Abstract This paper begins by explaining the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide and then takes a look at the various reasons why a person may want to die. The paper then compares the Christian perspective on suicide with the perspective of individuals that believe that the right to die should be left up to the individual. The paper also discusses the effects and implications that technology has had on the ability to practice euthanasia, the position of the American Medical Association on the topic and public opinion about euthanasia. Finally, the paper talks about the state of Oregon, which is the only state in the U.S. where euthanasia is legal and concludes that individuals should be allowed the choice to end their lives in peace and dignity rather than suffer and face personal humiliation.
From the Paper "Recently voluntary active euthanasia has become a hotly debated issue. Euthanasia combines two Greek terms: Eu meaning "good" and thanatos, which means death. "One meaning given to the word is 'the intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who dies.'" (Robinson, 2001) Essentially, euthanasia is a form of suicide, but there are differences between euthanasia and assisted suicide. Either act would cause the patient to die. "Using this distinction, if a third party performs the last act that intentionally causes a patient's death, euthanasia has occurred."
Cases in which euthanasia has occurred are patients who are given a lethal injection or some other method in which the patient condition results in death. "On the other hand, if the person who dies performs the last act, assisted suicide has taken place." Examples of assisted suicide are when the patient is prescribed drugs by a physician, which would knowing result in death or when a physician has inserted an IV to a patient, that when triggered by the patient would administer a lethal dose resulting in the patient's death."
Abstract In this article, the writer explains that euthanasia or mercy killing is a Greek word actually meaning 'good or happy death'. The writer notes that in today's terminology, euthanasia means to "allow" someone to die, either at the hands of someone else, or at his or her own hands. The writer then discusses whether it is possible to envisage a level of pain or suffering where suicide is the best way out. The writer also asks whether one could imagine a point in someone's life where life could be considered as unworthy of living. The writer continues that even if the answer to this question is yes, does anyone have the right to end life? The writer concludes that a person's desire to be permitted to seek euthanasia, when a terminal illness becomes prolonged or unbearable, is a result of concern for quality of life and living with dignity without pain and suffering. Further, the writer claims that, while most people acknowledge that in cases of years of vegetative state with no chance of recovery or terminal illness with extreme pain and suffering, people should have a right to ask for euthanasia, permitting 'euthanasia on demand' has to be discouraged.
Outline:
Introduction
Philosophical Views
Types of Euthanasia Right to Live with Dignity
Euthanasia-An Ethical Dilemma
Conclusions
From the Paper "Euthanasia is certainly an intensely controversial topic and like pro- and anti - abortion advocates of abortion debate, pro euthanasia and pro-life argument excite high emotions. In this case the debates are opening a topic that certainly requires compassionate consideration. Should the doctors prolong life of a vegetative patient who has been on life support for years without any sign of recovery?
This debate very recently played on television all over the world in the Terri Schiavo Case. In this case, husband of Terri Schiavo, a vegetative patient, fought in courts to implement a promise he made to his wife for euthanasia in such an event. The woman's parents and supporters for anti euthanasia movement opposed withdrawal of the feeding tube and took the case right up to the Supreme Court. Terry Schiavo was eventually allowed to die as she wished, but the debate regarding euthanasia lives on."
Abstract This paper argues that voluntary euthanasia preserves dignity. Examined in this paper are such ideas as the right to die, the ethical parameters of euthanasia, the quality of life perspective and a place for euthanasia within varied perspectives. The author argues that one of the greatest ways to preserve another person's dignity is through an act of mercy. Voluntary euthanasia is an act of mercy, which therefore, preserves dignity with the bestowment of final compassion.
