Euthanasia
Euthanasia has become an ethical concern because of its treatment to patients who are dying. Euthanasia, in its broadest sense, means the quick and painful death of a patient due to incurable or intolerable pains being experienced. The usual notion that we get from euthanasia is that it is pulling of the plug, where machines that support the life of a patient are withdrawn because of the inevitable suffering and imminent death. But it could also be termed as the active killing of a patient suffering. Usually, the scenario for fast killing is the administration of lethal drugs to the patient that would affect a quick and painless death in minutes. To this, we term different kinds of euthanasia as active and passive euthanasia. But setting aside the various forms of euthanasia known, there still rests the ethical issue and consideration in proceeding such a practice- one of which is the ethical issue. Is has been said in traditional doctrine that life is sacred and should not be taken by any person. Furthermore, we must preserve it by all necessary means. The distinction that arises from active and passive euthanasia raises the ethical question: Is active killing morally permissible than just letting someone die?
A physician attending a patient, that wishes to die through euthanasia, is giving the patient justice for he is allowing the patient to break away from the pains and sufferings. What people consider is the naturalness of death and to avoiding hasting it. But letting someone die is not doing anything at all. Documentation is also an option as formality of the proceedings. Even if it is in the best interest of the patient and is upon his request, it is still considered wrong to take a life away from him. But the issue does not merely depend on the morality or immorality of assisted suicide but rather on the desire of the patient dying. This prohibition of euthanasia is the one that set the Hippocratic schools distinct from other physicians in that time. On the other hand, it is argued that assisted suicide is allowed because of the recognition of the value in our culture of personal autonomy and mercy. But the standard of terminal may have difficulty in determining. When the patient gives his consent to carry on with the physician-assisted suicide, he is well aware of the harms and the dangers that he is facing. In the argument of avoiding killing, it is said that there is inherently wrong with killing someone. Quill knew that it is necessary to begin the process because any delay would be dangerous for her part. The commandment, as matter of fact, is properly translated into the modern English language as "Thou shall not MURDER. Once the patient has decided to proceed, it is almost permissible to undergo with euthanasia. If a patient wishes to die, it is because he is experiencing an extreme amount of pain and prolonging life would only aggravate the agony that life loses its true meaning and is left is mere existence.
Common topics in this essay:
PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED EUTHANSIA,
Beneficence Physician-assisted,
Hippocratic Oath,
AVOIDING KILLING,
SOLUTIONS Physician-assisted,
Smith Jones,
Timothy Quill,
INTRODUCTION Euthanasia,
PASSIVE EUTHANASIA,
Journal Medicine,
physician-assisted suicide,
letting die,
assisted suicide,
passive euthanasia,
consent patient,
traditional doctrine,
hippocratic oath,
active passive euthanasia,
active passive,
active euthanasia,
patient die,
patient wishes die,
letting die directly,
hippocratic oath started,
die directly killing,
|
Acceptance Essays
