Why Is Euthanasia Ethically Wrong

Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.

Imagine a cancer patient on a short rode to death. The pain this patient is experiencing is unreal and unimaginable to most. The pain medicine that can be used does little to take the agony away. The doctors can put the patient in an induced coma, but what kind of living is that? It is not living. The patient does not want to go on. Is it so wrong to ask for a way out? With less than six months to live, the patient’s hope is gone. Many argue that euthanasia is not ethical, but is it really ethical to let someone live in constant, horrifying pain and agony? While in some cases having the right to die might result in patients giving up on life, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all fifty states for terminally ill patients with worsening or unbearable pain.

Euthanasia, as stated in the Oxford Dictionary, is defined as a •gentle and easy death, bringing about this especially in the case of incurable and painful disease•.The death of a loved one brings a range of emotions but it is comforting to know that our loved one died peacefully. Another emotion death can bring is shock when it happens suddenly, giving no time for our final words. Death can also bring a deep sorrow and fear when we are told that an illness is incurable and death is inevitable. In this instance, we watch our loved ones slowly lose their independence and strength, and although we may

Source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1174693/ : This article is relevant to the central ethical issues because it explains the back story with Dr. Kevorkian and specifically Thomas Youk’s case; also, it provides opinions of those who advocate for the rights of patients with disabilities. Diane Coleman, president of Not Yet Dead, states that this euthanasia movement that Dr. Kevorkian is overall promoting is seemingly “very threatening to disabled people”; Dr. Nancy W. Dickey, president of the American Medical Association, even adds that “patients can be relieved that the guilty verdict helps protect them from those who would have taken their life early”. Overall, I have learned that the pro-life advocates version of “proper end

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

Warren believes that failure to meet any of her criteria means that killing the person who fails the five point personhood test is not morally wrong, regardless of how or why someone would choose to do so. I find an objection to Warren’s view because it is absurd and it could lead to controversial actions on behalf of her view’s followers. In most, if not all cases, of nonvoluntary active euthanasia the doctor who performs the euthanasia is charged with murder. This is because almost every country in the world has made nonvoluntary active euthanasia, where a patient wishes not to die but is euthanized anyway, illegal. Despite that, there could be cases in Warren’s view that would make it so the act of nonvoluntary active euthanasia is not morally wrong, and the results of her view could be very controversial. One case is where a patient is found to be in a coma or a persistent vegetative state (PVS) and they wish not to die. When a person is in one of these states they meet none the criteria put forth by Warren, and in her view this would make it morally acceptable to actively euthanize this patient. Not only that, but because the patients are not members of the moral community there is no wrong in killing them, and even worse, any way of actively euthanizing them is acceptable. Therefore, her extreme view can cause those who believe her views to think in the same way. Adopting Warren’s view on nonvoluntary euthanasia could end badly if the person decides to act on it. An

The issue being discussed in this debate is whether the use of continuous deep sedation is a valuable treatment for patients close to death. The ethical discussion is how far a doctor goes to bring about a “good” death. Euthanasia bans are in all 50 states. Only 2 states have laws that allow physicians to prescribe lethal drugs but are not allowed to administer. In order to respect individual autonomy, the patient has the right to choose which medical interventions they do or do not want. Encouragement in choice is offered with education regarding the use of advance directives. Hospices began in 1970 and provided an option for people who did not want aggressive medical care. (Kaebnick, 2001) One of the drawbacks of hospice

They tend to defend their argument with their own opinion value and rights of human life just as I have here but in a different context. As I have previously mentioned, the right for one to choose euthanasia holds a higher value than the views of society. In any case, the process of consent and administering the drugs is only one between the doctor and patient. This signifies a legal binding agreement between the physician and the patient. Therefore, it is not unethical for the physician nor in violation of one’s human rights. So to argue the value of human rights and that all humans deserve to live, is not a valid argument. As previously stated, it cannot be denied that the majority of patients who turn to euthanasia are terminally ill. Their bodies have begun to fail them to the point where they are unable to carry out daily functions such as eating, putting on clothes, or even breathing without assistance. From my perspective, I find it to be virtuous to let a psychologically capable, terminally ill

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

Because of remarkable advances in medical technology pharmacology that can artificially prolong a patient’s life, the field of medical ethics has been confronted with a new controversy: the legalization of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The word Euthanasia comes from the Greek word for “eus” which means godly or well, and “thanathos” which literally means death (F.A. Davis Company, 2001, p. 476). Before its contemporary use, the word euthanasia meant a peaceful, quiet way to depart from earth. However, in modern times, this concept has sparked an incredible controversy. Today, the word euthanasia also commonly, but wrongfully, used for the practices of physician-assisted suicide (PAS).

The complex ethical dilemma of euthanasia that “means different things to different people” (98) and it was the genetic engineer of the problems. It can be tacked carefully and consideration in chapter five by Webb, and Lennox) and in chapter six by Christian Accornero and Rouse). These sections were put more attention and another piece was moved by Lyon. These personal narratives and facts draw attention to various ways selfish and greedy towards humanity. As a result, the use of “euthanasia is simply an economically solution that inappropriately empowers humans to end life” (100 – 101) of all God’s creations. So, on this section of the book the authors highlights of environmental and nature of creation can be used an interchangeably.

When it comes to the topic of euthanasia most people readily agree that it can be a good thing for those who are terminally ill. On the other hand some people disagree with euthanasia because they say there is medical technology and medication that can be used to help with the pain and symptoms. My own view on the matter is that it can be a good thing for those who have a terminal illness because it isn’t fair that we make them suffer through the pain just because we aren’t ready to let them go or because we don’t necessarily agree with their choice to be euthanized.

78% of 3,251 requests for euthanasia were from patients with cancer in the year 2012. It depends in what countries you are in some consider euthanasia the same as assisted suicide, but others would say differently. It also depends on the case and what happened in it. Euthanasia is known of a painless way of ending someone’s life. Euthanasia case is growing more and more. Euthanasia is wrong it isn’t a natural death and individual still have time to live, why cut their life short.

For this assignment, I have decided to argue against Euthanasia. I have always felt that this concept in medicine is not right, and this essay presents me with the chance to give my reasons why I see it’s wrong to practice euthanasia. The term Euthanasia is a Greek word which when loosely translated into English means ‘quick and easy death’ (New York State Task Force on Life, and the Law). As it looks like, euthanasia was firstly practiced in ancient Greece as a way of putting patients out of their misery. The cause of someone’s death was not what disease they were suffering from, but poisons were introduced into their bodies to bring them to an early death. Then again, this was done against the will of the patient and at times, they were totally not informed that they will be

Tom L. Beauchamp in “Intending Death” states that “no stronger or more enduring prohibition exists in medicine than the rule against killing patients” (1). The fact is that there is now an inclination toward this said prohibition that is permitting more flexibility in allowing seriously and terminally ill patients to die and even giving them assistance. While several states have launched efforts to legalize euthanasia, many arguments on medical ethics advise that a reform needs to take place regarding law and medical practice in order to allow physicians to help their patients make the choice to die with dignity. There are countless ethical implications of legalizing euthanasia, some more prevalent and relevant that others. However none of