From the Paper "A step in awareness is the enactment of careful laws that permit forms of voluntary euthanasia. In the United States, the state of Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, allowing ?limited physician-assisted suicide,? is an example of a start for public understanding. In ideal cases of merciful euthanasia, a person makes a painstaking, well thought-out decision. Voluntary euthanasia is rarely carried out at the first knowledge of impending death, especially if medical help is available to treat the terminal disease. Voluntary euthanasia is an act of mercy, and therefore, preserves dignity with the bestowment of final compassion. "
Abstract This paper discusses Euthanasia, the right to die; the history and legislation concerning this controversial subject, as well as information on recent public and doctor opinion polls leading to a conclusion of support. It also details several cases and court decisions on this issue and how they have affected the laws on Euthanasia. The issue of active euthanasia, or assisted suicide, turns on whether it would have social consequences that refraining would not, on whether it would be possible to establish procedural safeguards for limited active euthanasia and whether such practices would have a significant adverse effect on the treatment of terminal patients in general.
From the Paper "It its September, 1997 issue, the journal Medical Economics reported ("No longer an Option for One AIDS Patient and His Doctor") that the Florida Supreme Court had ruled against physician-assisted suicide in a decision overturning a trial judge's finding, giving AIDS patient Charles E. Hall the right to die as he wished. According to the Florida court, his intention to commit suicide through medical intervention was against the state's policy to preserve life. Several legal issues have been raised regarding the court's decision, involving the fact that it was based upon cases where application of artificial treatment could indefinitely prolong life."
Abstract This paper examines the controversial issue of euthanasia and the arguments put forth by both supporters and opponents of this practice. The paper traces the history of euthanasia and the origins of the controversy associated with the practice, pointing out that it wasn't until the rise of Christianity that euthanasia became a mortal sin. The paper argues that euthanasia is a compassionate way for dying persons with no chance of recovery and in great pain, to voluntarily end their lives when and how they wish and is, thus, not an act of murder. The paper further argues that opponents of euthanasia who argue that only God has the right to determine the time and means of a person's death should not try to force their beliefs on all members of society, as to do so would be the real sin.
From the Paper "Euthanasia has undergone many changes in meaning and acceptability through the Classical era, the rise of Christianity, and the Enlightenment. In today's society, people are split over whether or nor terminally ill patients have the right to decide to terminate their lives. Those who oppose euthanasia feel that only God can decide when and how a person will die; that legalizing euthanasia will lead to abuses and involuntary euthanasia; and that physicians have an obligation to preserve life, not to end it, under the Hippocratic oath. Supporters say that to allow someone to suffer when there is no hope is inhumane, that human beings are autonomous, and that the patient whose pain is controlled by debilitating drugs may have life, but they are not alive. Both sides have good arguments, but neither should be able to enforce their view on the other. Legalized euthanasia is not murder or 'playing God', but a way to afford people who are terminally ill a chance to avoid a long and painful demise by allowing them to chose the time and circumstances of their own death."
Abstract This paper discusses the medical ethics concerning euthanasia, presenting arguments both for and against euthanasia. The paper relates that proponents of euthanasia maintain that dying with dignity is a right that every human being should be assured of, while opponents contend that life, in whatever capacity is a human right, and as such no person has the right to take it away from another, regardless of the reasons. The author examines the four principles of ethics that are prominent in the medical profession, non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy and justice, and suggests that they can be used in considering issues such as euthanasia. The paper also suggests that professionals, family members, and friends of the persons considering euthanasia should be included in the decision making process, so as to curb the problem of practices such as unconsented assisted suicide.
From the Paper "Active euthanasia on the other hand is the administration of a substance to hasten the death of the patient for the purpose of ending suffering for either the person involved or family members in the case of for example a coma that is unlikely to end. Associations such as the AMA are in favor of passive euthanasia, while being opposed to active euthanasia. On the other hand, those who are opposed to euthanasia in all its forms would refer to one distinction as murder and the other as aiding suicide."
Abstract An examination of the issues and reasons which formed the decision in the Canadian cases of Sue Rodriguez and Robert Latimer. This paper examines the decision of the court in relation to the law, as well as the effects of the decision on disabled persons in Canada.
