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. The Supreme Court has not dealt with “quality of life issues” and appears to only condone active or passive “euthanasia” (not legally defined) when there is evidence that consent has been obtained from the competent patient or legal surrogate of an incompetent patient.There are many pros and cons to euthanasia and I feel that the pros outweigh the cons. The most debated are the moral, ethical, and rights issues. Some of these pros and cons argued are the right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a
In politics, the question of euthanasia really taboo laid. There is no party who advocate active euthanasia in their program and it is not no party that takes proper position on the issue. In Sweden, only steps to achieve a dignified death to be taken when it is burdensome for the patient, this is called passive euthanasia, and means that the patient no longer receive life-sustaining treatment. In consultation with the family doctor close by all technical means, but the dose of painkillers continues, in order to shorten the patient's suffering. In Sweden, both active euthanasia that physician-assisted suicide is prohibited.
However, there are some patients who give up and opt to end their life by way of active euthanasia. Is active euthanasia an act of simply letting a patient die in peace and with dignity? Or is it unethical and murder? According to Caplan, Arthur and Snyder, Lois (2002) the United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. Active euthanasia is wrong, and this paper will explain why the practice should never be a medical option.
Can these kinds of treatment really get patient and their families out of suffering as well as give hope? I do not think so. For passive euthanasia, the patients just refuse to accept any treatment and let their lives continue naturally without any medical or machine. For instance, Julia Quinlan, Karen’s mother, explained the family’s feelings: “We didn’t ask for Karen to die. We just asked for her to be removed from technology and be placed in a natural state.” People who are against euthanasia believe that passive euthanasia is wrong.
It challenges trust between doctor and patient. We expect physicians to heal and preserve life, not to kill on request. I reply that I want to be able to trust my doctor to do what is best for me in every situation. I would not ask a doctor to do anything illegal, but if physician-assisted death were permitted by law, I would not want to be abandoned in my final hours. The main reason I’m against assisted suicide is Its God's place to decide the time and place of a person's death.
Outline and comment upon arguments for and against legalising euthanasia. Euthanasia, a term that once meant ‘good death’ in the times of the Ancient Greeks, is now seen as a taboo subject which many struggle to speak about. Euthanasia was once a simple term for a ‘good death’ but now refers to a death that is deliberately brought about for humane reasons (Rachels, 1993). With advancements in medical and moral fields, euthanasia is now about so much more. It can be broken down into multiple categories which help to give clarity to what exact action is being conducted.
Euthanasia What is euthanasia? Also known as physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia is the inducement of a gentle and easy death, at a cost of approximately $500. There are three basic kinds of euthanasia, all of which will be described in detail: active, passive, and voluntary. Active euthanasia is where the subject must take deliberate action to cause their death. Passive describes those that don’t do anything to prevent their death.
This act should be null and void, since a physician should not be allowed to deny aid to one in need. Even though the Hippocratic Oath is not taken up by all physicians, it still should be followed, since it contains guidelines of how to be a “good” physician. It states in the Hippocratic Oath that a physician is “to practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try and avoid harming them.” In other words, a physician must not harm a patient, whether it is making mistakes or denying them aid. When someone is in need of medical assistance, a physician should not deny it just because he does not want to. Their top priority as a doctor is to help others, and one is not helping someone by denying them aid.
• Active euthanasia – A doctor or a nurse gives an ill patient medicine that will kill them. Not all doctors agree with this as they feel that participating in the ending of someone’s life is not part of their job role. • Passive euthanasia – A patient does not get the medicine or treatment that they need in order to stay alive. It can also be classified as: • Voluntary euthanasia – where a person makes a conscious decision to die and asks for help to do this. • Non – voluntary euthanasia – where a person is unable to give their consent for example if they are severely brain damaged, and another person makes the decision on their behalf.
Euthanasia is a broad topic, with many different types falling under the one term. However, the definition for the word 'euthanasia' is “the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit” (Euthanasia Definitions 2012). The word intentional is the key term in this definition, because if the killing is not intentional, then it does not fall under the jurisdiction of euthanasia (Euthanasia Definitions 2012). Euthanasia is an ethical issue as it involves the life of a human being being placed in the hands of another, and falls under Situation Ethics (Ray Elliott 2001). Situation Ethics state that as long as a person's actions are intended to be loving, it is right (Ray Elliott 2001).