Tok Essay

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.

More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their

According to Rachels (248), a proponent of euthanasia, states the act is justified if death is the only way out of one’s awful pain. On the other hand, Gay Williams (353), an opponent of euthanasia, views it as immoral to take someone’s life before his or her own natural death time reaches. Medically, euthanasia can be acceptable for those patients that are extremely suffering and their doctors have no idea on what to do to help a patient whose condition is only worsening. Often, it is administered on consultation with the family members of the patient in question. However, health practitioners are held within the bounds of professionalism where they are made to understand sanctity of life. Doctors are not supposed to decide the future of

In conclusion, we can see that if every Medical professional euthanized patients at will, it would lead to an unjust situation that could not be tolerated by the utilitarian. Concluding that the euthanasia by Medical Professional would be immoral. Allowing

Medical ethics is always seen by many as an unusual blend; one many always seem to question. The fuse appeals to a range of different temperaments, to the philosopher, the doctor, and to the man or woman of action. It tackles the big questions of the morality of killing and the painstakingly difficult decisions having to be made by many on a daily basis. It also relates to the ethical spectrum as well, when can a mentally ill person be treated against their will? Is it a crime for any doctor to practice a form of euthanasia? Where better to start medical ethics, than with the complex topic of euthanasia.

It is a fact that when we talk about euthanasia, it generates a disagreement between the general public. This is a topic that many want to avoid, but others want to inquire a little more. “Euthanasia is a termination of a very ill person’s life in order to relieve them from their sufferings” (Ethic of Euthanasia- Introduction). This essay will discuss the ethical implication as well of the religion implication this topic generates.

First of all, what is euthanasia? It is something that not many people think about until they or a friend or family member is put in a position where they might actually have to consider it. Euthanasia, in the dictionary, simply is: the action of ending someone’s life in a painless way. It seems pretty simple but in reality it is a lot more complicated, not only for the people involved but for the society in general as well.

Those who oppose the idea of euthanasia argue the ethical, practical and moral issues not addressed by those in support of the practice. It has been argued that there are several reasons that prevent doctors from accurately assessing whether or not the patient is emotionally stable or mentally capable enough to decide whether they genuinely wish to die. Psychological factors that cause patients with such illnesses to think of or request euthanasia include depression due to acknowledging their inevitable death, fear of losing control, dignity and dislike of being dependent on others. In addition, opponents of the practice claim that physicians, or any other medical professional should not be the ones causing death. Many go to the extent to say that doctors who practice euthanasia are in violation of the Hippocratic oath, the oath in which their career is built from. “..and I will do no harm or injustice to them” is a line directly taken from

By continuing to make euthanasia a criminal offence, it is making it problematic in the legal sense because although there is a lot of significant public support6 euthanasia, doctors are still being punished when they choose to help their patients with ending their lives when they choose to do so. There is a Nigerian case which involves R. v. Johnson (1961), where the presiding judge said that “I accept the fact that what you did (euthanize the patient) was done without thought for yourself but out of compassion for the child.”7 However in the end, Dr. Johnson was still found guilty and imprisoned for murder. This was made on the basis that he premeditated the patient 's death. When terminally ill patients show a desire to be euthanized, preplanning the day is an essential part of the process to allow someone be euthanized and medical physicians should not be held against in court for doing so. As long as a doctor a doctor explains the patient 's different options beforehand including termination of life support, DNR orders, withholding treatment and using pain medication, or euthanasia and then allow the patient to make a decision that is independent without any one influencing or pressuring them, the medical professional has shown that they are interested in their patient 's well-being as they approach death. There have been polls by Robert Ho of Central Queensland University and Angus Reid and they found that a majority of people in Australia,8 Canada, the United States,

When asked, “Why it is important to accept Euthanasia?” the answer is always about releasing patient from pain, but why take a naïve solution when there is hope? Take a second and think about how will a one say goodbye to the ones he love? The answer is obvious, it is impossible to let go of those we love. Hence, one should keep an open mind to the following lines whether you are against or for Euthanasia. Euthanasia or so called physician assisted death stand for intended cessation of person’s life at situation of terminal illness. This is done by either by proposing a fatal drug or withdrawing life-supporting therapy in order to end life of patient. Euthanasia is one of the most debatable issues nowadays as more and more people are questioning whether Euthanasia is mercy killing or hope killing. It is worth stating at this point that Euthanasia must be banned universally on account to ethical, medical and legal reasons.

Every individual has a liberty. The liberty, which includes the right of owning his or her life. They are in control of themselves which consequently allows them to do just as they wish with their possession career and therefore they can also wish to discontinue his or her life if the reasons were rational. In a typical situation whilst opting for euthanasia, a person has some terrible, deadly disease which consequently means they a bed bound with all sorts of medical equipment connected to then. They are unable to move or do much of anything except exist. They are in terrible pain and therefore beg to have these machines disconnected so they can live out whatever life they have in them and die in peace. The person no longer wants to endure the pain, but instead, to assuage it. However, the

There are various terms associated with the concept of euthanasia. It is also referred to as 'physician assisted suicide', 'mercy killing' and 'death with dignity'. Despite the fact all these terms justifies the main reason for euthanasia even then there is opposition to this concept and this led to raise the people to ask for their right. These are the people who became completely dependent on others for their necessities and

The claim “Knowledge is nothing more than the systematic organization of facts,” has many flaws in its implications. All of the knowledge that we gain as ToK knowers cannot be considered infallible fact. The term “fact” implies that the statement or claim can be reinforced with substantial evidence and can be proven, and we have learned that almost any information can be considered knowledge, no matter how subjective or specific the information is. Given that an individual is defined by having a specific and unique way of thinking and perceiving the world, most of the knowledge gained in several different Areas of Knowledge are heavily dependent on the perspectives of the individuals under examination. Both the Areas of Knowledge of Ethics and Human Sciences have many ambiguities when it comes to organizing and legitimizing this data. This leads the knower to ask, “What makes information factual in terms of ToK knowledge?” It can be proven through Ethics and Human Sciences that knowledge is not the systematic organization of facts, but the systematic organization of collective data to show trends and patterns.

“The historian’s task is to understand the past; the human scientist, by contrast, is looking to change the future.” To what extent is this true in these areas of knowledge?

Knowledge is defined as “justified true belief”. The concept of justified true belief states that “in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but one must also have justification for doing so ”. New knowledge is based on the credible theories, generalisations, which in turn are based on the observations and evidence. Theory & observation are inherently intertwined. However, there is no perfect perception. Everything we see and hear is coloured by what we believe about the things and events we see and hear. Hence, new knowledge depends on the evidence and the perception of the observer based on what he sees & hears which are again dependent on the observers’ beliefs and values and also on the bias of the individual / society in deciphering the same. “To what extent is the discarding of the existing knowledge justified by an individual/ society?” While we see that the new knowledge is important, discarding of the existing knowledge depends on the bias of the individual or firm or society at large. We shall consider the above knowledge issue in ethics & natural science by studying the new knowledge received on Marijuana, change in generalisations for a child and paradigm shifts in astrophysics through emotion, perception and reason.