| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "ACTIVE EUTHANASIA": |
|
|
Active and Passive Euthanasia, 2008.
This paper discusses active and passive euthanasia in Canada and the implications for nursing.
1,138 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper contends that active euthanasia should never be legalized because it is morally wrong. The paper explores passive euthanasia, which is generally accepted when it is clear that a person wants to have no extraordinary measures taken to prolong his/her life. The paper discusses how nurses must be familiar with the complexities of euthanasia. The paper explains that a request for active euthanasia can result in a serious ethical dilemma for the nurse who is unprepared and who has not determined a personal ethical stance.
From the Paper
"Active euthanasia and assisted suicide will very probably never be legalized in Canada. I agree because the ethical principle relating to autonomy is violated in cases of assisted suicide, irrespective of whether or not the patient's consent is given. The view of the Canadian government on assisted suicide has been clear through the 1993 case of Sue Rodriguez. This woman was suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease and requested the right to assisted suicide. A painful death was inevitable and she wished official approval of her eventual need for assisted suicide. The government's decision can be viewed in two ways. First of all, as stated by the court, "Fundamental justice required that a fair balance be struck between the interests of the state and those of the individual" (Kondro, 1993, p. 918). The principle at work was justice and determining what was the best course for all individuals. Assisted suicide, if legalized, can lead to abuse. The other viewpoint is that the court's decision was based on a slippery slope or fear of possible negative outcomes."
| |
|
Active Euthanasia, 2002.
A look at the controversial debate on active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide.
856 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how one of the most controversial debates to concern the medical profession in recent decades is that of physician assisted suicide, or active euthanasia. It examines how among the multitude of issues and complex arguments that surround the debate, there is one fundamental human right that must be acknowledged, that the individual and not society, has ultimate control over his/her future. It evaluates how when applied to the issue of active suicide, the individual relies on the assistance of a physician in carrying out his/her personal wishes and it is this physician-assistance that draws a great deal of criticism from opponents. It shows how many of the arguments against active suicide are centered upon the area of regulation and potential abuse. It analyzes how in the interest of ensuring the individual?s right to self-determination and in order to ensure that active suicide occurs in an environment of security and safety, physicians must be allowed to prescribe lethal doses or combinations of drugs to assist terminally ill patients in suicide.
From the Paper
"Another common argument used to oppose active euthanasia is that, if legalized, there is a great risk of the number of assisted deaths spiraling out of control, with an added danger of unscrupulous families or physicians abusing the system. This ?slippery slope? theory owes more to atrocities committed by Hitler?s Nazi regime, than to any objective or empirical evidence. The number of people requesting physician-assisted euthanasia would be as small as that which currently persuades others to act illegally in order to ease their suffering. Such an argument displays a frighteningly high level of paranoia, and worryingly low level of faith in the individual?s desire for life and in the integrity of the medical profession."
| |
|
Active and Passive Euthanasia, 2005.
This paper discusses various aspects of euthanasia.
1,130 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 6 sources, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper, the writer considers the various aspects of euthanasia. The writer looks at passive and active euthanasia and also discusses assisted suicide. The writer attempts to rationally explain or justify some or all of these activities by doctor.
From the Paper
"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 remarkably adverse conditions. Patients, whose prognosis would have been deemed hopeless just a decade ago now routinely ... "
| |
|
Active and Passive Euthanasia, 2005.
This paper examines the morality of euthanasia.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper states that doctor assisted suicide in the form of passive euthanasia and active euthanasia under certain conditions are morally justified. The author reasons that this moral justification is based on the basic ethical principle that human suffering should not be prolonged by medical science simply to extend physical life. The paper relates that rational egoism, which claims that the promotion of one's own interests is always in accordance with reason, justifies euthanasia because terminally ill human beings have the inherent right to protect their own interests by refusing medical treatment.
