In Gay-Williams’ paper “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia” he concludes that euthanasia is morally wrong. He arrives at this conclusion on the basis that euthanasia is against our nature, it against our self-interests, and that the practice of euthanasia could corrupt doctors and nurses leading to cases of euthanasia where the patient may have been saved. First, Gay-Williams’ defines euthanasia in three parts. Euthanasia must be taking someone’s life. Another important aspect, the person who is being euthanized must be ill or injured in some way that recovery is not expected, such as a coma.
People advocate for more reliable euthanasia/physician-assisted suicide to guard against these possibilities. (Humphrey, D) The Good Euthanasia
Therefore, I agree with euthanasia protestors. Instead of ending someone’s life in order to prevent any more suffering, we should alleviate pain by improving our hospice care and making our healthcare system more affordable. Let us not lose our humanity by valuing life from the best ethical rules possible. In conclusion, the severity and the complexity of the euthanasia debate indicate why euthanasia is the most active area of research in contemporary bioethics. While some people strongly believe that euthanasia should be legalized, other people insist that euthanasia is literally a type of murder.
Reading Portfolio: Personal Response “Assisted suicide: A right or a wrong?” Even as I read about this controversial issue about euthanasia, it saddens me that people would want to argue whether it should be legal to choose to end their lives. But of course, they have their reasons too. Supporters of the legalization of euthanasia reason mainly on the basis that every person should have the freedom of choice to do whatever he wants with his body life, which includes controlling his own death and being given the right to maximum happiness that he can get. I think the arguments for euthanasia have a point; imagine and put yourself in the shoes of a terminally and critically ill person that suffers excruciating pain 24 hours a day, 7 days
When you had a choice between a slow, prolonging and a quick, instantaneous death, which option would you choose? When only presented with these two options, one would probably pick the latter choice - after all humans are not biologically designed to withstand prolonged pain and suffering. Hence it is why assisted death has been one of the most important yet controversial topics hotly debated over the centuries. The term should not be confused with Euthanasia (also known as “mercy killing”), which is a practice of ending a life painlessly, assisted by a third party. For example, if a physician (a third person) assists the death of a patient by giving a fatal dose of medication or injection etc, then euthanasia has taken place.
In the reading, “Brock grants that voluntary euthanasia, whether active or passive, is the deliberate killing of an innocent person” (164). In a sense, he states this may not always be wrong and also explains that when actively killing someone who wants to die really is not different from just allowing a patient to die, on a moral basis. He argues, on the premises of permitting euthanasia, that the potential good consequences outweigh the potential bad
Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized for the simple fact many would give up and take the easy way out. There is currently a pervasive assumption that if assisted suicide and/or voluntary euthanasia (AS/VE) were to legalized, then doctors would take responsibility for making the decision that these interventions were indicated, for prescribing the medication, and (in euthanasia) for administering it .Richard Huxable remarks “that homicide law encompasses various crimes, so prosecutors can choose charges to suit the circumstances. Yet one thing is clear: mercy killing is still killing, equally, murder is murder” Physician assisted suicide is nothing more than cold blooded
Physician Assisted Suicide Why is it only ethical to die “naturally”, after a long illness filled with highly “un-natural” life extending medical procedures? Over the last twenty years, physician assisted suicides have become a sensitive issue in governmental offices as whether to legalize such an option. Even though many religions prohibit suicide and the intentional killing of others, and some believe it violates a portion of a doctors’ Hippocratic Oath, Physician Assisted Suicide should be a legal option for those with terminal diseases or conditions because reasonable laws can be constructed which prevent abuse and still protect the value of human life. Physician assisted suicide is the voluntary termination of one's own life by administration
Some of the criticism is part of a larger body of criticism of pathways and guidelines in general. Some critics believe that pathways undermine individualised care and remove the ability of clinicians to make small changes in patient care (Palmer 2008, Rycroft-Malone et al 2008). For more information on this debate, refer to the discussion in Kennedy et al (2009). Some of the criticism of end of life care pathways relates to law and ethics. In particular, critics state that diagnosing death and putting people on end of life care pathways is a form of euthanasia – one newspaper story featured the headline ‘Sentenced to death on the NHS’ (Devlin 2009).
It was more often thought that if suicide was not illegal, why shouldn’t physician assisted suicide, or euthanasia be legalized (Yount 56). In Kevorkian‘s eyes, there was no need to suffer any longer from a condition that was terminal. If an individual was fully ready to and their life, they should be granted the materials to do so (“Jack Kevorkian”, Encyclopedia of World Biography 1). Kevorkian often dodged the law when he was in fault of breaking it. Arrested on several times of murder, in addition to homicide, Kevorkian was never rightfully imprisoned.