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.
Written by Margaret Somerville, a professor of law at the McGill Centre for Medicine, Law and Ethics states that euthanasia is a way to perceive death in “reductionist” light (xiii). While Margaret Somerville makes a valid argument, she manipulates factual evidence to support her beliefs as well as relying solely on conviction that pro-euthanasia supporters are on a “primary intention of killing people” (Somerville 25) thus misleading her audience. She incorrectly sites a Dutch government study in 1990 and 1995 to see who participates in euthanasia, she has multiple fallacies which weaken her argument dramatically and she overlooks several statistics of patients and doctors who want to legalize euthanasia – these points make Somerville’s argument unsound but also leaves the audience struggling to agree with her
In some religious traditions, confession of sins, preparation to "meet one's maker," or asking forgiveness from those who may have been wronged can be part of end-of-life concerns. In other cultural traditions, planning or even discussing death is considered inappropriate, uncaring, and even dangerous, as it is viewed as inviting death (Carrese & Rhodes, 1995). All end-of-life choices and medical decisions have complex psychosocial components, ramifications, and consequences that have a significant impact on suffering and the quality of living and dying. However, the medical end-of-life decisions are often the most challenging for terminally ill people and those who care about them. Each of these decisions should ideally be considered in terms of the relief of suffering and the values and beliefs of the dying individual and his or her family.
In the story “Confronting Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: My father’s death by Susan Wolf, I would also be “forced to rethink my objections to legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia” (Wolf, 2008). I have been around someone special that was in a situation similar to this one, where a person life is on the line. Making critical decision to help someone leave this world quicker to ease their pain and suffering from their condition. This matter is something that can be taken lightly. Making a final decision on ending a person’s life to keep them from suffering can be hard to imagine doing.
This would be an inevitable next step if society first accepts assisted suicide as a legitimate legal option. Conclusion The question of PAS continues to challenge society; ethical, moral, legal, and medical controversies surround an emotionally charged issue. The traditional Western medicine focuses on diagnosis, treatment, and recovery; terminal illness does not neatly fit into this matter. Works Cited Marilyn Golden - CDA Executive Committee, Why Assisted Suicide Must Not Be Legalized Ziegler SJ; Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2009 Summer; 37 (2): 318-30 (journal
Annika Winsnes, Rafia Miah English 9 – Block D 2. Take a position on doctor-assisted suicide. Such forms of euthanasia, which are legal in Oregon state and in Holland, give seriously ill people the chance to end their lives with less pain. Assisted Suicide: the process by which an individual is facilitated by means (drugs or equipment) and the assistance of another person (usually a physician) to deliberately commit suicide.Throughout the years there has been increasing debate regarding assisted suicide. Although this is a highly controversial topic regarding morals, values, and religion, assisted suicide should be accepted worldwide.
So then, why is it so hard to comprehend the facts and reasoning behind assisted suicide? Maybe it is because of the term used, or could it be that society as a whole, cannot accept the fact that at some point and time the elderly and the terminally ill just want the pain and suffering to end. Either of the two seems justifiable enough of a reason to open the floor for discussion among the prominent parties that need to discus the topic to have the laws changed or at least modified to fit the
I am in the same side with Autumn Buzzell that euthanasia is wrong and should be banned. Buzzell thinks that active euthanasia is a form of murder. I think so, while someone's life is taken by a lethal injection though he/she is in a terminally ill condition, it just another form of murder. We
“Thou Shalt Not Kill” is one of the most well known commandments, and in some cases, most controversial. Assisted suicide is a prime example of one of these controversies. Physician assisted suicide, also referred to as Physician Aid in Dying (PAD), is a practice whereby a physician prescribes a lethal drug dose to a capable terminally-ill patient, upon the patient’s request, with the knowledge that the patient intends to use it to end his or her life. The dose must be self-administered. While generally seen as unbiblical, as well as immoral, this practice has recently become more condoned.
It would be very difficult to communicate to future physicians to killing in a context of legalized euthanasia. Are we (U.S.) ready for this? For some dying people, severe suffering can be alleviated. However, when such suffering cannot be lessened, assisted suicide may be seen as a compassionate act because it ends a life that has lost its meaning (Arthur Rifkin). All life has meaning, even if it’s the end of that