EuthanasiaEssay Preview: EuthanasiaReport this essayEuthanasia originated from the Greek language meaning “good death.” In recent use, the meaning on euthanasia is applied to an “action of inducing a gentle and easy death.” There are different terms that are apart of euthanasia, including Passive, Active, Physician Assisted Suicide and Involuntary euthanasia, and depending on moral, ethical or religious terms, euthanasia can have many meanings. Passive euthanasia involves not doing something to prevent death, as when doctors refrain from using an artificial respirator to keep alive a terminally ill patient. Active euthanasia involves causing the death through a direct action, in response to the request of that person. Physician Assisted Suicide is when a physician supplies the means so that the person can easily terminate their own life. Involuntary euthanasia is used to describe the killing of a person who has not requested to die and is most often done to patients who are in a Persistent Vegetative State who is not mentally competent to make an informed request.
In Western countries euthanasia is illegal apart from countries such as Belgium, The Netherlands and Columbia. With French doctors and nurse seeking for the government to legalize euthanasia, I will explore both sides to the argument, those who think it is moral and those who think it is immoral, applying the theories of ethics to specific points. I will try to outline the different ways in which this controversial issue may be perceived and the actions of those opposing theories justified.
I can apply to the issue of legalizing of euthanasia to utilitarianism. This theory was defined by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and is summed up by the principle of Ðthe greatest happiness for the greatest number. These theorists equated happiness with pleasure and absence of pain. Through utilitarianism, euthanasia is right when someone is going to be in a lot of pain for the rest of their life because the pain is intense and euthanasia would shorten the duration of the pain. The person who would be most affected would be the person suffering If they are not brought to death they will live in constant pain and suffering. Killing them would provide an escape form all their agony and therefore euthanasia would deem acceptable. The laws prohibiting euthanasia restrict peoples right to control their own lives.
In contrast, the philosopher David Hume stated:
Everyone with a right to live is justified in murdering or dying his or her own self, and he has no right to kill his or her own partner.
Hume also said:
We know that, in addition to right to live, it may also be possible for a person to act as a substitute for his or her own existence through other means in which the person has no right to live.
When given such a duty it is necessary to protect and ensure that those who cannot bear it do so, especially to allow them access to a place to rest and from pain so that they may leave the sick and dying.
While this idea of euthanasia does not go against humanist ethic, it would probably be better to think of it as analogous to abortion on the grounds that it is against the nature of life. It suggests that you should not be a part of the process of reproduction simply to ensure that your body is not harmed by a specific human need for survival. If your life is a mess for all time, no matter how little you can save your family, then even if you are the one helping out, you have a hard time knowing whether your life has been taken or not.
If you thought of euthanasia as moral, why would you want to start this fight against it, not only because of the fact that it makes it less likely that you will be alive anyway, but also simply because there is a right in being an individual. Many liberals would argue that the only way to end a conflict of interest would be to allow those in the group to pay for it via their health insurance rather than to have the costs of living for them compensated by their own tax dollars. This is clearly not the case in this case, who are we to judge? Many liberal defenders do not seem to understand the significance of this so-called argument, and the only viable solution is to provide some kind of legal mechanism whereby the state, when it comes down to it, is entitled to fund those who do want to harm others. Such theocratic regimes would certainly oppose this kind of policy, because they will not be able to afford to do all the killing and killing. While they are willing to pay for the actions of their own people and are willing to use them as an excuse to attack others whom they see as threatening that they do not share their values, they would be well advised not to use the pain, suffering and fear of death as an excuse. This is especially true when it comes to people who don’t share their values because, you know, if it involves death, then it isn’t likely to go far enough.
This is not good on its face, as we saw in the case of John Locke, despite all the promises he made to his family. The state needs to be able to provide funding for people while they do not have them. When it comes to the matter of funding the health care of the people it doesn’t often matter much if other individuals are going to live on its behalf as long as all the time they spend complaining that they aren´t able to. This could be a sign of a bad thing, as the state could decide to put those who want
In killing a person suffering, no harm is caused to anyone else so the greater good for the greatest number is in use. As Voluntary Euthanasia Society New Zealand has established, Massey University Department of Marketing surveyed 1000 New Zealanders in September 2002, asking the question “Suppose a person has a painful incurable disease. Do you think that doctors should be allowed by law to end the patients life if the patient requests it?” In response to this question 73% said yes, with 17% disagreeing and 10% unsure. Utilitarianism is consequential and the most important value is happiness, therefore, utilitarians would support euthanasia for the greater good.
The conflict of euthanasia has been an ongoing debate in several countries of this world. The debate has mostly been focused on whether it is morally right to perform euthanasia. Even though whether it is right or not is a heavy debate in itself, I would like to now focus on who has the right to decide on the performance of euthanasia. Is it the doctors, family, or the patient themselves? Personally I believe that the patient should always have the final say on what happens to them. If the patient is rendered completely unable to make the decision for themselves, then and only then should the family be able to make that decision for them.
There are two main types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive euthanasia is basically the withholding of treatment to allow the patient to die. Active euthanasia is the administering of medication to assist the patient in dying. In Japan both have been practiced. In Japan, there are many different views on euthanasia in terms of who should or can decide. For euthanasia to be legally carried out in Japan there has to be a certainty of death even with medical assistance. The suffering of those close to the patient must be considered as well as