Treatment withheld for a merciful death, in other words, euthanasia means an easy and gentle death that allows the patient to die with dignity without enduring protracted death or suffering from pain. Everyone has the right to choose and be subjected to euthanasia. However, when the patient is comatose or too young to make decision for himself, non-voluntary euthanasia will be undertaken while the responsibility for the decision-making will then be passed on to another person who is able to look into the interest of the patient. As such, it should be the doctors-in-charge, rather than his family members.
The intention of the family members’ decision to let the patient die may be motivated and driven by their financial pressure or even selfish
…show more content…
For some family members, there may be even desire to inherit the fortune of the patient. If the patient is alive, they will not be able to inherit the money. These …show more content…
Consequently, they will not accept the idea of having treatment withheld for merciful death as they oppose euthanasia wholeheartedly. On the other hand, there is professional standards of doctors albeit their own religious beliefs which may be also against the idea of euthanasia. Their religious beliefs should not and will not influence their practice of medicine as their duty is tied strongly to the code of ethics of their profession , and their actions and judgement are solely in the interest of the patient. In the case of terminally ill, their interest is ending their suffering humanely and quickly, and dying with dignity. It is understandable that the religious beliefs is often the main factor and basis for one’s view and position on euthanasia since it concerns itself with the life and death of people, and the morality. Most religions even considered this treatment as a grave sin. In Catholism, euthanasia is condemned as “crime against life” and “crime against God” in the Declaration of Euthanasia, an official document of Roman Catholic Church whose viewpoint is unequivocal to the individual Catholics. Most Christians are also against euthanasia as they believe that human beings are made in God’s image, and euthanasia is comparable to murder as it is also interfering with God’s plan. Even though euthanasia is legalised in several countries such as Switzerland and Germany, there may still
The last argument that this paper will look at is the argument of double effect. In the context of terminal illness physician assisted suicide could instead be seen as a vital form of care for someone who is suffering, instead of the failure of medicine. Physician assisted suicide seems to oppose the pro-life view, but on closer examination, its purpose is instead to relieve suffering in imminently terminal cases where it is thought that no other treatment could reasonably hope to do the same. Even though traditionally the role of the doctor is seen as extending life, that role may also encompass the assistance in PAS.
It is nearly impossible for the patient to rely on another person to make the best decision that they would have made for themselves, particularly when it involves personal interests such as profiting from a will. If there is something to gain, the family members’ motives seem questionable. If the patient falls ill, then there lies a possibility that their heirs will hope for the patient’s death so that they could receive their inheritance. The inability to confirm whether the family actually has the patient’s best interest in mind supports the argument that any form of euthanasia is unethical. Moreover, health care costs for terminally ill patients, including nursing homes, prescription drugs, and home health care deserves consideration.
These personal decisions should not be left to governments. End of life decisions belong inside families. (Meier, 2005) Allowing the government to disregard a family’s wish violates their values or beliefs. ("NYCLU Urges Legislature to Let Families Make Medical Decisions for Incapacitated Patients", 2006)
Suicide, under any circumstance, is viewed as a sin by the Catholic Church, mainly as they view it as self murder, which is viewed as a rejection of God's plan. The idea of assisted suicide was directly mention in 1980 when the Church released “Declaration on Euthanasia,” which called abortion, euthanasia, and all other life-ending measures to be “poison to human society,” even when death was imminent (Drum). They oppose this as a “violation of the divine law.” Even Pope John Paul in 1995 personally addressed the issue and condemned the growing acceptance of euthanasia as a personal right (Humphry). As this opinion of most of the members of the church, areas where religious conviction is high, the amount of support drops
One of the more pressing social/medical issues of recent times has been euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, or the right to die. Proponents of human euthanasia propose that those with a terminal illness should have the right to a clean and painless death with the assistance of a physician, rather than the drawn-out and painful natural death that some will otherwise experience. Being one who was raised in a Christian family, I am morally opposed to suicide in all forms, and I strongly believe a human life is sacred enough that a physician should not be granted the permission or power to take it. Many oppose this act for various reasons: religious in nature, moral grounds, or by medical tradition. Some argue that euthanasia does in fact contradict a professional code of ethics.
A very controversial topic lately is that of euthanasia. Physician assisted suicide is a very debatable ethical issue because people have different morals. I argue that in some cases it is ethical and others it is not. I believe that if someone is going to die, that there is absolutely no cure available that if they want to die via physician assisted suicide that is their choice. One of the main reasons that people chose to die via PAS is because they are in pain and don’t want their families to see them miserable.
Some argue that for Euthanasia, “Once legalized, euthanasia will not be used just for those facing serious illnesses, but those who are depressed.” (Mezban) Past philosophers like Immanuel Kant and John Locke were opposed suicide. For this reason, they viewed euthanasia as suicide, regardless of how much pain or suffering the person was dealing
The ethical principle of autonomy provides for respect for the patient’s autonomy to make decisions and choices concerning their life and death. Respecting the patient’s autonomy goes against the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. There also exists the issue of religious beliefs the patient, family, or the caretaker holds, with which the caretaker has to grapple. The caretaker thus faces issues of fidelity to patient welfare by not abandoning the patient or their family, compassionate provision of pain relief methods, and the moral precept to neither hasten death nor prolong life.
Some doctors may follow a religion, preventing them from committing a practice such as killing another, but there are “millions of atheists and agnostics, as well as people of varieties of religions, degrees of spiritual beliefs” (Humphry 2000). The United States promises the freedom of religion, so all citizens should have to right to practice or not practice their religions when deciding their stance on euthanasia and assisted suicide. If the doctor who deems the practices immoral denies a patient, the patient now will have many alternative doctors to request the lethal drug from. This will only happen if and only if every state regulates both euthanasia and assisted suicide. As of now, both laws passed in Washington and Oregon “do not by any means require the participation of physicians or pharmacists”(Walter 2016).
In the controversy of euthanasia, an argument for the practice is the patient’s right to refuse medical care.
As a law, voluntary euthanasia is accepted in some countries, including some states (including Washington) in the United States. Some people believe that this is morally wrong and that this infringes a
A survey was recently conducted in England regarding euthanasia. An estimate of 4,500 religious people were polled and the results were overwhelmingly in favor of euthanasia. The reason for this being surprising is because religious people tend to believe that letting a doctor or themselves choose whether or not they should die is an act of playing God and that no one should be able to take that role. Out of the 4,500 people, 82 percent reported that they believe “An individual has the right to choose when and how to die”. There are reasons as to why being pro euthanasia and assisted suicide could bring benefits.
INTRODUCTION Euthanasia alludes to the act of deliberately close a life keeping in mind the end goal to assuage torment and enduring. There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".[1] In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient"". Euthanasia is sorted in diverse ways, which incorporate voluntary, non-voluntary, or automatic.
Introduction With reference to the question posed, it has been suggested that euthanasia may be defined as “the act of intentionally causing the painless death of a sick person”. In other words, it bears the meaning of a “painless, happy or good death” as derived from the ancient Greek language – “eu”, meaning good; and “thanatos”, meaning death. Due to the rapid advancements in medical treatments, patients are capable of being kept “alive” for indefinite periods of time. Hence, in order to distinguish the ancient concept of allowing a patient to die and neglecting them treatment, the medical community has encompassed the idea of drawing a line between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia .
An article focused on Euthanasia (Perez, 2008) states that as believers of God, we should not accept Euthanasia because it is immoral and unethical. It is not right to accept Euthanasia since we are Christians and according to what God said, we should promote life. According to the leader of the Church, Euthanasia should be prevented at all cost. Even though Euthanasia has advantages, we should think first that who gave us the life we had?