PlanetPapers.com RSS Feed

Pros and Cons of Euthanasia

2004-09-19T19:53:49-04:00

According to Webster’s New World Compact Office Dictionary, euthanasia means ‘the act of causing death painlessly, so as to end suffering’. There are many opinions about this subject, along with important questions. The question this paper examines is, “Should the government legalize euthanasia?” If euthanasia were to become legalized, it would simply be the relieving of suffering of those with incurable diseases by being given fatal does of an anesthetic or narcotic. Rather than one suffering for years, only to die painfully, the patient could keep their dignity and die in a more or less humane way. During a murder trial of a man he helped die, Dr. Jack Kevorkian said, “I call it a medical service. Tom Youk came to me and said, ‘Please help me.’ The aim was a final solution to incurable agony.” The legalization of euthanasia would give the right to doctors to practice active euthanasia on patients who give their consent. Therefore, they would be doing a service to their patients. Mainly, the legalization affects incurable, terminally ill patients. According to Cancer Weekly in Sept. of 2000, from a surveyed group of terminally ill cancer patients, 73% said that they believed euthanasia should be legal. In Canada, informs the British Medical Journal, 75% of people from a public poll, favor mercy killings of untreatably ailing patients. However, the ailing patient must have requested it in writing. The validation of euthanasia would not only benefit fatally and incurably ill patients, by relieving their pain. It would also affect patients in a “persistent vegetable state”, who’d only live the rest of their life in pain and suffering. The whole point of legalizing it would be to kill those in need painlessly, like the ancient Greeks did before it was thought of as wrong. The government should not legalize euthanasia because even if the patient consents, it is still murder and a felony. According to the 1965 ‘Murder Act’, a person can be convicted of murder only if it is proved that the accused had premeditated the crime. When a doctor assists a patient in dying and has the consent of the patient, the crime becomes premeditated. Dr. Jack Kevorkian is now in prison on charges of 2nd degree murder, for helping Tom Youk to terminate his existence. While it may

Machine or Human Being?

2004-08-18T18:19:21-04:00

Eutahasia and Physician Assisted Suicide

2004-01-13T17:43:10-05:00

Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide. Discussions about euthanasia often get mired in a mountain of emotional accusations, such as charges that the “most vulnerable” of humans are “besieged by euthanasia practitioners” and that families must fight “anti-life assaults on their loved ones” which “threatens the lives of those who are medically vulnerable.” In reality the basic question that should be posed by euthanasia and physician assisted suicide to any person should be, should a person who is terminally ill and feels that their life is not worth living because of intractable pain, loss of dignity, loss of capability (disabled in any kind of way) and who repeatedly asks for help in committing suicide, is of sound and mind and not suffering from depression be given the choice of physician assisted suicide? Ultimately, euthanasia is a question of choice empowering people to have control over their own bodies. Most arguments against from a religious aspect are that “God gave life, only he should take it away.” Why should people be given the choice to play god. To choose whether it is acceptable to murder a living person. No living man in the world should ever in their lives ever make a decision to take away someone’s life. I urge you at this moment to think, would you like the responsibility to make such a fatal decision, the choice to choose someone’s fate? Luckily there are people who stand firmly against euthanasia and physician assisted ‘MURDER’ such as groups concerned with disabilities, who fear that euthanasia is the first step towards a society that will kill disabled people against their will. If a law to allow euthanasia was passed the devastation could be endless. It could just begin with terminally ill patients but extend to allow the state to kill anyone they deem worthless. Dr Dobson states, “We will eventually be killing those who aren’t sick, those who don’t ask to die, those who are young and depressed, those who someone considers to have a poor quality of life, and those who feel it is their obligation to ‘get out of the way.” Groups that promote access to assisted suicide seem to publicize cases where people have a terminal illness, are in intractable pain, and want to end their life. Although such cases do exist, they are in small minority. Many dying patients who are in serious pain have adequate access to pain-controlling medication. I urge you to