From the paper:
"The cases of Rodriguez and Latimer were landmark decisions, which set precedents over the practice of euthanasia in Canada. It is likely that these two decisions will be the cornerstones of future challenges to the laws which are currently in place prohibiting this practice. While both of these cases dealt with instances of euthanasia, the circumstances behind the cases were very different. Both have given rise to debate within Canadian society about the freedom each individual has over when and how we will die. Do we have the right to choose? Do others have the right to choose for us if we are not capable ourselves? The moral and ethical dimensions within these questions, difficult as they are, are even more complicated when the same questions are raised in relation to the criminal law. Both Rodriguez and Latimer were highly divisive cases which inflamed the emotions of those who support euthanasia, and those who oppose."
Abstract In the last decade, euthanasia has been a subject of much controversy. The debate has been over a person's right to die and a person's right to live. This paper explains some of the moral issues and implications associated with the practice of euthanasia, some definitions and forms of euthanasia, and presents many arguments for and against the practice. The paper explains the argument that our society and medical practices are becoming so advanced that some feel that euthanasia is just a natural step towards assuring ourselves a peaceful existence and a peaceful end. It also shows how others argue that the gift of life is too precious to end in such an unnatural way.
From the Paper "Some people worry that if euthanasia becomes more socially acceptable that some people will choose to die not because of an incurable disease, old age, or pain, but just because he or she may feel depressed or feel that their life has no value. Depression can be treated with different types of medication and counseling and a person's depression can be reversed if treated properly (Petrinovich 1996:105-111). This is the type of situation that St. Martin (1977) is talking about when he mentions the deprivation of this person to society."
Abstract This article discusses a patient's right to die. The writer looks at the various forms of euthanasia and related issues. The writer examines the doctors' duties in such a case. Further, the writer looks at the matter of death with dignity for a patient. The difficult and controversial issue of assisted suicide is also raised. In this paper, the writer argues in favor of euthanasia.
From the Paper "Euthanasia is a necessary tool to help alleviate the suffering of those who no longer want to live. At one time, death meant the termination of breathing and heartbeat. This definition worked until technology made it possible to sustain respiration and heartbeat almost indefinitely, even without brain activity. Brain death became the next standard of death and remains the standard used to determine death. Peter Setness, writing in Postgraduate Medicine, comments that medical science now offers us the ability to sustain life under ... "
Tags:euthanasia, passive, active, assisted suicide, right to die, living will, heroic measures, ethics, morality religion
Abstract This paper is a critique of James Rachels' four main arguments for the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia. Rachels argues that voluntary active euthanasia is more passive than "letting someone die," that it is morally acceptable for doctors to assist terminally ill patients in voluntary suicide. The author illustrates how, since Rachels is a philosopher, he quickly dismisses the legality of most of his suggested answers.
From the Paper "James Rachels discussed euthanasia in a very liberal view in his article ?Active and Passive Euthanasia,? included in the sixth edition of Thomas Mappes? Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy. His challenges to the status quo are four-fold. First of all, active euthanasia is more humane than passive. Next, the doctrines in practice decide life and death on irrelevant grounds. Third, there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. And his last argument is that the most familiar reason for keeping active euthanasia illegal is invalid."
Abstract This paper argues that, providing certain criteria are met, euthanasia should be a matter of individual choice. The paper also includes a discussion on the different types of euthanasia, arguments made that oppose euthanasia, and rebuttals to those arguments.
From the Paper "Whether euthanasia should be legal is one of those hotly debated questions that revolves around choice. It is about giving people access to medical assistance in dying. The discussion about euthanasia often challenges peoples? values and involves emotional accusations such as threatening the lives of medically vulnerable people. I think that the basic question posed by euthanasia is whether a person who is terminally ill; who feels that life is not worth living because of uncontrollable pain, loss of dignity, loss of capability; who repeatedly and actively asks to be helped in committing suicide; and whose mind is sound and not suffering from depression, should be given assistance in dying. I think the fair answer to this question is yes, euthanasia should be a matter of individual choice."
Abstract This paper presents several arguments, both pro and con, on the topic of euthanasia. The moral questions involved with this issue are explored, from both medical and religious perspectives. The author is in favor of the right-to-die, yet still gives an even-handed approach to the controversy.
