Euthanasi A Controversial Issue In Today's Society

Introduction People have moral and ethical values that assist them in making decisions about their healthcare on a daily basis. What if a person found out that they had a terminal illness and only had months to live? What if those few months would be filled with treatments, pain and suffering, tear filled family members, and high cost medical bills? Physician- assisted suicide remains a debated topic which causes physicians, nurses and those involved to take a look at what they value and what they are willing to do in order to carry out a patient’s wishes.

Gill argues that keeping a person healthy cannot be a physician’s only moral duty because in cases of terminal ill patients, they can no longer be treated or healed (372). If a physician’s only duty were to heal patients then they would not tend to the terminally ill because there would be nothing else that they could do, which is something that most people would find to be morally wrong (Gill, 373). No one would be okay with a doctor not helping a person at all who has received a terminal sentence. So instead of promoting health in this case, the physicians must find a way to reduce the suffering of the patient. This means that the physician should be able to reduce the suffering in the way that the patient asks for.

There are many ethical and practical concerns that must be taken into account when considering whether to end a person's life, including questions of autonomy, dignity, and pain management. Simply asserting that some individuals have a duty to die is not enough to address these complex issues, and it fails to take into account the potential for unintended

Doctors should have responsibility of helping the ill patients to get better physically. Physicians are the icon of peace and generous within the society since their job is to solve the physical pain of the patients. In allowing physician-assisted suicide, the duty of physicians is misread. Society and law are saying that physician’s duty is no longer helping patients, but they can also easily put an end to patient’s life. In the New York Times article “Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Unethical and Dangerous”, Ira Byock states, “people who are poor, or old and frail, or simply have long-standing disabilities, may worry that when they become acutely ill, doctors might see their lives as not worth living and compassionately act to end their supposed misery”.

One of the more pressing social/medical issues of recent times has been euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, or the right to die. Proponents of human euthanasia propose that those with a terminal illness should have the right to a clean and painless death with the assistance of a physician, rather than the drawn-out and painful natural death that some will otherwise experience. Being one who was raised in a Christian family, I am morally opposed to suicide in all forms, and I strongly believe a human life is sacred enough that a physician should not be granted the permission or power to take it. Many oppose this act for various reasons: religious in nature, moral grounds, or by medical tradition. Some argue that euthanasia does in fact contradict a professional code of ethics.

A very controversial topic lately is that of euthanasia. Physician assisted suicide is a very debatable ethical issue because people have different morals. I argue that in some cases it is ethical and others it is not. I believe that if someone is going to die, that there is absolutely no cure available that if they want to die via physician assisted suicide that is their choice. One of the main reasons that people chose to die via PAS is because they are in pain and don’t want their families to see them miserable.

Many people may argue that this type of suicide is the wrong choice to make and that living can get better and the patient needs to stay around. Unfortunately for some people, the diseases and illnesses of a patient may be incurable and the patient’s life will never get better or return to normal. Others have said that euthanasia degrades the value and meaning of life. That life is a beautiful thing and that one should never mess with the workings of mother nature. In response to that claim, “There are metaphysical questions about when exactly life ends- with a person’s last breath, or before that; when a patient loses his or her ability to really live,” (Gulli ).

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.

There are real case incidents in which a 14 year old girl suffering from terminal cystic fibrosis is asking her country’s president for permission to end her life. She had self shot a video in which she says “I am tired of living this disease and she can authorize an injection through which I can sleep forever”. The girl's video has sparked a broader conversation about whether euthanasia should be legalized in the largely Catholic nation. According to me we should let euthanasia be legal as there is no significance in keeping them alive against their wish as we don’t know how much they are suffering. Another incident is where the woman moved to Oregon where euthanasia is legal to take advantage of Oregon’s death with Dignity Law.

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.

Palliative care, medical care specifically for treating patients with severe illnesses, does not always fit the bill to a diagnosis or a pain-free patient. Prolonging life is not synonymous with the relief of suffering. Physicians also have a basic moral obligation to respect the autonomous decisions of patients. “Some few patients, even when provided with excellent palliative

The Right to Die has been taking effect in many states and is rapidly spreading around the world. Patients who have life threatening conditions usually choose to die quickly with the help of their physicians. Many people question this right because of its inhumane authority. Euthanasia or assisted suicide are done by physicians to end the lives of their patients only in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, New Mexico and soon California that have the Right to Die so that patients don’t have to live with depression, cancer and immobility would rather die quick in peace.

Dr. Christof Hufeland wrote in 1806 that ‘The physician should and may do nothing but preserve the life.’ Anti-euthanasia doctors in contemporary society follow this same code as they believe that a doctor’s only role is to care for the patient and no more; they should not intervene with moral issues such as if their life is precious or

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 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.