From the Paper
"Doctor assisted suicide in the form of passive euthanasia, and active euthanasia under certain conditions, is morally justified because of the basic ethical principle that human suffering should not be prolonged by medical science simply to extend physical life. Rational egoism, which "claims that the promotion of one's own interests is always in accordance with reason" (Mosely) justifies euthanasia, because terminally ill human beings have the inherent right to protect their own interests by refusing medical treatment. They are the moral guardians of their own lives and the ultimate authority to be considered; not doctors, lawyers, insurance companies, nor the government."
| |
|
"Active and Passive Euthanasia", 2002.
A summary and evaluation of James Rachels' article.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 1 source, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is in two parts: a summary of Rachels' article about active and passive euthanasia and an evaluation of his argument. His argument is good, but is made weak by his example of Jones and the cousin.
| |
|
Active Euthanasia is Necessary, 2001.
The author argues for the practice of euthanasia and supports his argument by providing real examples.
1,715 words (approx. 6.9 pages), 6 sources, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An argumentative paper about euthanasia, both passive and active.
From the Paper
"With constant advancement in medical technology, loved ones will be held more and more responsible for the life or death decisions of family members. Many fear the unknown realm that lies beyond this life more than their mental and physical pain, and want to live at all costs. Others, though, should they be faced with living in a vegetative state or dying, hope their families allow them to die. They believe euthanasia is acceptable in cases of terminally ill patients whose lives are simply being maintained with no hope of ever speaking or thinking again. Active euthanasia, which is in certain cases more humane than passive euthanasia, should be legalized to help aid the endless suffering of thousands of terminally ill patients who have no chance of living a quality life. "
| |
|
Active Euthanasia, 2005.
A paper on the controversial topic of euthanasia.
3,964 words (approx. 15.9 pages), 12 sources, MLA, $ 107.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper begins by briefly discussing the history of assisted suicide, otherwise known as euthanasia, and the controversy that has long been associated with that topic. The paper then takes a look at arguments that oppose the euthanasia debate as well as rebuttals to those arguments. The paper concludes with a position that strongly favors voluntary euthanasia.
From the Paper
"Ever since the advent of medical technology that has enabled the long-term artificial extension of life, families and doctors have been forced to debate the value of retaining the bare requirements of existence at the cost of the dehumanization and the suffering of the victim of illness. However, even before such technology created the daily debate as to when it was appropriate to withhold or withdraw treatment, those suffering from terminal illness have always had to face the difficult decision as to whether or not continued existence is worth the pain of life. Likewise, through-out time doctors and healers have had to face the quandry as to whether they would be justified in assisting their patients in a choice to die."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2004.
This paper discusses the euthanasia case of Woodrow Collums in terms of the morality of his actions and demonstrates that, while active euthanasia may be illegal, both passive and active euthanasia are not morally wrong.
1,550 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, in the case of Woodrow, his action of shooting his brother out of compassion for his condition qualifies as active euthanasia, the action of conscious and determined taking of specific steps to cause a patient?s death. The author points out that there are three types of euthanasia: voluntary euthanasia, the explicit and voluntary consent of the patient in either verbal form or written consent such as in a living will; non-voluntary euthanasia, the killing of a patient who is unable to make his or her intentions known because of their unconscious, comatose, or other disabled state; and involuntary euthanasia, the killing of an individual whose consent is either explicitly or not explicitly given because they do not wish to die. The third type is obviously morally wrong and will not be discussed in this paper. The paper relates that, if by allowing doctors to eliminate the unnecessary suffering of patients based on either the vocal expression of permission or based on the obvious facts in the case, then situations such as Woodrow?s would not occur.
From the Paper
"The case of Woodrow Collums is an example of euthanasia. Woodrow Collums went to the Oak Hills Care Home in Poteet, Texas on November 16, 1981, and saw his brother J.K. Collums. J.K. was a victim of severe Alzheimer?s disease, and was unable to care for his bodily needs, could not speak, and could not respond to others. He was fed through a tube. Woodrow made the conscious decision, on that day, to shoot and kill J.K. His defense for his actions was that is brother was suffering greatly, and he could not, in good conscience, allow that suffering to continue. This is euthanasia: the decision to take a life out of compassion."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2003.
An insight into euthanasia with an emphasis on the difference between passive and active euthanasia and the concept of Physician Assisted Suicide.