Euthanasia and Physician

2004-01-11T14:14:26-05:00

Active Euthanasia Should be Legalized in the United States

2003-12-12T06:49:21-05:00

The practice of euthanasia has posed a question of morality and ethicality which has been a major topic of controversy for centuries. It raises the issue of whether a terminally ill person should suffer torturing and lingering pain before death, or if they should be given the choice of peaceful and painless death. The euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the right to die and “staunch defenders of personal liberty argue that all of us are morally entitled to end our lives when we see fit” (“Euthanasia” 1). Early practices of euthanasia have been traced back to the ancient Roman and Greek Empires. In their beliefs “ the ancient Greeks and Romans did not consider life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or, where a person no longer cared for his life” (“Voluntary Euthanasia” 2). The word euthanasia derived from the Greek words eu – thanatos which means gentle and easy death. In society, euthanasia can be viewed in two different forms; passive and active. Passive euthanasia involves a terminally ill person to do nothing to prevent his or her death and allowing himself or herself to die. On the contrary, active euthanasia involves a request by the dying patient or that person’s legal representative to have a physician inject a lethal dose of a drug to kill the person. Active euthanasia is the more controversial of the two and is currently illegal in the United States. The attempt to legalize euthanasia has lead to the “right to die” movement which states that such laws violate the people’s privacy and rights. This movement was led by Dr. Jack Kevorkian who believes “people have a right to avoid a lingering, miserable death by ending their own lives with help from a physician who can ensure that they die peacefully” (“Jack Kevorkian” 1). Dr. Jack Kevorkian respected requests from the patient and illustrated rebellion against such laws which strip people of the right to choose their own fate. The state of Oregon protects the laws of active euthanasia and provides a choice with the Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, which allows prescriptions of lethal doses of a drug to be self - administered by the patient under strict circumstances and procedures. Making active euthanasia in the United States illegal sparked

Euthanasia

2002-07-30T14:00:00-04:00

Euthanasia is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary as "the action of killing an individual for reasons considered to be merciful" (469). Here, killing is described as the physical action where one individual actively kills another. Euthanasia is tolerated in the medical field under certain circumstances when a patient is suffering profoundly and death is inevitable. The word "euthanasia" comes from the Greek eu, "good", and thanatos, "death," literally, "good death"; however, the word "euthanasia" is much more difficult to define. Each person may define euthanasia differently. Who is to decide whether a death is good or not? Is any form of death good? All of these questions can be answered differently by each person. It is Generally taken today to mean that act which a health care Professional carries out to help his/her patient achieve a good death. Suicide, self-deliverance, auto-euthanasia, aid-in-dying, Assisted suicide -- call it what you like-- it can be justified by theAverage supporter of the so-called "right to die movement" for the following reasons: The first reason is that an advanced terminal illness is causing unbearable suffering to the individual. This suffering is the most common reason to seek an early end. Second, a grave physical handicap exists that is so restricting that the individual cannot, even after due care, counseling, and re-training, tolerate such a limited existence. This handicap is a fairly rare reason for suicide; most impaired people cope remarkably well with their affliction, but there are some who would, at a certain point, rather die. We say that there is a second form of suicide; justifiable suicide, that is a rational and planned self-deliverance from a painful and hopeless disease, which will shortly end in death. I do not think the word "suicide" sits well in this context but we are left with it. Suicide is the taking of one's own life. Why does the term euthanasia even exist? Is euthanasia not suicide? A differentiation must be made between the two. Suicide is condoned by society as being Unacceptable but euthanasia is viewed as moral and acceptable in most instances. The term "self-deliverance" is difficult to understand because the news media is in love with the words "doctor-assisted suicide". This is because the news media is dissecting the idea of whether or not doctors, who are supposed to preserve life, should partake in euthanasia. The

