Even vices such as murder are not universally condemned since there are societies where they are accepted, euthanasia against essay. There are several strengths and weaknesses in the theories pertaining euthanasia as presented by Kant, Kane and Young. Thus if the universal duty of euthanasia against essay practitioners is aimed at prolonging life, it is only morally right to work towards achievement of this objective rather than act otherwise. It has also been a subject of controversy and study in the complex field of philosophy. Copy to Clipboard Copied!
Essays Related To Against Euthanasia
The 29 year old terminally old patient Brittany Maynard suffered from a stage euthanasia against essay malignant brain tumor that plagued her daily life with frequent seizures and stroke-like symptoms. Her inevitable death was predicted soon with certainty with absolutely no possibility for a cure. My journey is easier because of this choice. Euthanasia is a controversial subject as it is banned from all states except for Washington D. Legal Wills. It euthanasia against essay advocated by Anna Hall in hopes to relieve euthanasia against essay mother from a terminal and painful illness.
In the same year, Dr. Gregory introduced a similar bill to the Iowa state legislature as to bring awareness to the increasing demand, euthanasia against essay. These two bills were only the beginning of a long process of passing a bill. Eventually ineuthanasia against essay, Oregon became the first state to legalize aid in dying. The law was immediately challenged in the case Lee v, euthanasia against essay. State of Oregon. Barbara Coombs Lee was the main advocate for the procedure as she had witnessed first hand the suffering of numerous patients in her healthcare profession. Her unforgettable year career experience influenced her pursuit to devote her professional life to individual choice and empowerment in health care.
She served as a spokesperson through all campaigns defending against the euthanasia against essay and legislative arenas. How it works. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act allows for terminally ill Oregonians who meet specific qualifications to end their lives by voluntary self administration of prescribed lethal doses of medication. The requirements outline that a patient must be at least 18 years of age or older, a resident of Oregon, euthanasia against essay, capable of making and communicating health care decisions, and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months according to Jstor History of Euthanasia Movement Publication.
change If a patient is unable to self-administer the life-ending medication, then he or she is ineligible. The decision is euthanasia against essay by the attending and consulting physicians. In support of the Euthanasia movement, it is most important to recognize the characteristics of the procedure that make it more worthwhile versus detrimental. The ability to determine the suffering of patients is none other the judgement of the patient themselves. We are in no jurisdiction to say that one is not suffering enough to consider death as a viable option. It is not our place to force the suffering into living when no possible progress can be made when death is inevitable within six months. People have the right to die.
That is even evident in the legalization of suicide, euthanasia against essay. With the qualified intentions, humans are independent biological beings that have the right to control his or her euthanasia against essay and life. She made her decision of a doctor- assisted death when diagnosed New Years Day. She had limited treatment options that would save her life, and she even considered hospice care. She was newly married to her husband in and her friends and family had always described her as an adventurous traveler until euthanasia against essay condition worsened and tumor took over control. That decision is none other her right as a suffering individual plagued with an unfortunate outcome. Euthanasia benefits the fair distribution of health resources.
The high demand of health resources results in a crisis that affects those who are ill not able to get speedy access to facilities they need for treatment. Allowing people to commit euthanasia would not only let them have what they want, but also free valuable resources to treat people who want to live. The main objection to the procedure of euthanasia conforms to the idea that it is against the will of God. Even though that God has given us free will to choose, the argument against this is that it would be wrong for to do so. The value of suffering is also debated, as religious people view positive value in suffering, euthanasia against essay.
Another argument against the use of euthanasia is that it gives too much power to doctors and may discourage them from finding cures. Another perspective suggest that doctors should not be allowed to decide when people die. In reality, doctors do this all the time when extending medical action that increases life changes, euthanasia against essay. Even though this is a different sort of decision, since it involves shortening life, doctors make choices about treatment euthanasia against essay the time that affects life spans of patients. Doctors that are qualified to administer euthanasia are within properly regulated reason with safeguards, so they recognize the seriousness of the decision.
In the majority of cases, the decision will ultimately be made by the patient. This further strengthens the positive benefits of euthanasia suggesting that the procedure is regulated and not imposed upon patients without dire need of it, euthanasia against essay. Euthanasia has had a negative connotation for many years and has been discouraged by the majority of states. However, the procedure has brought awareness to the critically suffering patients that are no longer able to fight for themselves. Ultimately, the law has benefited the well-being of the patients who have endured suffering without any hope. The inevitability of death within a six month range can no longer be procrastinated with the Death with Dignity act available.
For any subject 4 What is it supposed euthanasia against essay do? Need a custom essay on the same topic? Our writers can help euthanasia against essay with any type of essay. For any subject Get your price How it works.
high school persuasive essay
In the bible there are some verses against murder euthanasia. Do not be like cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother were righteous. For out of the heart come evil thoughts — murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theift, false testimony, slander. Why should you die before your time?. Euthanasia is basically about a patients being murdered with permission. THe patient would have a whole life ahead. Its is illegal know but in some places they still do it. Against Euthanasia. com, Jul 10, Accessed January 7, com , Jul Order paper like this. Did you like this example? In addition, the medic must go to the furthest extent in his or her quest to observe the duty to preserve life.
