More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths and weakness of passive euthanasia
Strengths and weakness of passive euthanasia
Strengths and weakness of passive euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
It was not intended to make readers sad or necessarily agree with his decision, however, to examine their own life and situation and to contemplate death, as it is inevitable for everyone. Most people are bound to have to face a similar choice as Clendinen. Maybe not in the same extreme measure, but most people will have to make a decision for a family member who is no longer capable of making medical decisions for themselves. Clendinen achieved his purpose and readers should walk away from this article recognizing exactly what Clendinen’s beliefs are on death, and it ought to make them curious about their own thoughts and beliefs. At the very least, talk with their loved one’s before they ever become ill and find out their loved one’s wishes.
After watching the film, my opinion on end of life issues changed to support the issue of terminating a patient’s life to avert further suffering and mitigate the costs involved. The physician’s failure to end the patient’s suffering brings about an abdication of the duty to do what is best for the patient. Therefore, death would be better compared to the suffering the patient may be undergoing. However, the state law may provide
In the case of deciding whether or not to euthanize the patients, I likely would have aligned more with Dr. Bryant King (p. 198). When presented with the idea of alleviating the patients’ suffering via euthanization, he thought that the idea was unnecessary at that time, as they had only been there for a couple days and still had supplies. He did not want to be involved in ending patients’ lives as he believed a doctor’s scope of practice did not involve euthanasia. I agree with his take in that I would try to do everything possible before considering euthanasia. I would not be comfortable knowingly taking somebody’s life, and I also agree in that I think nonmaleficence involves not killing patients
Euthanasia- Gay Williams Gay-Williams presents an opposing argument against euthanasia. This reading made me really think about my stance on euthanasia. I personally have mixed feelings on this topic. Gay-Williams states that euthanasia is “inherently wrong” and is starting to become more accepted. One comment I have is that as science is advancing and new remedies are created, this thinking might be changing for some people.
The legislation has received harsh criticism and opposition from religion opponents who state that ending the life of any human being is a sin, regardless of the reason. Moral/Ethical Issue: The moral issue here is whether or not one human should have the power to help end another person’s life. With every controversial issue, there are two very different viewpoints. A large portion of the country that believes that this kind of medicine is murder. The bill was passed with the intention of helping terminally ill patients avoid the pain and suffering that goes along with treatment, and instead gives the patient an option to opt for a death with dignity on his or her own terms.
Their argument is that the medical practice of physician-assisted death is unethical because it violates the bioethical principle of nonmaleficence, which refers to the obligation of the physician to not cause needless harm. Physician-assisted death is not causing needless harm because the patient themselves is requesting the death-dealing medication and taking them, or not taking them, when, and if, they feel ready to die. It would be needless harm if the physician in question actively euthanatized the patient by administering the death-dealing medications without the patient’s consent. However, from a legal standpoint, physician-assisted death does not include active euthanasia, which is illegal in all fifty states; it simply requires the physician to provide the mentally competent patient with the information they asked for regarding the process and a prescription for the death dealing medication. The physician is not causing needless harm to a terminally ill patient who wishes to die mercifully on their own time instead of six months down the line in possible pain and suffering.
Not only does it give physician, who is still human, too much power and room for human error, it is religiously and morally incorrect, violates the Hippocratic oath, and above devalues the precious gift of life. As stated earlier, treatment is possible and should be looked into instead of giving up. Donating your final moments to research and to help aid in discovering different treatment options, could give a child a chance to live that is diagnosed with the same illness. There will always be pros and cons to this subject but my opinion stands. A person has to right to refuse or accept treatment, but should not be able to take their own lives by assistance of a
Deontology would argue that the physician has a moral responsibility to respect their patient’s best interest and wishes because this framework claims actions as good or bad regardless of the consequences (Terry 190). People that are considered for assisted death have tried other treatment measures that have not worked (Van Veen et al 621). There is evidence showing a reduction in grey matter tissue, majorly impacting the superior temporal gyrus in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (Anderson et al 5). Grey matter does not regenerate (“Grey Matter”), so treatment may not be able to compensate for this tissue loss. Mental illness, including personality and psychotic disorders, is a risk factor for premature death.
The dying patient no longer has quality of life, they have lost their independence, are lonely, are forced to endure inevitable pain, are publicly humiliated, are suffering immensely, and are forced to watch their loved ones grieve because of them. It is an innate Constitutional Right to choose how to die, since we all will die. There comes a point when the poking and prodding becomes too much, when the patient wants to just die in silence in the loving arms of their
The argument that I am analyzing is found in Philippa Foot’s article Euthanasia. This specific section starts at the beginning on page 88. This argument starts once she talks about the true meaning of Euthanasia and the difficulty in how people see or perceive it. In Foot 's article, she wants to prove that an act of euthanasia is morally permissible, as long as you’re performing it for the right cause or reasons. Foot defines euthanasia as "a matter of opting for death for the good of the one who is to die."
However, there is hope of a peaceful death for these patients that exists in a controversial law being considered by many states throughout the country. It is known as the Death with Dignity Act. This law gives terminally ill patients the option of ending their own life in a painless manner at a time and place of their choosing by
People should have the right to choose whether they want to live or die. If patients know they are going to die, then they can be with their family and friends and live life knowing that they will die soon. This practice also doesn’t cause as much fear. If the patient knows he or she is going to die within six months, then it will be easier to take in. If a patient doesn’t know when he or she is going to die, then it’s always going to be in the back of the patient’s mind, and this can cause fear.
As modern medicine has advanced and the use of life sustaining technology has become more mainstream, a greater number of families and doctors are being faced with an important decision; when to use artificial organs, and when to shut them off. It’s a decision that haunts people long after it is made (Park). The topic of whether or not life support should be used for long periods of time to sustain brain dead patients is heavily debated. Many believe that brain death, a condition in which one loses all brain function and brain stem reflexes, is the same as final death. Science also points in this direction, and many doctors agree that brain dead patients should be removed from life support because they are technically already dead (Rubin).
Many pro-euthanasia believers will use the autonomy argument and debate the opinion that patients should have the right to choose when and how to they want to die. In an article in the Houston Chronicle, Judge Reinhardt ruled on this topic by stating “a competent, terminally-ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in choosing a dignified and humane death… (De La Torre).” However, dignity cannot be measured by the level of pain or the speed in which the individual dies, because it is already a characteristic of a person’s worth as a human being (Middleton). Allowing a patient to live their life to the fullest until the very end is surely a more humane and dignified death then cutting that life short in fear of what it is coming through the practice of euthanasia. While death for these patients can be a sad ending, it does not have to condemn a person to a remaining life of sadness and negativity.
All these views are respected, but what is important is the value is what each terminally-ill and injured patient want out of the rest of their life. On the contrary, there are beliefs that no one should allow anything like
