Why Is Euthanasia Ethically Wrong

Physician assisted suicide is the termination of a life by the administration of lethal substances with the help of a doctor or physician. The legality and morality of physician assisted suicide is in a constant debate. Some claim that it is merciful to the terminally ill. Others claim that it is no better than murder. Despite its advocates, physician assisted suicide is morally and ethically wrong and impractical therefore it should remain illegal in the United States.

Euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, is an important and controversial topic in our society today, and (under the correct conditions) should both be considered legal and morally acceptable. In fact, throughout history euthanasia has been a debate in many countries, some areas accepting the practice, whereas others find it unacceptable. Many people and professionals continue to refer to the Hippocratic Oath, an vow stating the proper conduct for doctors, and it's famous words "Do no harm." However, when it comes down to whatever holds people back, whether it is their views on religion or oaths from many years ago, it should be considered a correct practice. In fact, in the case of Vacco v. Quill, one point raised was that "Over time, the Hippocratic Oath has been changed, and deleted. In order to "do-no-harm" one would end suffering instead of prolonging it." With the use of Supreme Court cases, and professional psychologist and medical quotations, one can see the clear reasons that this topic must be allowed. In the end, euthanasia should definitely be considered correct both legally and morally due to one's legal rights, sensible ethical values, and the multiple positive benefits upon the legalization of euthanasia.

Forcing terminally ill patients to suffer straight up to their last days is unacceptable and provisions can be made in order to allow competent patients to have a choice at the end of their lives.

right to choose what happens to his or her own body, but the life of a patient should not be put

Evidence of physician-assisted suicide can be traced back to ancient times, especially to ancient Greece or Rome . In fact, the term “euthanasia” comes from the Greek term “a good death” . This controversy has carried over into the modern era, and much of the world is still fragmented over this specific issue; particularly, the United States proves to be split nearly 50-50 on the topic. A poll taken in the United States in 2011 shows that Americans skew slightly toward thinking that physician-assisted suicide is morally wrong, with 48% of Americans thinking it is morally wrong and 45% of Americans thinking it is morally acceptable . However, by changing the phrasing of the question and asking if an individual has a right to end his or her own

It is the conclusion of Marcia Angell from the Supreme Court and Physician-Assisted Suicide in article #1 that a physician’s main duties are to respect a patient’s autonomy and relieve suffering. She believes even if this means assisting in a patient’s death. Her conclusion is based on several pretenses. First, the premise is the most ethical in medicine the respect for each patient’s autonomy. If this principle conflicts with others, it should always take precedence. She argues that sometimes physician’s need the option regarding hastening death, although this should be considered as a last resort. She considers that death is different for all and can be fast and peaceful or slow and cruel. She argues that death if withdrawing life-sustaining treatment simply allows the disease to take its course (Kaebnick, 2001). Three methods of hastening death are: withdrawing treatment to sustain life, assisting suicide, and euthanasia. Her concern about this is this is less patient-centered thinking and more physician centered? She further hopes that it will become a choice for those patients who need

According to the New York Times article some of the main reason that someone would go through a decision of assisted suicide is to have control over how he or she dies. Being able to still have some control over there life and able to make that decision before they lose any type of brain function or become comatose and connected to a ventilator, which will only be prolonging the unavoidable. People are looking for choices, why’ll there are still capable of doing decision for themselves, they don’t want to see themselves connected to a machine or go through the pain and suffering of having their love ones watch as the clocks ticks away at their life not knowing when death will come. However, by them being in control over how they die and when it

There are several reasons why physician-assisted suicide is such an ongoing argument between people in this day and age. Whether they want it legalized or don’t want anything to do with it, it’s safe to assume that this topic is rather controversial in our society. In the debate titled “Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Unethical and Dangerous” written by Ira Byock at the New York Times, he states, “Legalizing assisted suicide fixes nothing. The principle that doctors must not kill patients stands. Two moral wrongs don’t make a right” (Byock, 2015). Some may agree with Byock, but others truly believe that the patient should be able to make a choice about their end-of-life treatment and no one else should be able to tell them otherwise.

people should have the right to die a humane, dignified, peaceful death, if they choose to since it is them who have to undergo the brutal pain and unnecessary treatments. It should also be legal since the majority want it legal as stated in the Gallup Study. Also, without this right, patients may become depressed and determined to end their pain by committing suicide other ways such as shooting, drowning, or cutting themselves. And finally patients and their families should not be subject to paying hefty health care bills for procedures they don’t

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.

This great country, the land of the free, gave each and every person the right to make their own choices. This independence consists of each aspect of a citizen’s life, as well as health care. With independence comes a certain liability, this is also accurate in conditions of physician-assisted suicide. The constant resistance among those supporting and those divergent to this issue have wreaked havoc on the health care field; what is morally and ethically correct? In reality, physician-assisted suicide is never morally or ethically tolerable despite any conditions. It is not only a direct infringement of a physician’s Hippocratic Oath, but also unconstitutionally requisite. Physician-assisted suicide could also lead to superfluous fatalities in order to lessen various health care expenses. Citizens of the United States are warranted the highest of admiration, while taking part in the health care system; approving physician-assisted suicide deteriorates the state of American health care.

Euthanasia should be considered in all aspects of the medical field because people need to be in charge of their lives, statements from critics, and the serious evaluation process when chosen. Euthanasia can reserve all rights towards an individual’s choice towards death or not, because it is the person who has to endure and agonize through the incurable illness. An individual’s perspective on a situation is through their eyes and no one else, that is why euthanasia produces the choice of being alive or

People make decisions every single day of their lives. Although, people with a terminal diagnosis still have the capability to make decisions, they are not given the legal right to a physician assisted suicide. A choice some may desire in their final days. Once the person with the terminal diagnosis has met the specific criteria he or she should decide what would be optimal decision for both themselves and their families. Palliative care will always be available to terminal patients; however, not all patients will wish to wait and wonder. Nevertheless, some terminal patients will wish to take death into their own hands. People should be allowed to choose how they will die this would reduce the overall healthcare cost, decrease the emotional toll of the patients and their families, and allow there to be dignity within death.

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.

The main argument in support of Physician assisted Suicide is that every competent individual has the right to decide on the manner in which to live life. That autonomy should also be extended to persons suffering from terminal conditions and therefore should control the timing and the manner of death they wish to face (Hawkins, 2002). Every person has the option to live quality life and avert any suffering and pain and be allowed to do in a dignified manner. Thus terminally ill patient should allowed to die in dignity without the need to face any anguish and that this autonomy must not be taken away from them.