What Euthanasia is and isn't In a war of ideologies, the first casualties are the definitions of the terms used. Euphemisms abound when people resort to deceit in attempting to convince others. For example, in the language of the day, administering a lethal injection becomes "aid in dying." (And how can you be against giving "aid" to someone who is terminally ill?) What is generally meant by the term euthanasia is mercy killing - the deliberate ending of a person's life to reduce their suffering.
This relates to doctors who demand a defined and specific diagnosis required for euthanasia. Lennie’s mental disorder is his fatal flaw. He is not a patient with terminal cancer, he is a patient with a deadly contagion with one confirmed death; Curley’s Wife. George is quarantining this disease when he kills George, protecting society and any future victims of Lennie’s innocent wrath. This form of euthanasia is not only an act of mercy towards Lennie, but towards any other potential victims.
Second degree murder is an intentional or unintentional act of homicide. There is no premeditation involved with second degree murder. The last type of homicide is manslaughter and is a murder act committed that can be either voluntary, intentionally, or unintentionally which would be considered involuntary manslaughter. For the act of murder to be consider manslaughter there are two key elements that need to be proven; provocation and heat of passion. Assault Assault is a personal crime involving either
On the other hand there are people that are for the death penalty. They are for the death penalty because they think that the people that have committed these crimes deserve to feel the horrible pain and fear that their victims felt. Some people believe that both side of the death penalty has valid arguments. It is up to each individual to make the decision as to where they stand. The two individuals that are on opposite sides of the death penalty are Edward Koch and David Bruck.
The ones who throw the bible at the penalty forget to read certain portions. “The murderer shall surely be put to death” (Numbers 35:16-18) this bible excerpt counters the argument. Abstracting the death penalty and saying it is wrong for the government to take ones life is the wrong way to approach the system. If each case was reviewed in the sense that the victim was a loved one, giving the criminal free room and board would be a harder choice. A claim that human life’s value is diminished when someone is executed is a bold claim.
Secondly, is the acknowledgement that the worst crime possible is murder; no matter what the circumstance. The consequence of murder is it’s deprivation of future life, and is why there is a law prohibiting it, says Marquis. Don Marquis asks you to realize how unjust it would be to kill you if you were a fetus and relate it to your life now. He states “Thus, reader, the FLO account explains why it is wrong to kill you when you were an infant as it is to kill you now.”(209,I,C) Lastly, he references animal rights. He focuses on suffering.
The right to life holds jurisdiction over the right to death. As demonstrated in the Vacco vs. Quill which ruled that, “there is no federal constitutional equal protection fight to assisted suicide” alluding to the fact that assisted suicide does not infringe on any type of law. Society accepts the need to euthanize violent criminals and animals yet, considers active/voluntary euthanasia a taboo. Hypocrisy mustn’t run amuck in America, we must contain its ideals and terminate them once
The state statute for murder (statute 782.04) states that the unlawful killing of a human being without any premeditated design to affect the death of any particular individual is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony in the first degree. Mr. Malinger cannot be lawfully executed with the insanity defense, due to the fact that he is not insane. Florida statute 775.027, the insanity defense, states that a person is considered insane if the defendant has a mental infirmity; which is proven to be true (pg. 78); but, the insanity defense also states that because of such an infirmity, the defendant either did not know what he or she was doing, or did not know it was wrong. Mr. Malinger constantly brags about his cunning throughout the story (pgs.
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
The moral and ethical concerns over euthanasia don't take into account the emotional strain of a long illness on those who watch a loved one suffer and die. Euthanasia, often referred to as voluntary assisted suicide, is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or illness. It has been a sensitive topic of much religious, moral, legal and human rights debate in Australia for years. The term “euthanasia” is derived from Greek, literally meaning “good death” (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010). Taken in its common usage however, euthanasia refers to the termination of a person’s life to end their suffering, usually from an incurable or terminal condition.