|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
I am for euthanasia because I strongly regard the fact that physicians have the social commitment to relieve suffering and the duty to administer the best possible treatment for any patient, whether imminently dying or not.
Egoism, utilitarianism, and deontology are three of the four basic methods of moral reasoning, all of which apply to a subject matter such as euthanasia. ... In correlation to euthanasia, this would translate into meaning that patients would tend to end his or her respective lives only to please themselves. ... Euthanasia can help an entire family with the process of losing a loved. ... A utilitarianist could also deem euthanasia as financially rewarding. Rather than having a family lose all their assets to watch a terminally ill relative die, active euthanasia could potentially save a family thousands of dollars per day. ... There are ethical premises and principles that support euthanasia, but as the saying goes, “there are always two sides to every coin.”
As defined by the Netherlands State Commission On Health Issues, euthanasia is the “intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who dies.” The origin of the term euthanasia is Greek in decent. ... Euthanasia can also be defined as “the depriving of life or causing the death of a living being” (Brock, Life and Death, pg. ... Active euthanasia “involves the death of a person through a direct action, in response with a request from that person” (http://www. ... FLST, commonly known as Forgoing Life Sustaining Treatment or passive euthanasia, is the death of an individual by means of altering some forms of support and letting nature take its course from there. ... Although these dosages may have life threatening affects on the patient, they are regarded as ethically sound by a number of medical societies across the world. Active and passive euthanasia are essentially the same process with the differentiation amongst them coming across in the forms of time and pain. Passive euthanasia is harsher, longer, and more painful for the patient to endure through. Active euthanasia, on the other hand, is rather swift and usually does not have any such adverse affects. ...
The arguments against euthanasia are certainly valid and something that anyone should pay attention to when deciding upon the morality of such a procedure; nonetheless, the counter arguments are just as valid if not more so. ... On the same token, a majority of religions are against euthanasia on the concurrent principle that god gives life and he should be the only one able to take it back. ... ” An applicable irony is how passive euthanasia is regarded as permissible, whereas active euthanasia is heavily looked down upon; both processes result in the same outcome! ...
The legalization of euthanasia is not only criticized from the perspective that killing is wrong, but also from the view that the roles of physicians would change as well. ... The slippery slope argument is that once a doctor has permission to execute the euthanasia process, other severe issues would be soon to rise. ... What would prevent a doctor from giving non-requested euthanasia? ... ” Physicians are generally the most intelligent and ethically sound individuals in a society. ... The only example that does relate is that of the situation in the Netherlands, which can only be used to support euthanasia. In the Netherlands, euthanasia has been legalized and four guidelines have been established to prevent misuse of such great power: “only competent patients can request death, the patient’s request must be repeated, unambivalent, unpressured, and documented, the physician must consult another physician for a second opinion, and lastly, the patients must be in unbearable pain or suffering, without likelihood of recovery” (Pence, Classic Cases in Medical Ethics, pg.
Approximate Word count = 2762
Approximate Pages = 11
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|