Euthanasia in Australia

2001-10-26T14:00:00-04:00

What is

On Euthanasia

2001-10-01T14:00:00-04:00
There is a much-used word these days – “euphoria.” Although this is usually a word related to illegal drug use, it can also express the feeling of one Dian Prity, a patient with a terminal disease, had when she was bestowed with the right to have an euthanasia by her husband. This right should not be limited to her: in order to preserve one’s rights and dignity, all terminal patients should be given the right for euthanasia. It may be refuted that euthanasia is contradictory to human rights; however, it is actually the ultimate human right. In a democratic society, the prevalent one today, everyone

The Medicalisation of Death

2001-08-09T14:00:00-04:00
Critical evaluation of: whether medical explanations predominate and how individuals negotiate and resist the medical model. In order to illustrate the predominance of medical explanations, a definition of the medicalisation thesis will be given and illustrated by the case of the treatment of terminally ill patients. The medicalisation of death and dying will be highlighted by a review of sociological literature from both feminist and non-feminist perspectives. The limits of medicalisation will be provided as a rationale for the resistance of the medifcal model. Finally, the ways in which individuals negotiate and resist the medicalisation of death will be discussed including the rise of pro-euthanasia groups, increasing use of complementary medicine, and the popularity of the hospice movement. The main elements of the medical model of health are the search for objective, discernable signs of disease, its diagnosis and treatment (Biswas, 1993). Therefore, by adhering to this reductionist view, the human body is seen as a biochemical machine (Turner, 1995) and health merely as an absence of disease, a commodity to be bought and sold. The rise of hospitals with their goal of curing and controlling disease has led to the marginalisation of lay medicine, and a focus upon the individual rather than society as a cause of ill health. Health education and promotion with their focus upon 'victim blaming' and individualism have extended the remit of the medical profession from the hospital into the community. With medical imperialism the power of medicina has grown and medicine has all but replaced religion as an institution of social control. Illich (1976, p53) describes medicine as a: 'moral enterprise.....[which] gives content to good and evil..... like law and religion [it] defines what is normal, proper or desirable'. Medicalisation is defined as:'a process of increased medical intervention into areas that hitherto would be outside he medical domain' (Bilton et al, 1996 p422). Areas of life which could be considered 'natural' such as pregnancy, childbirth, unhappiness, ageing and death have been brought within the medical remit (Taylor & Field, 1997) and therefore are increasingly viewed under the principles of the medical model. Indeed many of these 'ailments' cannot be cured by medical intervention but are still subjected to the 'medical gaze' Szasz (1964) believed that treatment of the mentally ill by drugs and electroconvulsiv therapy was not only unnecessary but a violation of human rights (cited in Scambler, 1991). Social problems such as child abuse, violence and

Euthansia

2001-07-03T14:00:00-04:00
Euthanasia is often called “mercy killing”. It is intentionally making someone die, rather than allowing that person to die naturally. It is sometimes the act of ending someone’s life, who is terminally ill, or is suffering in severe pain. Euthanasia is mostly illegal in the world today. Euthanasia can be considered a form of suicide, if the person afflicted with the problem actively does it. The person volunteering to commit the act to that person can also consider it a form of murder. The positive side of Euthanasia is that it ends a person’s suffering in this world. Many physicians and psychiatrists believe that it may a humane act. From a virtue ethics point of view, it may be appropriate. What we seek in human existence is to be happy, and find happiness. Suffering from a terminal illness, or affliction, could inhibit one’s happiness in life. If the goal is to be happy, then Euthanasia would be an answer for this person. Euthanasia may even bring about happiness in that it is what the person desires and wants, in order to no longer to be a burden to his/her family. Also, Euthanasia would stop the pain and not prolong the dying process. In the utilitarian point of view we all have a duty to our happiness, and a duty to the society. Euthanizing a person based on the society aspect makes sense. With greater and greater emphasis put on managed care today, many doctors are at a financial risk when they provide treatments to patients who are in the dying process. These patients may also feel like not becoming a burden to the society at large, and choose to fulfill a duty – Euthanasia. If the person is in a coma or is brain dead, that person is no use to himself or herself, or society anymore. Euthanasia is a viable method to end an otherwise futile attempt at recovery. The family of the person being euthanized may not want their family members in pain – to suffer. It can be a family duty to do the right thing for the person and society. Depression, family conflict, feelings of abandonment, and hopelessness, are emotional burdens on family members seeing a person suffer. Committing euthanasia may be the humane act to do for the afflicted family member in this case. The euthanized person may even be of use to society in a utilitarian manner, if

