Euthansia
“Euthanasia” or commonly known as assisted suicide has become one of the most talked about social issues in the World. Euthanasia, or mercy killing, presents some very difficult and painful dilemmas for doctors, patients, family members, and moral philosophers. (426) Even with these difficult and painful dilemmas the patient or person has the right to live or the right to die. This is what we believe and understand freedom to be, by having the right to privacy, liberty, and the control over his or her body. This dilemma of assisted suicide has brought quite a dilemma to our physicians and court systems. The reason for this is because euthanasia becomes a serious issue with families when a serious accident puts a patient in a comatose state and or otherwise incapable of making a competent decision. James Rachel believes there are two forms of euthanasia. First, he states that mercy sometimes requires mercy killing because the pain involved in a terminal illness may be greater than the life itself. Secondly, he states that the Golden rule would be adequate enough to escape the extreme pain. The morals of this Golden rule are as follows, if it is ok for me then it must be ok for another individual. . . .
Killing a hopelessly ill patient, who is suffering great pain, at his own request, would decrease happiness or increase misery. Euthanasia is somewhat like abortion by a person choosing the fate of their unborn child. In 1997 Chief Justice William Rehnquist gave his majority opinion on the case of Washington v. ” (426) This historical ruling made it possible for a third party to assist in the decision making process of Euthanasia with respect to a physicians opinion. He states, “ Throughout the Nation, Americans are engaged in an earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practically of physician- assisted suicide. ” (457) Since we can’t feel the pain that someone is bearing, we should not choose their lives for them. ” (460) I would choose death by fatal injection rather than putting myself in horrific pain. One such case has set a pace for the future of Euthanasia. The real shocker in this case is that Nancy always stated to her family and friends that if she was to ever be a “vegetable”, she did not want to live on. The argument from mercy says: euthanasia is justified because it puts an end to that. Therefore, such an action would be morally right. The court decided the Quinlan’s right to privacy gave her and her guardian the right to decide the course of her treatment, since a respirator, which might be deemed ordinary for a curable patient, should count as extraordinary for someone with poor prognosis. Euthanasia was used in Nancy’s case only because she stated prior to her accident that she would not want to live if she could not live her life as normal woman. I know this sounds horrible, but I would not want to suffer in a hospital if there was no chance for me.
Common topics in this essay:
Dr Kevorkian, Beth Cruzan, World Euthanasia, Ann Quinlan, Nation Americans, Fourteenth Amendment, James Rachel, Secondly Golden, Unfortunately World, Euthanasia Nancys, terminal illness, assisted suicide, chance recovery, action morally, happiness increase misery, decision life, doctor-assisted suicide, difficult painful, patient person, people understand, decrease happiness increase, difficult painful dilemmas, mercy killing, |