1,465 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper focuses on euthanasia or assisted suicide and in particular the differences between its active and passive forms. It examines how passive euthanasia refers to hastening the death of a person by not treating a life threatening condition or by not taking any extraordinary measures to save a patients life who may either be in severe pain or terminally ill. Active euthanasia means causing death of a person through an action which directly contributes to that person?s death.
Outline
Passive and Active Euthanasia
The Conflict Between Active and Passive Euthanasia
When is Physician Assisted Suicide Permissible?
What is an Incompetent or Vegetable-Like State?
Personal Opinion
From the Paper
"The American Medical Association and the American judicial system clearly state that ?active euthanasia? and ?passive euthanasia? are different and that in simple terms the difference between the two is killing (active) and allowing to die (passive). Active Euthanasia is punishable by the strictest penalties to be found in our legal system, while Passive Euthanasia is not even a misdemeanor. The question does arise though, whether, in terms of outcome and how that outcome is achieved, do these two terms really differ?"
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2002.
This paper explains the difference between active and passive euthanasia by reviewing an article concerning the euthanasia debate.
590 words (approx. 2.4 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 21.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper analyzes the article "Active and Passive Euthanasia," by James Rachels. It distinguishes between active and passive euthanasia and explains Rachels? arguments that active euthanasia is morally permissible. In addition, it discusses the extent to which his arguments illustrate Kantian and utilitarian considerations.
From the Paper
"Rachels is an advocate of physician-assisted suicide, or euthanasia, and he wants to convince the American Medical Association (AMA) to change their definition of euthanasia, allowing doctors to allow terminally ill patients with no hope of recovery to be euthanized. His arguments for euthanasia are effective and compelling, and though directed at physicians, they are of interest to anyone thinking about euthanasia for themselves or a loved one. Rachels discusses the differences between "killing and letting die" (Rachels 561), and discusses specific cases where allowing the patient to simply die without further treatment could actually prolong their life and their suffering. "Part of my point is that the process of the 'allowed to die' can be relatively slow and painful, whereas being given a lethal injection is relatively quick and painless" (Rachels 562). In fact, his arguments seem so logical; it is difficult to understand why euthanasia is not already used in terminal and the worst cases."
| |
|
Different States of Euthanasia, 2002.
Comparison of active and passive euthanasia.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This sophomore level paper is on Different States Of Euthanasia and lays emphasis on the two forms of Euthanasia, Active and Passive. This paper also reviews the differences between active and passive euthanasia. It also focuses on the worldwide arguments against and in favor of them. The paper also discusses in depth the situations when Physician assisted suicide become the only solution employed by the doctors for individuals who are suffering from severe illness.
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2002.
Looks at the topic from a moral and philosophical point of view, within the context of articles written by Dan W. Brock and Daniel Callahan.
1,309 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Dan Brock, in his article "Voluntary Active Euthanasia: An Overview and Defense", claims that the moral difference is clear between physician-assisted suicide and between voluntary active euthanasia - in physician-assisted suicide the patient kills his or herself while in voluntary active euthanasia the physician is responsible for the killing. This paper evaluates the validity of Brock's arguments and compares them to those in Daniel Callahan?s article "When Self Determination Runs Amok". The paper then discusses whether voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized. The paper provides facts about Oregon (the only state where physician assisted suicide is legal). The paper provides the pluses and minuses of VAE (voluntary active euthanasia), the effects of legalizing VAE and offers an opinion of when VAE is morally permissible.
From the Paper
"According to the state of Oregon, physician-assisted suicide is legal and is legal under the U.S. Constitution also. Physician-assisted suicide may be legal in Oregon, but it has been utilized less than 50 times in a state that has a population of approximately 3.4 million people. There are far more than 50 terminally patients in the state of Oregon. This shows that physician-assisted suicide is not a way for people to commit suicides legally, it is a way for the terminally ill(less than 6 months to live) to have their lives ended legally, with the assistance of someone else. This is definitely morally permissible because they are no people harmed in this act. In this act, the physician is only legally supplying the lethal dose, and the patient is committing the final act. The fact that less than 50 people have had physician-assisted suicide shows me that people that originally want physician-assisted suicide cannot bring themselves to do it themselves, or change their mind during their sickness. This leads me to think that ending one?s own life is one of the hardest things a person can do, and typically most would prefer to have someone else that is qualified, such as a physician, perform this action."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2005.