Euthanasia

2001-03-27T14:00:00-04:00
Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide “To be or not to be” Problem: Life is a precious gift containing a wide spectrum of emotions and experiences that make it so sacred. Emotions and experiences are intertwined and are the substance of ones existence. Yet when the pain outweighs the joy of life one begins questioning whether or not to endure. “To be or not to be” an extremely difficult question, a query that resides souly in desperation a place of pain and darkness. What brings a person to even consider such an act? What is up ahead or around this individual that feeds the need to bail out? It seems that perpetual pain or loss of ones control are both common reasons for this escape. Euthanasia and assisted suicide have both been topics contemplated throughout the history of human civilization. Whether or not one has the right to take their own life and further more get aid in doing so. “Euthanasia can be traced as far back as to the ancient Greek and Roman civilization where it was allowed to help others die”(Encarta 98). This practice has followed us through the years and has been rejected accepted and considered throughout the globe. “ In the United States the first doctor was charged for performing euthanasia in 1935. Harold Blazer was charged for the death of his daughter a victim of spinal meningitis. After caring for her for thirty years, he placed a rag of chloroform over her face until she died, he was acquitted from charges” (www.angelfire.com/al/jefspage). “In Holland euthanasia and assisted suicide are both crimes punishable with 12 years in prison, yet it has been a common practice (3,600 cases in 1995 alone) for nearly a decade. These laws are rarely enforced providing physicians follow official guidelines” (Time.com). Currently in the United States controversy swarms on weather or not to allow euthanasia and assisted suicide. ”Marian Fredrick stricken with Lou Gehrig’s disease, felt her muscles degenerate to the point where she could no longer hold her head up, or speak. Marian then decided to end her life seeking out Dr. Kevorkian, who helped her find a final peace”(Proposal B). Should we allow a person who is terminally ill, in constant pain, and on the verge of losing control, the right and the privilege to escape from their fading shell? Should they have the “right” to seek aid and consolation in this important decision? Absolutely,

Euthanasia

2001-03-08T13:00:00-05:00
Euthanasia which comes from the Greek meaning of easy death is one of our societies highly debatable issues and the main reason for this argument is against active euthanasia, which is when a terminally ill patient is administered with a lethal drug or using other means to cause there death. There is also Passive euthanasia, which means the stopping or not starting a persons treatment, leaving their condition to run it’s course, without resuscitation. . Many people debate this issue stating that they believe that by participating in the practice of active euthanasia, that they are "playing God," but isn’t that what doctors are already doing by trying to keep their patients alive? Or perhaps, even worse, that they believe that people who support euthanasia are not acting out of mercy, but rather out of selfishness or that they are just giving up. People also think that it is just a fancy name for murder but isn’t murder defined as; “The unlawful, premeditated killing of one human being by another.” Where as with euthanasia an ill person is choosing to die and merely asking for assistance by another human being so that they can die in dignity with out having to commit suicide which can be very hard on the persons family and can also cause some legal problems. Some may also argue the point of what to do if a person is suffering with an illness of which there seems no hope of recovery, yet they are unable to make a choice for themselves, how do we know what that person would choose? And who would make that decision? But that is where a living will would be used, which a person can Wright stating what they want to happen to them while they are still alive and well, so if faced with this situation family and doctors would know what the person wanted. Another question you must ask yourself is why people who have an old and diseased dog that was suffering in pain they would to take it to a vet, and most likely have it put down no questioned asked. Because they would want to relieve it from all its pain. But if a person was to be in the same situation and they were to go to a doctor, the doctor would do what ever they could to keep their patient alive and at any cost. Even

