“People should have the right to choose when they die”
This statement creates many interesting points. It is written about taking your own life, be it suicide or euthanasia. On that subject it has clearly been written by a person with pro-choice ideals because it states “should have the right to choose.” This gives the meaning that they believe it is a basic human right to have a choice. A further meaning behind this wording is in the phrase “should have” this shows that the subject of choosing when to die is not currently legal but is likely to be widely debatable. The fact that the statement is not specific to a group of people, (be it old or terminally ill) or the mode of death, (euthanasia, assisted suicide, suicide) makes it a very open statement. Because of that fact it can be interpreted in many ways. It can be debated and could be argued by both sides. Many people will disagree with this statement because of many reasons. For example a first argument would be that many pain killing drugs can now help a patient die with dignity. Painkillers can relieve patients’ pain to the extent that they can have a long and suffering free life right until the end. On the other hand people could counter this by saying that the painkillers can only do so much and if the patient wants to die we should respect that wish. A second argument that is often used to counter euthanasia is; a dying patient may not be able to make a rational decision. This basically says that if a patient is in too much pain they might say they want to die and not really mean it. In response to this others may say that “it is still their wish and it is in their best interest to uphold that wish.” This could also be countered with “what if it is a rational decision? In which case denying them that would be a serious moral crime. A third argument against this is; a patient may have said they want euthanasia when they were nowhere near death; however, when faced with death they may change their...
...A Roman Catholic would forbid all forms of active euthanasia and most forms of passive euthanasia. This is because any act that intentionally brings about death is considered murder also euthanasia is not permitted due to your life being a gift from God and only God decides when your death comes, the sanctity of life. Ordinary treatments such as food and water must continue but extraordinary treatments such as complicated operations can be withdrawn. Although Roman Catholics do not allow euthanasia, they permit hospices because they provide a way of death that is not against the sanctity of life.
Anglicans do not hold a view as strong as the Roman Catholics but they are against active euthanasia because it forces doctors to play God and active euthanasia is against the 1961 suicide act. Also they believe that “Your body is a temple because the spirit of God dwells in it.” They allow passive euthanasia because sometimes it is the most loving thing. Furthermore, they do not have to continue both ordinary and extraordinary treatments.
The Quaker Christians hold opposite beliefs to Roman Catholics as they permit all forms of euthanasia due to situation ethics. They believe that each situation is different and the agape principle “Love thy neighbour as thyself” includes showing mercy to the terminally ill. They say that euthanasia can be the most loving action in some situations. They also support companies such as Dignitas who are an...
...Topic 8 – Religion and Medical Ethics
“Peopleshouldhave the right to choosewhen they die”
The statement in the title could have been referring to any form of death possible, but for the purposes of this essay I am going to stick with suicide and euthanasia as my interpretation. I think peopleshouldhave the right tochoosewhen they die but I don’t think that giving them the right is possible because of the many problems that could occur if we do.
Euthanasia is currently illegal in the UK and until 1961, so was suicide. Some people think that they are morally wrong and should not be encouraged. Some people debate that euthanasia, like suicide should be legalised because they are both one in the same. We shouldhave the right to make our own decision about the time of our death. There are a lot of problems with this and in this essay I hope to explain them.
Christians, especially the Roman Catholic denomination, believe in the sanctity of life, which means that they believe that all life is precious and should be protected, rather than destroyed. They believe that god created all life and that he...
...Should terminally ill patients have the right to die?
Euthanasia refers to ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Terminal illness means any illness which ends in death and there is no possibility of recovery. So is it fair for terminally ill patients to suffer pain for longer than they need? And should they have the right to end their own life?
People are usually eager to avoid death because they value being alive, because they have many things they wish to do, and experiences they wish to have. Obviously, this is not the case with a terminally ill patient who wishes to die. Euthanasia provides a way for terminally ill patients to relieve pain; it is unfair on them to endure unbearable pain. Also it can help to shorten the grief and suffering of the patient’s loved ones, as it’s not just the patients suffering but their loved ones are too. Many people think that each person has the right to control his or her body and life and so should be able to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. Most people would have their pets put down if they were suffering – this would be regarded as kindness. Why can’t the same kindness be given to humans? Patients should also...
