Opposing Arguments Against Euthanasia

Euthanasia literally means good death. However in our society euthanasia is intentionally ending a life in order to relieve suffering or pain. There are two ways to put people to death you either do it with their will or against their will. if you put someone to death against their will we usually call it murder. But if I say “I’m feeling terrible kill me” would you help me to die?.so now we have euthanasia defined and assistant suicide and all these different terms very very confusing to the public because the public generally says “if I am in great pain and I am terminally ill and I am going to die soon why can’t I accelerate or make ease of my death?”.

Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia has been one of the most debated subjects in the past years. There are resilient advocates on both sides of the debate for and against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Advocates of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide believe it is a person ’s right to die when faced with terminal illness rather than suffer through to an unpleasant demise. Whereas, opponents contend that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is not only equivalent of murder, but it is ethically and morally incorrect.

HS 4812 Bioethics Discussion Post Unit 8 Compare and contrast euthanasia with physician-assisted suicide. Discuss your stance on physician-assisted suicide. Due to developments in biomedical research as well as the emergence of new fields in evidence-based medicine and bioethics, end-of-life care is a subject that is becoming more and more relevant. Medical professionals frequently discuss euthanasia and assisted suicide, two concepts that can be both comforting and upsetting depending on the situation. It has been possible to evaluate situations that have helped build helpful definitions for the legal regulation of palliative care and public policies in the various health systems thanks to the evolution of these terms and the events connected

This essay will present the arguments often expressed against legalising assisted dying as well as criticisms of those arguments. A major criticism of assisted dying legalisation is the ‘slippery slope’ argument, which can be interpreted in two different ways. The first interpretation is that legalising assisted dying just for the terminally ill would create a framework within which debates and campaigns to extend its legality to cover other groups of people would occur. Such groups of people could include people suffering from irreversible diseases like dementia, people who

It is believed that once practicing physician-assisted suicides becomes an acceptable concept in society, the next steps will easily be taken toward unethical actions such as involuntary euthanasia. Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD, Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Medical Ethics at Georgetown University claims that our healthcare system is too obsessed with costs and principles of utility. He defies the belief that the slippery slope effect is no more than a prediction, by reminding the outlooks and inclinations of our society. Furthermore, he believes there comes a day that incompetent patients and those in coma won’t be asked for their permission to use euthanasia. The Netherlands is another example of such misuse.

The possible legalization of euthanasia can cause a great disturbance in how people view life and death and the simplicity of how they would treat it. "There are many fairly severely handicapped people for whom a simple, affectionate life is possible." (Foot, p. 94) As demonstrated, the decision of terminating a person 's life is a very fragile and difficult one, emotionally and mentally. Nevertheless, it’s a choice we can make if it is passive euthanasia being expressed.

The difference between these two methods is that with euthanasia the physician actively administers a lethal dose of medicine to the patient, usually a sedative or pain killers. Physician assisted death is where the patient is given the dose to take with them and self-administer at a time they feel to be appropriate, usually when family is able to be present. Being taken off of life saving treatment or denied food or liquids, is considered to be passive euthanasia. No one is administering anything lethal to the patient, they are simply allowed to die through denial of

Besides the religious position, arguments made against the practice of euthanasia generally rest on a psychological perspective in that the legalization of euthanasia could lead to the state becoming more cruel and brutal, diminishing the concerns for its citizens and its moral responsibility, as demonstrated by the doctors and nurses in Nazi euthanasia program. Similarly, a number of practical arguments has also been put forward that allowing the practice of euthanasia might result in giving doctors more authority over their patients, reinforcing the paternalistic attitude and undermining the Nuremberg Code, which adopts a more patient-centered approach by emphasizing a patient’s autonomy and rights. The strongest argument against the practice of euthanasia, however, has been the slippery-slope argument. Ethicists, for instance, fear that legalizing euthanasia could repeat the Nazi episode—in this case, mass murder and involuntary euthanasia. This slippery-slope argument, however, raises a number of questions.

After considering all the different perspectives manifested throughout this paper, I, as a Catholic, believe that the use of euthanasia, active euthanasia in particular, is highly unethical. Our life journey teaches us about what it means to be human with all the roadblocks and challenges we experience that pushes us towards doing what is good as we face greater affliction we may encounter in the future. As part of our humanity, we must respect God, as the author of our being, who takes the wheel of our life, the bringer of light amidst the darkness that encapsulates us in this world. We make the day-to-day decisions but God has control of our fate from the very beginning of our finitude as mere mortals. I strongly oppose the use of euthanasia

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.

In a few nations there is a divisive open discussion over the ethical, moral, and legitimate issues of euthanasia. The individuals who are against euthanasia may contend for the holiness of life, while defenders of euthanasia rights accentuate mitigating enduring, substantial respectability, determination toward oneself, and individual autonomy. Jurisdictions where euthanasia or supported suicide is legitimate incorporate the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Estonia, Albania, and the US states of Washington. CLASSIFICATION OF EUTHANASIA Euthanasia may be characterized consistent with if an individual

The matter of euthanasia continues to be a controversial issue in today’s society. Over the past years, there has been a number of arguments that have tried to justify the practice of killing or letting die, otherwise known as euthanasia. Many surveys have been conducted in the past few years and in most of them, people wanted euthanasia to be legalized. However, what many people have overlooked the matter that legalizing any form of euthanasia will go against the sanctity of life and result in no constraints to the explanations of why it is being performed. It seems as if society has become so depraved and shallow that the people honestly feel that they can approve ending the life of a dear person.

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.

The act of euthanasia, whether active or passive, is heavily obstructed in the medical field. Through medical ethics, the act of passive euthanasia is condoned by withholding treatment and thus, allowing the patient to die. Without any direct contact with the patient, the doctor is not considered as the cause of death. Thus, the medical field views passive euthanasia as of lesser and more permissible value in comparison to active euthanasia. In the statement made by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association, they perceive this as contrary to mercy killing, as it is, the cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient and/or his immediate family.

Euthanasia is the end of a person that was suffering from an illness or a traumatic accident in the past that has affected them and changed them to a different person. Most of these people find them self to believe they are a nuisance to others such as family members or some care givers. Euthanasia is the process of end a live of someone in great suffering to relive the pain of whatever caused it in the first place. Euthanasia is one of the most controversial topics because of religious purposes or the choice of choosing a sooner death.      Euthanasia is legal in very limited parts of the world.