The Murder of Oneself

2000-10-15T14:00:00-04:00
Sam Vaknin's Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign Affairs Web Sites Those who believe in the finality of death (i.e., that there is no after-life) – they are the ones who advocate suicide and regard it as a matter of personal choice. On the other hand, those who firmly believe in some form of existence after corporeal death – they condemn suicide and judge it to be a major sin. Yet, rationally, the situation should have been reversed : it should have been easier for someone who believed in continuity after death to terminate this phase of existence on the way to the next. Those who faced void, finality, non-existence, vanishing – should have been greatly deterred by it and should have refrained even from entertaining the idea. Either the latter do not really believe what they profess to believe – or something is wrong with rationality. One would tend to suspect the former. Suicide is very different from self sacrifice, avoidable martyrdom, engaging in life risking activities, refusal to prolong one’s life through medical treatment, euthanasia, overdosing and self inflicted death that is the result of coercion. What is common to all these is the operational mode: a death caused by one’s own actions. In all these behaviours, a foreknowledge of the risk of death is present coupled with its acceptance. But all else is so different that they cannot be regarded as belonging to the same class. Suicide is chiefly intended to terminate a life – the other acts are aimed at perpetuating, strengthening and defending values. Those who commit suicide do so because they firmly believe in the finiteness of life and in the finality of death. They prefer termination to continuation. Yet, all the others, the observers of this phenomenon, are horrified by this preference. They abhor it. This has to do with out understanding of the meaning of life. Ultimately, life has only meanings that we attribute and ascribe to it. Such a meaning can be external (God’s plan) or internal (meaning generated through arbitrary selection of a frame of reference). But, in any case, it must be actively selected, adopted and espoused. The difference is that, in the case of external meanings, we have no way to judge their validity and quality (is God’s plan for us a good one or not?). We just “take them on” because they are big, all encompassing and of

Active Euthenasia - A Kantian Perspective

2000-02-29T13:00:00-05:00
Euthanasia is one of society's more widely, and hotly debated moral issues of our time. More directly, active euthanasia, which by definition, is; "Doing something, such as administering a lethal drug, or using other means that cause a person's death."1 Passive euthanasia, defined as; "Stopping (or not starting) some treatment, which allows a person to die, the person's condition causes his or her death,"2 seems not to be as debated, perhaps not as recognized, as it's counterpart. I have chosen to look more closely at the issue of active euthanasia, and whether or not it would be considered ethical, by Kantian standards. Those who support the practice of active euthanasia might argue that helping the terminally ill to bring about their own deaths, allowing them to determine the how and when, is not only humane, but also allows the person, who is simply "living to die," to maintain dignity by orchestrating their own end, thus letting them die at peace, rather than suffer to the end, preceiving themselves to be a burden and/or disgrace, to those they love. According to recent polls, many Canadians would agree,3 but the question is, have they taken a close look at the ethical debate? Those who are against active euthanasia would say not, and would argue that by participating in the practice of active euthanasia, one is "playing God," or perhaps, even worse, that they are not acting out of mercy, but rather out of selfishness, attempting to lessen their own burden, and that therefore, the act is nothing less than cold-blooded murder. Murder is defined as; "The unlawful, premeditated killing of one human being by another."4 Euthanasia, in Canada, remains unlawful as of today, and the act of euthanasia is premeditated, thus whether for the purpose of mercy or not, euthanasia is, by definition, murder. According to Kantian perspective and the Holy Bible, murder is both a sin and a crime, therefore we ought not participate in the practice of euthanasia, because it is murder, and it is the wrong thing to do. The euthanasia debate raises many questions. Questions such as; For whose benefit is the murder actually taking place? Ought we allow family members to make a life-or-death decision on behalf of a loved one who may never have expressed a desire to die, simply because they could not vocalize a will to live? (As was the case of Robert Latimer). If a

