Overview of arguments in favour of euthanasia
Arguments in favour of euthanasia can be broken down into a few main categories: Arguments based on rights
* People have an explicit right to die
* A separate right to die is not necessary, because our other human rights imply the right to die * Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people have no right to interfere (a libertarian argument)
* It is possible to regulate euthanasia
* Death is a private matter and if there is no harm to others, the state and other people have no right to interfere (a libertarian argument) * Allowing people to die may free up scarce health resources (this is a possible argument, but no authority has seriously proposed it) * Euthanasia happens anyway (a utilitarian or consequentialist argument)
* Euthanasia satisfies the criterion that moral rules must be universalisable * Euthanasia happens anyway (a utilitarian or consequentialist argument) * Is death a bad thing?
Arguments about death itself
* Is death a bad thing?
Those in favour of euthanasia think that there is no reason why euthanasia can't be controlled by proper regulation, but they acknowledge that some problems will remain.
For example, it will be difficult to deal with people who want to implement euthanasia for selfish reasons or pressurise vulnerable patients into dying.
This is little different from the position with any crime. The law prohibits theft, but that doesn't stop bad people stealing things.
...Euthanasia of Humans
Ask yourself, if your loved one was suffering from a debilitating disease, causing them pain and heartache, would they be better off lying in a hospital bed, unable to do for themselves or resting in peace! Unfortunately, we as humans will never be able to predict the future, never knowing what joys or tragedies are awaiting either us, or our loved ones! Many people who attempted to escape disease via suicide, and were unsuccessful, were often harshly chastised in open courts, and some were even sent to work camps. It was normal for those who had been successful in their efforts of committing suicide to be buried with stakes in their hearts and the state would come in and confiscate the estate and all property within, regardless of a will. In those times, a suicidal act was seen as an offense to God; with that being said, asking a doctor to assist one in committing the act of suicide would have been in a word inconceivable. Nowadays, society as a whole is more tolerant to this notion, often times it is seen as the norm! Physician assisted suicide, currently still remains a very perplexing question, from both a legal and moral perspective. Within the context of this paper, I will represent the ideals for moral permissibility of euthanasia. First, I will deal with the moral permissibility of assisted suicide as a principle, and then I’ll explore the distinction between both active and passive...
...Are humanrights innate and universal?
Post WWII on the 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration of HumanRights (UDHR) was espoused by the General Assembly of the United Nations in order to agree on the notion that such atrocities that occurred throughout the Great War and the Second World War would not ever be reciprocated. The document that was drawn up in less than two years by the UN and Western states, and although ambitious it would guarantee a premise for life and living for every individual all over the world. The UDHR are founded on nobility, equality and reverence, and are said to be aimed at all cultures and religions within the West and East of the globe. However there is great discrepancy regarding the justification and practicality of humanrights all over the world due to political, economic and cultural differences and limitations. Universal means that ‘something’ affects, applies or is completed by everyone all over the world – there is no distinctive bias shown and equal policies are applied. Innate, in relation to humanrights, means that people are given natural rights purely based on the fact that he/she is human and alive. Therefore, are humanrights universal and innate or is the Universal Declaration of Human...
...Humanrights in today’s world have become pivotal to the functioning of our society as a whole, largely due to the increased occurrences which in turn have led to greater awareness and repudiation of the same in the world community. In present times the humanrights field encompasses a broad range of civil, political, economic and social rights which shows its all pervasive nature, and the accountability for the violation of these rights by state and non-state actors alike. The scope of humanrights in today’s day and age has thus widened considerably as gradually the individual becomes an end in himself and is recognized as being of primordial concern.
Humanrights law is a subset in the field of humanrights. Humanrights are what define a society; hence the humanrights law takes primacy over all the laws. There is nothing more important than the development of humanrights in an evolving society
Humanrights and criminal law are closely inter - related. My personal interest lies towards humanrights as under the criminal law. Today we see all kinds of crimes being committed- state or non-state, say torture of prisoners, child labour, or most importantly...
