“The real reason for not committing suicide is because you always know how well life gets again after the hell is over.” People are unable to realize how their situation can be resolved better than having to kill themselves. Terminally ill patients are notorious for taking their lives before they can realize the mistake they are making. They believe that it is best for their situation, however, there are multiple reasons for why they should reconsider their actions before something terrible happens. Doctor assisted suicides should not be allowed because of the effects it has on the deceased loved ones and how more terminally ill patients are overcoming their disabilities.
“George raised the gun and steadied it, and he brought the muzzle of it close to the back of Lennie's head the hand shook violently. But his face set and his hand steadied, he pulled the trigger” (Steinbeck 106). In the novel Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, one of the main characters George encounters a choice to murder his best friend to protect him from from cruel pain for murdering the wife of another character, Curley, or let Lennie live through the pain of Curley’s vengeance. The novel makes it clear that mercy killing or euthanasia, the act of putting a person or animal to death painlessly and humanely rather than allowing them to die a brutal death, is a moral and justified way to help a loved one in need.
The Doctrine of Doing & Allowing essentially outlines a lens that aids in drawing a distinction between doing something to cause the outcome, or allowing something that leads to an identical outcome. In this particular case, the Doctrine of Doing & Allowing aided the supreme court in rejecting the claim made by this case as a parallel can be found between a patient requesting assisted suicide through lethal medical treatment and a patient refusing to be put on a medical treatment such as life-support or some other form of treatment that the profession utilizes to prolong the process of death. (Vacco v. Quill, p. 423). J.J. Thomson’s concerns with the Doctrine of Doing & Allowing are quite complicated as he attempts to dig a bit deeper into the revised version that had been altered to incorporate both killing, allowing or letting die, “active euthanasia and passive euthanasia” (Thomson, pg. 500).
Robaczynski testified, and one of the most important duties of the nurse is to act as patient advocate, their autonomy, rights, dignity, safety, and well-being, but there are no reasons that justify Ms. Robaczynski’s acts to disconnect the respirator and let the patient die. The main obligation of a nurse is to the patient’s health, including end-of-life care, such as comfort measures, pain management, and social, psychological, and emotional support until the last day of their lives, never terminate the life of the patient deliberately. That is for sure, active killing, and the merely intent to overruled these values in which the nursing profession is based, is unethical and
Conclusion I have argued that even though a physician killing an untreatable patient and a physician letting a patient die upon their request are both morally justifiable, the distinction between the two regarding the morality of physician assisted suicide is important because they are both justified differently. I have presented two counter arguments based on consequentialism, and argued that both of them untrue. A physician killing an untreatable patient upon their request and letting an untreatable patient die upon their request are both justifiable aspects of physician assisted suicide, and therefore it is not an important distinction to make regarding the moral permissibility of physician assisted suicide. However, it is an important
The moral line between helping someone die with dignity and helping a physically healthy individual die
Imagine you are in a situation where you had to choose if someone you loved who was very ill and couldn’t decide for themselves, if they would have to die or stay alive and suffer. Would you be able to choose for them? How a person knowing that they had a disease that is going to kill them soon and went to the doctors and ask them to give them medicine to kill them so they did not have to suffer anymore. Should that doctor be accused for murder for helping that person wanting to end it instead of suffering anymore? In the cases of an euthanasia, a assisted suicide or the case between George and Lennie, killing can be a justifiable act under certain circumstances.
It is not my choice to choose who lives and who dies. The right for a person to live or die is not a choice for anyone to have. I am using deontological moral reasoning. Killing is a moral wrong. Everyone has the right to live, and that right cannot be
In this case, healthcare professionals actively participate in the patient death. According to ethical principles, healthcare professionals should do good and do no harm for patients. Therefore, assisting in her death violates the principle of nonmaleficence. In addition, active euthanasia defines as an intentional act of ending patients lives, whether or not the dying patients request. Four states, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana have approved laws of the practice of physician-assisted suicide.
In 2008, two terminally ill patients on rationed Medicaid from Oregon were denied coverage for life-extending chemotherapy, but received letters from administrators offering to pay for their assisted suicides(Smith 1). It does not end there. In 2018, a Canadian man with serious disabilities, has been refused coverage for independent-living services but was offered payment by Canadian Medicare for the costs of obtaining a lethal injection(Smith 1). Instances like these will continue to happen as long as Euthanasia is legal. Assisted-suicide not only belittles the value of life but patients are more susceptible to being pressured into euthanasia because of costs.
A life full of dishonor, can only lead to an honorable death. Assisted suicide is the act of a physician supplying a patient that is death’s door lethal drugs to take their lives. Often the patient has cancer or an incurable disease. Terminally ill patients should be allowed to assist their death. Assisted suicide laws that are thoroughly crafted will not increase risk and the approach of one’s death is their undisputable right.
Steven Hawking, the British physicist asked “We don't let animals suffer, so why humans?” The controversial issues of euthanasia started from 5th Century BC. The Hippocratic Oath prohibited physicians give a lethal drug to anyone, not even if asked for. However, most ancient Greek or Roman physicians ignored. They supported for voluntary euthanasia as opposed to prolonged pain.
Abstract Human life is precious, then how about animals? Ending human life is considered as unethical and this is against the law. However, this does not apply to animals. Even though most families treat their animals as part of their family members, animal euthanasia is still a controversial issue nowadays. Millions of dogs are euthanized in each year and several methods are used by the veterinarian to put the animal to death.
THE EUTHANASIA CONTROVERSY Summary Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.
A controversial practice that invokes a debate over how beneficial its intentions are is the use of euthanasia. The argument switches between whether or not putting terminally ill patients to death with the assistance of a physician is justifiable and right. Legalizing the practice of euthanasia is a significant topic among many people in society, including doctors and nurses in the medical field, as it forces people to decide where to draw the line between relieving pain and simply killing. While some people see euthanasia as a way to helping a patient by eliminating their pain, it is completely rejected by others who see it as a method of killing.