Kantian philosophy can also be applied from another perspective to the same effect. Kantian deontology directly addresses the issue of duty to oneself. The same kind of reasoning is applied to suicide. In fact, suicide is not acceptable in many societies. Similarly, it is universally unacceptable to take any life since it goes against ones duty as it is universally defined. If it were universally acceptable that people can take their own lives, then there would be a significant possibility that the human race would not exist. This is a deduction by Immanuel Kant in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant lays a strong foundation for deontology, particularly regarding professional conduct in all disciplines. According to Kant, deontology opposes any action that goes against universally accepted norms.
Deontology explicitly outlines the universal purpose of medicine, technology and medical personnel, which is to preserve life. For this reason, it is immoral for anyone to assist any individual to die for whatever reason. Another author, Robert Young, considers euthanasia as a rational act by qualified personnel to end suffering of a patient. He says that it is prudent for a qualified medic to induce death or allow a patient to die to alleviate pain and suffering. For such an action to be morally acceptable, the euthanasia should not have a beneficial effect to any other person other than the patient. Thus, euthanasia is performed for the sake of the suffering individual. He maintains that the decision to perform euthanasia should be a result of an assessment by a qualified person.
Young also excludes cases of people who are such an invalid state that they are not in a position to decide whether to have euthanasia performed or not For a case of euthanasia to be of moral value, the patient must request for the procedure, and the medic involved must be in a position to assess the condition of the patient and ascertain that the patient indeed suffering. Young further cites David Hume, who sought to append moral justification to suicide. He says that personal autonomy is paramount and should be respected. Thus, euthanasia should be morally acceptable when it is done within certain defined moral guidelines that involve the authority of the subject to euthanasia.
David Hume dismissed religious authorities as unfair to those people who committed suicide by denying them the freedom to choose not to live when life becomes unbearable. Thus, under certain circumstances, euthanasia is acceptable according to Young. It is impossible for any medic, however competent, to accurately determine the validity and extent of suffering of any individual. For this reason, I disagree with his proposition that some experts are able to determine when life becomes unbearable. Furthermore, it is the duty of the medic to prolong life regardless of the utterances and expressions of the patient. This is justified by the fact that no one can accurately assess the mental situation of another person.
There are several strengths and weaknesses in the theories pertaining euthanasia as presented by Kant, Kane and Young. In that case, a medic observes duty without allowing emotional consequences to alter the course of his or her actions. This way, the medical practitioner is able to give service to the suffering people objectively. However, Kane has postulated that the sole duty and obligation of the medical profession is to prolong life when it s possible to do so. He has not adequately tried to exclude euthanasia as one of the duties the medics have to perform. In addition, he has not presented facts that adequately support the theory that the duty of medical practitioners is to prolong life.
On the other hand, Kant defines actions of moral value as those that are universally acceptable. His theory succeeds in excluding actions such as euthanasia among those that are universally acceptable. This is important since it prevents humans from engaging in morally questionable practices. He simply seeks to avoid approving actions that have moral doubt for universal practice. Even vices such as murder are not universally condemned since there are societies where they are accepted. Primitive societies, even in developed nations, have occasionally accepted murder as an action with moral value.
It cannot be preservation of life is not a universal practice acceptable to all societies. Some societies allow people to perform euthanasia based on age or ailment. It may be beneficial to those who are living by sparing them the ordeal of seeing a person to whom they are emotionally connected suffer. However, there is a major weakness in the definition of qualified personnel competent enough to perform euthanasia. It is impossible to assess the effects of death since no one knows what follows once one is pronounced clinically dead. In the same year, Dr. Gregory introduced a similar bill to the Iowa state legislature as to bring awareness to the increasing demand. These two bills were only the beginning of a long process of passing a bill.
Eventually in , Oregon became the first state to legalize aid in dying. The law was immediately challenged in the case Lee v. State of Oregon. Barbara Coombs Lee was the main advocate for the procedure as she had witnessed first hand the suffering of numerous patients in her healthcare profession. Her unforgettable year career experience influenced her pursuit to devote her professional life to individual choice and empowerment in health care. She served as a spokesperson through all campaigns defending against the judicial and legislative arenas.
How it works. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act allows for terminally ill Oregonians who meet specific qualifications to end their lives by voluntary self administration of prescribed lethal doses of medication. The requirements outline that a patient must be at least 18 years of age or older, a resident of Oregon, capable of making and communicating health care decisions, and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months according to Jstor History of Euthanasia Movement Publication. change If a patient is unable to self-administer the life-ending medication, then he or she is ineligible. The decision is determined by the attending and consulting physicians. In support of the Euthanasia movement, it is most important to recognize the characteristics of the procedure that make it more worthwhile versus detrimental.
The ability to determine the suffering of patients is none other the judgement of the patient themselves. We are in no jurisdiction to say that one is not suffering enough to consider death as a viable option.
No comments:
Post a Comment