Research Paper: EuthanasiaEuthanasia
A topic that has been pressing for the past couple of decades has been the ethical/immoral use of ‘Euthanasia’. For those who don’t know, Euthanasia is defined as the act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection “ Actively” or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment” Passively” (Manning 1998). This leads me to ask myself a question, “Is Euthanasia an ethical request to end pain, and suffering, or just a poor admit to commit suicide?” People argue that euthanasia is conflicting with a person’s right to life. A person’s right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live. This means that by saying that someone should be euthanized, we are violating this right to life and it is immoral. In turn, there are some instances where Euthanasia makes sense, we don’t want to see our loved in pain right?
On October 27, 1997 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act which allows terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose. To understand the impact of the piece of legislation being...
Sharon Olds poem The Promise is about a couple renewing their promise “to kill each other” should one or the other become incapacitated. Euthanasia is a very emotionally charged controversy. According to the Medical News Today, euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, and more loosely termed mercy killing, basically means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering (Nordqvist). The history of euthanasia goes back to the 5th century B.C. The 20th century marked the foundation of several organizations for addressing the concerns regarding euthanasia. Proponents and opponents of assisted suicide present arguments for their different sides that involve moral and ethical ramifications. Should life be preserved at all costs or is the quality of life more important?
Opponents of euthanasia argue that it is a violation of medical ethics. The survey from the American society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) found that 22 percent of cancer doctors support assisted suicide in terminally-ill patients compared to 45 percent in a similar study three years ago. ASCO surveyed 3,200 oncologists for the report and 64 percent said they have received requests for euthanasia (Euthanasia). Doctors should have a moral responsibility...
...death is life’s only promise—which might explain why the argument about how it should come to pass, in the terminally ill, especially, is such a hot topic. There are four ways the terminally ill may pass: naturally, the disease takes them; active euthanasia—doctors actively take the life, e.g. lethal injection; physician-assisted suicide—the doctor gives the patient a prescription for a lethal dose of a drug, but the patient self-administers it; or passiveeuthanasia—a life sustaining treatment, i.e. a ventilator or antibiotic, is withheld. Three of them—passive, active, and physician-assisted—are hotly disputed. Passive euthanasia is acceptable while active and physician assisted are not. The difference among the three is, as Andrew Bell most accurately put it, “the ethical boundary between recognizing that human life is finite and [doctors] acting as executioner” (Bernards 50.)
The first argument against active euthanasia is that there is no proper way to give it oversight or regulate it (Bernards 72.) The possibility for abuse is enormous. There is no real way to prevent euthanasia from being an “out” for any number of situations, e.g. financial burden of continuing care, a misdiagnosis on the doctor’s part, etc. Loopholes are guaranteed to be found and the risk of them being exploited is too great.
A second argument against active...
...Euthanasia: The ArgumentEuthanasia is defined as; “the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependant human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key word here is “intentional”. If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia.)” Source: euthanasia.com/definition
The act of euthanasia is a very controversial issue which has many supporters, both for and against and has been a topic of the world’s media, time and time again. There are arguments both for and against in various cultures, religious circles, medical professionals and other ‘social’ groups. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, which is one of our basic humanrights and so is the right to live or not to live.
I have broken the argument into for and against topics but there are some sub divisions in which opinions of others are presented. I have remained impartial in this argument and only try to show points of view for many of the arguments that are bought forward.
Practical Arguments For
A point that is a paramount belief of many people, who are pro-euthanasia, is that of the belief that euthanasia can be regulated, even though they have recognition of the fact that there will still be problems relating to this issue. This being said they also believe...
...Running Head: HUMANEUTHANASIAHumanEuthanasia
Vicki Lynn Golden
ITT Technical Institute
Euthanasia is the ever controversial topic in debates in ethics. It is the taking of someone’s life upon request by that person, who has a terminal illness. Laws have been passed to legalize this act, however, there are still many that don’t approve of this and considers humaneuthanasia as an immoral act and a form of murder. Those who support this act believe that the wishes of the terminally sick patient should be respected. Thus, they respect the personal autonomy of human kind. They are those people who respect the dignity and honor of a person as citizen of this country. The abuse of euthanasia by doctors is nothing to fear. Specific conditions can be established under which a person may ask for and be granted euthanasia (Zimmerman, 2005). Euthanasia can be a fast and peaceful way for terminal patients to die on their own terms and be at peace with it.
For many years, humaneuthanasia has been the topic of many fiery debates on ethics. Legalization of humaneuthanasia and the morality of the act are usually questioned by people who are too blind to see the benefits of...