The Sanctity Of Life, The Ethical Problem Of Voluntary Euthanasia

In recent times, there has been much debate about whether or not Euthanasia should be permitted. Voluntary Euthanasia is when terminally ill people wish to have their lives ended with the assistance of medical procedures before nature takes its course. This is because they may be suffering and in great pain, or cannot live a reasonable or comfortable life. Voluntary Euthanasia should be introduced, provided that there are safeguards to stop the system from being misused.

One of the greatest miracles in life, is life itself, but where is life there’s death. So as unexpected as life is shall death be the same, or can we choose on how we leave this earth. Over the years, the laws and ethical consternation regarding the debatable subject of euthanasia and assisted suicide, have been questioned frequently by society. Though the question may never be answered between euthanasia and assisted suicide being right or wrong, the fact of the matter is that people are still choosing their fate.

In all places, laws and safeguards were put in place to prevent abuse and misuse of these practices. Prevention measures have included, explicit consent by the person requesting euthanasia, mandatory reporting of all cases, administration only by physicians, and consultation by a second physician. With having these measures in place one can begin to see a future where assisted suicide is no longer taboo but something that is a common practice and can help so many people who are in pain. While putting certain safeguards in place there must also be a discussion about policy. Author Dan W. Brock of The Hastings Center Report explores the ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine. In his article “Voluntary Active Euthanasia” Brock debates the issue at hand by removing religion from the argument. Brock believes that in order to have a sound discussion over euthanasia one must examine only secular arguments. “First, there is empirical or factual disagreement about what the consequences would be. This disagreement is greatly exacerbated by the lack of firm data on the issue. Second, since on any reasonable assessment there would be both good and bad consequences, there are moral disagreements about the relative importance of different effects.” (Brock

Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.

The possible legalization of voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide brings concerns in regards to how well it will be accepted. There are contradictions that exists between government and church when it comes to the morals and values placed on human life. Although, society has concerns in regards to at risk community groups and the type of treatment available to them; an individual that is terminally ill should have the legal right to die with dignity voluntarily or with physician assistance.

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

The right to assisted suicide is a huge topic that worries humans all around the usa. The debates go from side to side approximately whether or not a death patient has the proper to die with the assistance of a physician. some are in opposition to it due to religious and ethical motives. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they area the line that separates alleviation from death--and killing. for many the primary difficulty with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally sick. Many terminally sick patients who 're in the final tiers in their lives have requested docs to useful resource them in exercising lively euthanasia. it is sad to comprehend that these human beings are in awesome ache and that to them the handiest desire of bringing that anguish to a halt is thru assisted suicide.whilst humans see the word euthanasia, they see the that means of the word in special lighting fixtures. Euthanasia for some consists of a terrible connotation; it 's miles the same as homicide. For others, but, euthanasia is the act of placing a person to death painlessly, or permitting someone affected by an incurable and painful disorder or situation to die by way of withholding excessive clinical measures. however after analyzing both aspects of the difficulty, a compassionate character should conclude that competent terminal sufferers should accept the right to assisted

Today, voluntary euthanasia is getting closer to being legalized in more than just one state in the United States. “‘Voluntary’ euthanasia means that the act of putting the person to death is the end result of the person’s own free will” (Bender 19). “ Voluntary euthanasia is an area worthy of our serious consideration, since it would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose death rather than continue suffering” (Bender 19). The question of whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be legalized is a major debate that has been around for years. Because the issue of whether people should have the right to choose how they want to live or die is so complex. With the advances in technology today we have made

Due to the concern of many incurable patients, it is rarely known that Euthanasia, a termination of one’s life with his/her self-willingness, is a release of permanent pain. On the other hand, it is committed by the doctors. Among Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary Euthanasia, only is Voluntary Euthanasia being universally concerned by human beings. Various fascinating facts, Australia has already approved this act and many people from other countries have also committed Euthanasia. Regarding this topic, people have been in many debates about whether performing Euthanasia. The majority of the debates is talking about in two areas of knowledge, Ethics and the Human Sciences. Some say Euthanasia is still a way of killing and more importantly, most of the doctors cannot manipulate their mental pressure after “murdering” the patients. Unlikely, some believe that Euthanasia helps the patients to quickly end their torture from the incurable illness. Therefore, I will address the concern of Euthanasia in the United States and also propose some possible solutions to the Department of Health in the United States. As a result, I support establishing Euthanasia into the United States’ constitution of the Department of Health.

The field of ethics exists specifically to help people make moral decisions with a sense of consistency and equality. Morality and moral decisions are never quite as clear and easily reduced as they appear to be in text form. The concepts of rights, duties, preferences, cultural sensitivities, the priorities of individuals and societies at large, all of these come into play when making moral decisions. This is all the more the case in areas wherein a loss of life is concerned. Death is a large part of life and has extreme significance in all cultures, which is made all the more complicated when it is caused by one's own hand.

Some may argue that the idea of assisting a terminally ill patient who wants to end his or her own life is morally and ethically correct. After deliberating on this important topic, we all have chosen why we are either against or for this proposition. Before we begin discussing this topic, we must first define the name and the aspects related to this topic. The medical term is known as euthanasia. Euthanasia comes from the Greek work Eu meaning “good” and thanatos meaning “death” (a good death). Good death, in this case, refers to a painless death. All painless deaths aren’t necessarily euthanasia. It only occurs when another individual directly causes the death another person. In other words, euthanasia can be defined as the intention of

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.

In current times we have made many technological advances that have boosted the medical productivity in hospitals. However, the rapid development of medicine is far from being a long term resolve for many health issues. We have a plethora of people whose quality of life is very low and has no chance of improving. During these situations allowing the person to end their life via euthanasia should be allowed. I will argue that Euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases because there are several moral justifications that argue for ending one’s life.

The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.