Euthanasia

1999-12-15T13:00:00-05:00
In recent years, Euthanasia has become a very heated debate. It is a Greek word that means "easy death" but the controversy surrounding it is just the opposite. Whether the issue is refusing prolonged life mechanically, assisting suicide, or active euthanasia, we eventually confront our socity's fears toward death itself. Above others, our culture breeds fear and dread of aging and dying. It is not easy for most of the western world to see death as an inevitable part of life. However, the issues that surround euthanasia are not only about death, they are about ones liberty, right to privacy and control over his or her own body. So, the question remains: Who has the right? Under current U.S. law, there are clear distinctions between the two types of euthanasia. One group of actions taken to bring about the death of a dying patient -withdrawal of life support, referred to by some as passive euthanasia- has been specifically upheld by the courts as a legal right of a patient to request and a legal act for a doctor to perform. A second group of actions taken to bring about the death of a dying patient -physician-assisted death, referred to by some as active euthanasia- is specifically prohibited by laws in most states banning "mercy killing" and is condemned by the American Medical Association. Although it is not a crime to be present when a person takes his or her life, it is a crime to take direct action intentionally designed to help facilitate death--no matter how justifiable and compassionate the circumstances may be.1 With active euthanasia, it is the doctor who administers the lethal drug dose. Since it is tantamount to homicide, the few U.S. doctors who perform it have been brought to trial but none of them have ever been convicted and imprisoned. Modern interest in euthanasia in the United States began in 1870, when a commentator, Samuel Williams, proposed to the Birmingham Speculative Club that euthanasia be permitted "in all cases of hopeless and painful illness" to bring about "a quick and painless death." The word "painless" is important: the idea of euthanasia began gaining ground in modern times not because of new technologies for agonizingly prolonging life but because of the discovery of new drugs, such as morphine and various anesthetics for the

Euthanasia

1999-11-27T13:00:00-05:00
Lisa, a 43-year-old woman was diagnosed with lung cancer, terminal disease. For the past 2 years Lisa has been receiving chemotherapy and taking numerous types of medication trying to prolong her life. This life prolonging treatment caught up with her. Everyday now Lisa has to battle just to get out of bed, everyday getting worse and worse. The doctors now tell Lisa she has six to eight months to live, and she has to receive 6 hours of therapy everyday. Lisa then breaks down in tears. She decides she doesn't want to go through anymore pain or suffering. Now knowing it is only a matter of time before she dies, she wants to end her suffering by taking her own life. Lisa can not do it by herself; she needs someone to assist her. But how can someone assist a terminally ill person in taking their life and not risk going to jail for it? This brings up the controversial and moral debate of legalization of P.A.D. (Physician Assisted Death) and the act of euthanasia in America. Should people who are terminally ill, go through pain and suffering, or should they have a choice? Why doesn't this women have the right to choose the way she lives or dies? There is a difference between P.A.D. and euthanasia. P.A.D. involves a second party, actually a doctor, who gives the patient drugs and instructs the person planning to take his or her own life. With euthanasia, it is a doctor who administers the lethal drug dose. Since it is identical to homicide, active euthanasia is illegal in every state. But how do prosecutors define the difference between ending a person's life with his or her permission, and helping a person commit suicide? If a doctor, at a patient's request, gives the person a lethal injection, he or she may be charged with murder. However, if a doctor simply places the lethal injection by the patient's side, and the patient injects himself or herself, the doctors would be charged with assisted suicide. "In the Netherlands, because primary care doctors have long-term relationships with their patients, helping them die takes a heavy emotional toll (Neumann 5)." Although few doctors who perform it have been brought to trial and none have been convicted and imprisoned. Most doctors hesitate to practice assisted suicide on legal grounds. Doctors are trained to preserve life; most doctors are troubled by

Euthanasia in our society today

1999-05-09T14:00:00-04:00
Euthanasia is a controversial subject, not only because there are many different moral dilemmas associated with it,