From the Paper "Some opponents of euthanasia have attempted to strike a middle ground, shying away from actively allowing the constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide but making a moral distinction between actively helping patients to kill themselves and withholding treatment from a terminally ill patient, such as food and water, and there thereby permitting death, what Kevin P. Glynn has called the "ethical principle of double effect," a principle that "holds that an act intended for a morally good purpose may have an unintended but permissible bad effect." (Glynn, 1999) In other words, administering drugs to hasten dying is not permissible under the physican's ideal of doing no harm, but by doing no good, and having the same effect, less active harm will be created. This is how Catholic charities often make allowances for giving pain-relieving drugs to the dying that may hasten, if not actually cause the patient's death."
Abstract This paper explores the issue of euthanasia. The author begins by discussing Dr. Jack Kevorkian and his court room trials for assisted suicide and then briefly looks at U.S. state law regarding euthanasia. The author also provides a comparison between passive and active euthanasia and reviews some of the many myths about euthanasia. It concludes with a study of the varying reasons people oppose euthanasia, including the author's personal feelings on the subject.
From the Paper "The people who are against euthanasia give several reasons for their belief. They believe that family members will talk their elderly relatives into euthanasia, so they can have their inheritance. Or they will withdraw food and drink per relative request. Or it will eventually turn into a situation where doctors and such can decide when it is time for a person to die. Even if the request is genuine, they believe that counseling will help. There is no difference between a well person wanting to die, then a sick. The only thing is one has a mental illness, and the other has a physical ailment. They are not saying that doctors should try everything in the world to keep a person a live. They believe that is inhumane. What they are saying is don't help a person die (Johansen, 1-3)."
Tags: assisted, suicide, terminal, medical, murder, elderly, die, death
Abstract This paper addresses the concern most often vocalized about euthanasia, namely, whether it is a form of murder or mercy. The author of the paper puts forth arguments that euthanasia should be legalized and applies the ethical theories of consequentialism and non-consequentialism to help assess and evaluate whether or not euthanasia should be legalized and, ultimately, to support the author's point of view. The paper also provides suggestions for legal protections and policies that should be put in place if euthanasia is legalized.
From the Paper "Most of the issues in the legalization of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), or better known as Euthanasia, rest under contentious questions of ethics and morality. The process of euthanasia, in which death of a terminally ill patient is hastened by some means to end sufferings from a terminal disease, presents a question between two situations wherein concerns of ethics and morality are debated as to where it properly lies ? When is it morally correct, to hasten the death of a dying patient from a terminal disease to end his sufferings, or to let him suffer from pain and let the course of his disease's nature take place? This question has been one of the moral issues concerning the legalization of euthanasia. In simple and legal terms, it is associated to the debatable question "Is euthanasia a form of murder"?"
Abstract This paper looks at the history of the issues concerning the "right to die" for terminally ill patients. The "right to die" is not a new issue and it has been debated for many years in the courtrooms of America. It examines how the "right to die" debate focuses on a patient's right to decide whether their life should end or when a family of a vegetative patient asks for permission to let their loved one die. It evaluates how, as the medical community becomes even more advanced, it will become important to decide the right to die issues. The author uses analytical skills to dissect and argue several right to die cases that have been presented in court in America and discusses the ethics of the practice as well as presents ideas about the future ?right to die? arguments and cases.
From the Paper "One of the first and most famous cases in the right to die debate was the case of Karen Quinlan. Quinlan slipped into a coma and was pronounced in a permanent vegetative state. For many years she was kept alive by tubes and machines though her brain was not showing activity and her body could not fend for itself even in the most simple of tasks such as eating or breathing. Her family wanted her suffering to end not to mention that the financial burden was almost never ending for a person who was never going to recover or improve. The family took the caregivers to court to get the court to give them the right to unplug her feeding tube and allow her to die a natural death. They were refused. It was the first such case in the courts in the nation in recorded history and it received worldwide media attention."
