Furthermore, euthanasia is unnecessary in the presence of palliated care. Palliated care ensures proper and intensive care of patients. It seems like a better option of dealing with the illnesses of patients as compared to losing complete hope on recovery and life. Euthanasia is a quick, painless end to life; whereas palliated care is one that can relieve pain. Executing euthanasia undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses, defeating doctors’ and nurses’ purposes of saving lives.
If a person is suffering in unbearable pain and cannot enjoy life then euthanasia would be the best option to help that person die a dignified and peaceful death, rather than a period of lost dignity and prolonged suffering. Current laws state that active euthanasia is illegal in most of the country. Patients can refuse medical treatment and receive pain management, even if the patient’s choices hasten their death. Futile or burdensome treatments, such as life support machines, may be withdrawn under specific circumstances. Under federal and some state laws medical facilities need consent from patients or, in the event of incompetency of the patient, informed consent of the legal surrogate.
Euthanasia should remain illegal Euthanasia is a word with such great meaning but is often misunderstood by individuals. Some define this term as “the right to die” whereas others define it as “the right to kill Euthanasia is the act of encouraging a painless death or looking for the help for a good death. The act of euthanasia often occurs because long-term patients would rather drink poison or get shot by somebody than suffering their whole life fighting against a major disease. The term euthanasia is also known as mercy killing since it’s a way of ending one’s life who is not willing to live anymore. [1] This happens usually for compassionate reasons such as to reduce the pain of the ill ones.
The act of taking a person’s life is murder. But would it still be murder if the act was done in order to save the person from certain pain and possibly humiliation? Such an act is known as euthanasia or assisted suicide and is clearly defined as the act of taking a terminally ill patient’s life, or allowing their death in a painless and swift way, ensuring that the said patient does not suffer physically or mentally from their condition. This controversial procedure has sparked many debates in recent times, debates that have yet to reach a conclusion. The main question remains: should we kill in order to relieve pain?
Nevertheless, the technologies also prolong the dying processes, leading some people to question whether modern medicine is forcing patients to live in unnecessary pain when there is no chance they will be cured. “Passive euthanasia—disconnecting a respirator or removing a feeding tube has become an accepted solution to this dilemma. Active euthanasia perhaps an overdose of pills or a deadly injection of morphine remains controversial “(McDougall,
Medical Ethics of Active Euthanasia Abstract This paper explains what active euthanasia is and how it ethically has an effect on the practice of medicine. As time passes there are increasing numbers of terminally ill cases, such as cancer or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. These patients endure physical symptoms other than pain often contributes to suffering near the end of lift. Most physicians and their patients strive to for cures. However, there are some patients who give up and opt to end their life by way of active euthanasia.
For example, many people against this decision claim that it is not ethical due to the fundamental tenet of medical ethics which is “Do no harm” (Bender 37).This decision is very ethical because what is not ethical is letting an innocent person die instead of taking the route of assisted suicide. If the person suffering was a relative of another person will they think twice not to because it is their loved ones suffering. By defining ethics it is related to a moral principle in which many differ from principles and standards. Another debate can be that assisted suicide is not a constitutional right. Assisted suicide is a choice which the constitution does support freedom of choice.
Is this true? Do we have 'rights' that extend to ending our own lives? Is it possible to kill yourself without there being consequences for other people? And how much importance should the effects on others be given? Some similar issues are also raised by physician assisted suicide (PAS).
In this case, the practice is able to end one’s life in a peaceful manner, while a financial and emotional burden can also be lifted off of the family members. In the eyes of others, euthanasia is an act that goes against God’s will and the idea that death is spiritually important and shouldn’t be altered (BBC, 2009). Aside from the fact that euthanasia is also referred to as “mercy killing”, it is still the act of murder—an unlawful premeditated killing of another human being (Answers, n.d.). I personally am against the practice of euthanasia because it is immoral and wrongful. Recurrently, there are cases where patients aren’t given a choice when it comes to euthanasia.
“Many physicians say they would be clouding their roles as healers if they helped patients to die” (Buchanan 36.) Physicians even take the Hippocratic Oath, which states that “a physician promises to help the sick and never to cause harm” (Buchanan 36.) As Daniel E. Lee, a reporter for the Hastings Center, says “Meaning and hope are possible in all of life’s situations, even in the midst of suffering” (17.) If the United States were to nationally legalize assisted suicide, it would be a disaster, not only because the way it would go against our morals, but the way it would negatively effect today’s society. “Janet, Sherry , Marjorie, and Susan were not terminal by accepted medical definition…[they] were not Kevorkian’s patients in any traditional sense.