This paper argues that doctor assisted suicide in the form of passive euthanasia and sometimes active euthanasia should be legalized.
995 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that doctor assisted suicide in the form of passive euthanasia should be legalized on the primary basis that human suffering should not be prolonged by medical science simply to extend physical life. The author stresses that terminally ill human beings have the inherent right to refuse medical treatment because they are the moral guardians of their own lives and the ultimate authority to be considered---not doctors, lawyers, insurance companies nor the government. The paper suggests that priorities have to be established in circumstances involving contending rights; in right-to-die issues, the highest priority should be the emotional, psychological and physical well-being of the person faced with inevitable death.
From the Paper
"This moral argument offered by opponents of doctor assisted suicide is of particular interest, for many of these groups explicitly assert that morality includes physical causality and moral culpability. It holds that active euthanasia establishes the physical causality of the physician, while passive euthanasia establishes the physical causality of the disease itself. In other words, in active and passive euthanasia the moral culpability remains the same, that is, it is in the hands of the physician. This is the due to the fact that the physician has the duty and the moral obligation to keep the patient alive. While these two separate worlds within the moral realm may cross in some places, it does not mean that they are one and the same, and this is one of the many reasons that the distinction should not be abolished."
| |
|
Ethics, 2005.
An analysis of a paper on ethics by James Rachels entitled "Active and Passive Euthanasia".
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 0 sources, APA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is an analysis of the paper, "Active and Passive Euthanasia", by James Rachels, published about 30 years ago in which the question of the morality of all forms of euthanasia was examined. The paper presents a critique of the theme, style, language choice, contents, conclusions and strength of Rachels' paper.
From the Paper
"In his essay "Active and Passive Euthanasia", James Rachels explains that the traditional distinction between active and passive euthanasia requires critical analysis. The conventional doctrine is that there an important moral difference between the two that must be carefully examined. Rachels writes that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be critical for medical ethics. This idea can be challenged in a number of ways. One is that active euthanasia is in many cases more humane than passive euthanasia. Another is that this idea rests on..."
| |
|
Medical Euthanasia, 2006.
This paper discusses the contention that medical euthanasia should not be tolerated or legitimised for the simple reason that conduct designed to bring about the end of a life is the antithesis of proper medicine.
2,452 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 19 sources, APA, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay opens by outlining three distinct categories of euthanasia: active (where a life is taken through positive action such as injecting a patient with a lethal substance); passive (the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment from the patient, thus resulting in their accelerated death); and assisted suicide (when the patient by his or herself commits the last act necessary to cause his/her immediate death, but is actively assisted by another in the process). Each category is then discussed separately with the conclusion raising the issue of whether euthanasia should be considered a medical act at all. The writer concludes that whilst there exist several key arguments to suggest that active euthanasia, which is akin to an act of murder, does indeed appear to be entirely inconsistent to the practice of proper medicine, this is clearly not the case as regards passive euthanasia.
Outline:
Abstract
Active Euthanasia
Assisted Suicide
Passive Euthanasia
Conclusion
From the Paper
"A further argument in support of the contention that active euthanasia should not be legitimised on the basis that it represents the antithesis to proper medicine arises in relation to the submission that it is a 'lazy option' to the use of proper treatment and care. This the argument of Dr. Patrick Dixon, who points out that, whilst countries such as the UK have developed a considerable hospice system for the terminally ill, with around 160,000 people per year being visited by home care teams, this is not the case in the likes of the Netherlands, where hospice care is relatively poor and where, of course, euthanasia is widely practiced . An additional argument following this line of reasoning suggests that palliative care in general will not continue to develop under a regime of legalised euthanasia, precisely because the latter will always be taken as an alternative to the former."
|
|
|
