During World War II many horrible events took place such as the Holocaust but there are many more specific projects or events that happened such as the Euthanasia Project or otherwise known as Project Aktion T4. The Euthanasia Project was a program of mass murder that took place even the before the actual events of the Holocaust. Hitler had the objective to eliminate those who don’t contribute to the perfect society that he wanted. That included any adults with any minor or major disabilities along with children under any kind of illness. The Euthanasia Project had positives in the sense that at the time in the eyes of Germany or Hitler these were considered positives. But at the same time this project had its flaws that led to the ultimate

Medical ethics take on a important role in determining societies’ response to pain, treatment and the decision to survive or abandon. Particularly, the Hippocratic Oath was one of the ancient efforts to make an ethical system. It maintains to be used as one of the key basis given as to why physicians should not aid a patient to die. In the United State, Opponents of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia organized nonreligious groups and organizations such as the American Hospital Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, and the American Medical Association (Foley & Herbert, 2004, p. 3). One of the reasons to disagree is that physician assisted suicide and euthanasia infringes the

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.

Many people are afraid to open the door to physician assisted suicide or euthanasia because it would cause many moral issues to become open to question. Who would qualify for physician assisted suicide/euthanasia? Only people with certain diseases or prognoses? Should the physician decide when to allow PAS/euthanasia, or should the patient be in full control of the decision? If legalized, would euthanasia be legalized murder? Is it the role of our law to enforce conformity on the country’s moral status? And when is it acceptable to give up on palliative care and allow this separation from life? In a Dutch survey of 1456 physicians, 1121 stated that they had received requests for physician assisted suicide/euthanasia (Emanuel). Although discussing suicide options for terminally ill patients is an extremely sensitive and complex issue, it becomes pertinent that their requests should be fully considered when so many patients in this position are begging for assistance in passing peacefully.

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.

Euthanasia has always been a common topic especially a debatable one talking about allowing patients who are suffering from any incurable disease or condition or even in an irreversible coma to choose to end their live on their own terms painlessly. The following will discuss a specific case and analyzed using the Christian worldview. Since the moral debate of euthanasia is such a topic of controversy, potential solutions towards the issue, and how such solutions can be compared to the core beliefs and the values within the Christian worldview.

The issue of euthanasia is a dispute that has been around since the late 1800’s (Dowbiggin,2003). The act of euthanasia or mercy killing is a debated ethical dilemma that some believe to be morally wrong. While circumstances can differentiate a person’s justification, there is always another perspective to consider where euthanasia is involved. In my paper I will dive into Case Study 2, which deals with the discussion of euthanasia according to the Christian worldview and how it compares to the vies of other beliefs or worldviews.

Euthanasia, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, legal and human rights debate in Australia. Broadly speaking, this term is used to describe the termination of a person’s life to end their suffering, usually through the administration of drugs. The core of this debate is centred on how to mitigate and pacify competing values; an individual's desire to self autonomy and freedom and choice to die with dignity when suffering, alongside with the devaluation of human life as a consequence that is formed through the legalisation of euthanasia. Due to the nature of the topic of euthanasia that is shrouded with ethical controversy and ambiguity, there is difficulty in legal justification and establishment of voluntary

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

Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.

I believe that voluntary active euthanasia should be legally allowed on competent, terminally ill patients. I will be using the principle of autonomy, John Stuart Mill’s theory on utilitarianism, and finally the lack of significant moral difference between active and passive euthanasia to argue this claim. An objection to this claim revolves around the doctor’s duty to “do no harm;” however, this objection can be refuted by a doctor’s duty to relieve pain in an effort to do what is best for their patient. A second objection against my claim is the slippery slope argument that leads from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia. This argument is groundless as there would be many rules and regulations that would prevent the slip from voluntary to involuntary euthanasia.

Euthanasia comes from Greek as good death or easy death, something that humans and animal wish for. Euthanize is a shoot vets give animals to put them asleep forever. People have been asking is it right or wrong to euthanize. Some say we should not, for how do we know that the animals want to be killed. Others say that we can use it as a way to control the population and to prevent overcrowding in animal shelters. A brief bio of euthanize in history and three pros and three cons of it.

Euthanasia, good or bad? In this following article I will be exploring euthanasia in more detail, the different Christian points of view, the strengths and weaknesses of the euthanasia argument and finally my point of view on euthanasia and why I believe this.