...Roman doctors used euthanasia in 5th century B.C., but the most infamous of the twentieth century was Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He participated in his first assisted suicide on June 4, 1990 (Patashnik). Dr. Kevorkian is known all over the world for his famous and fearless acts in assisted suicide, or euthanasia. Euthanasia should be legalized for three reasons: pain relief, letting people make their own decisions about death, and peopleshould not be forced to stay alive if their lives are impossible and do not bring happiness.
Debate continues over the issue of euthanasia long after the court decision of a guilty plea to the cases concerning Dr. Kevorkian and assisted suicide. Kevorkian plead guilty to second degree murder in his assisted suicide cases and was sentenced to 10-25 years in prison, with a possibility of parole in six years (Humphry). Euthanasia does take place and is selected voluntarily by patients who are in great pain due to an incurable illness like cancer (Patashnik). Usually, the decision is made to pull the plugs of machines which prolong life or to end treatment. Physician assisted euthanasia cannot be considered murder because patients select to die, their deaths end suffering, and there is no intention to cause harm. Murder can be defined as an act of violence which is perpetrated against a victim (Dictionary.com). The individual dies at a time which is forced by the killer who...
...The phrase “The right to die” means the ethical or institutional entitlement of the individual to commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthanasia.( Right to die, - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 6 April 2012) It is one of the topics that has been debated over centuries. It starts from the 1950s, which arise from a small group of thinkers and writers in the United States and Europe, they began to argue about the choice that allows the patients to end their life by themselves in the case of surviving with those life support, in the case of the terminally ill, and many more. The acceptance of these arguments expand in the 1960s as the civil rights movement, the sexual revolution and other social movements helped to expand notions of personal freedom. While In the 1970s, this “right to die “has became an issue in the national stage due to the highly publicized 1975 case of Karen Ann Quinlan, who is a 21 year old woman that had fallen into a coma and she is unable to survive without the help of an artificial respirator. In this case Quinlan's family wants to remove her life support but it is thwarted by her doctor, leading to a lawsuit and a ruling by the Supreme Court that patients and by extension their families, they have a right to remove her life support. (Wired 2012) As “the right to die” has became an issue in...
...The Right to Die Modern medical technology has made it possible to extend the lives of many far beyond when they would have died in the past. Death, in modern times, often ensures a long and painful fall where one loses control both physically and emotionally. Some individuals embrace the time that modern technology buys them; while others find the loss of control overwhelming and frightening. They want their loved ones to remember them as they were not as they have become. Some even elect death to avoid burdens of lingering on. They also seek assistance in doing so from medicine. The demands for assisted suicide and euthanasia are increasing (Kass 17). These issues raise many questions, legal and ethical. Although neither assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal, many people believe they should be. A great number of those people may never be faced with the decision, but knowing the option would be there is a comfort (Jaret 46). For those who will encounter the situation of loved ones on medication, being treated by physicians, sometimes relying on technical means to stay alive arises a great moral conflict. I wish to explore this topic on ethical, not legal issues. Do peoplehave a right to choose death? More in particular, are euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide morally legitimate? Euthanasia...
...The Right To Die
Imagine that you have come down with a disease and you have just been told that there is no cure. There in your hospital bed all you can think about is the pain and the agony you are going to have to endure for the rest of your remaining life. I for one know that I do not want to spend my last times on this earth in pain and discomfort, knowing that I will never walk again, or feed myself, or maybe ever even come back to consciousness. For years, doctors have been prohibited from helping patients to take their own lives. I believe that a terminally ill patient shouldhave the right to decide if they have had enough. By legalizing euthanasia, also referred to as physician assisted suicide, tremendous pain and suffering of patients can be saved. The right to dieshould be a fundamental freedom to each person. Patients shouldhave to right to die with their dignity intact rather than have their illness leave them as merely a shell of their former selves. These are just a few of the reasons as to why every individual shouldhave the right to die if they are terminally ill.
Numerous ailments such as certain types of cancer result in a slow, agonizing...
...PRO (yes) CON (no)
The American Civil Liberties Union stated in its 1996 amicus brief in Vacco v. Quill that:
"The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. In particular, this Court's recent decisions concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion instruct that a mentally competent, terminally ill person has a protected liberty interest in choosing to end intolerable suffering by bringing about his or her own death.
A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide -- as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death -- substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained."
1996 - The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Margaret P. Battin, PhD, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Adjunct Professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Utah,...