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.
Their condition might take an unexpected turn; or they might change their mind about a treatment; or a treatment might have disappointing effects. In these and similar cases, withdrawal of a treatment after trying it will be acceptable legally and ethically. If the team believes that a treatment could do some good, it would be unacceptable not to commence it on the basis of a false fear that it would not be possible to stop the treatment. Special legal procedures are associated with decisions relating to patients in a persistent vegetative state (BMA 2007). Intention Charges of murder and voluntary manslaughter require an intention to kill or harm on the part of the accused.
Robert Jones Dr. Wilson Maina Ethics in Contemporary Society 19 February 2013 In a sense, everyone has different perspectives on the euthanasia topic. “Euthanasia is killing someone for the sake of mercy to relieve great suffering.” (148). The question looms, to what extent is killing someone for the relief of great suffering extend to? Whether society is ever going to pick a side or agree both ways has to unrealistic. The discussion if this topic is ethical or unethical is debated upon.
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.
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
Allowing a human life to intentionally be ended disregards the sacredness of human life and has no direct difference to murder despite the intentions to prevent pain. Furthermore, euthanasia would become the first step of a slippery slope whereby value of human life will be depreciated and reduced to economical and personal convenience. However, these farfetched consequences cannot surpass the empathetic argument of mercy on the patient whereby quality of life overrides quantity. The most convincing argument that renders the killing of terminally ill morally permissible is the understanding that all humans possess autonomy. John Stuart Mill argues in (On Liberty (1859), ‘The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which a citizen is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.
People advocate for more reliable euthanasia/physician-assisted suicide to guard against these possibilities. (Humphrey, D) The Good Euthanasia
Assisted suicide caught my eye because when I saw the topic my main thought was a relative or a friend would help bring your life to death. Basically that a friend would help you kill yourself. However never did it occur to me that the help from a “friend” would be a physician prescribing you with lethal medication to speed up the process of one’s death. I was concerned with this area of bioethics because it brought my attention that it is essentially messing around with the idea of dying naturally. Instead of God bringing you to your death, one is giving ones life away, but asking for it in medical terms.
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