EUTHANASIA.   Term Paper ID:29135 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Pros and cons of mercy killing.... More...

8 Pages / 1800 Words 2 sources, 5 Citations, APA Format $32.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Pros and cons of mercy killing. Arguments against euthanasia as a violation of the inalienable right to life, and an offense against human dignity. Religious and ethical arguments. Discusses methods used. Arguments in favor of euthanasia including the right of people to make the choice to live or die when no longer physically or mentally competent. Paper Introduction: The deliberate termination of an individual’s life in order to somehow benefit the patient through pain termination is commonly called euthanasia or mercy killing and is alleged to be for the patient’s benefit. There are those in the world community and the medical establishment who maintain that it is the inalienable right of a competent adult person, capable of giving informed consent, to make their own decisions regarding medical treatment or the withholding thereof. Government has an obligation to protect persons from suicide, genocide and murder. Interestingly, there are some cases where a person refuses life-saving treatment as a means to assisted suicide. In those cases, all physical and psychological help needed should be offered to assist the person in making an informed decision regarding the grave matters of life and death. ARGUM Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. The arguments werereviewed by the courts that, upon review, agreed and sided with the family. One of the earliest cases of medical technology allowing a brain deadindividual whose life energy seems to hang on to hang on was the Karen AnnQuinlan case. For some, it is a religious or moralobligation to keep life energy flowing as long as the faintest possiblesign of that life energy is existent. He continues this argument by indicating that most requestsfor physician-assisted suicide come not from the poor, but from theprivileged, most likely because they are inexperienced with dealing andtolerating dreadful and intolerable conditions.CONCLUSIONS: When considering the decision to move society from a preservation oflife at all cost to allowing the termination of non-viable and less viablelife energies, we should consider that "preservation of life is almostalways a physician's dominant objective, but in terminal illness,preservation of life may no longer be a goal of treatment at all. Why can we put Sparky to sleep if he is 'too old','suffering', but if Grandma is 'too old', or 'suffering' from physical ORmental incapacitation, we are not allowed to put her to sleep? Cecil McIver, a licensed physician and advocate of physician assistedsuicide states: "Morality and legality are, or should be, closely coupled.Morality should provide the theoretical basis for our concepts of right andwrong, and the legal system should codify police and enforce our moralconclusions. In "Who lives? It is those who argue for euthanasia that we accumulate a knowledgeof definition of the 'greater good'. Within this group are those who ride a sort of middle moral ground,whose ethics imply that if they can make the decision for themselves, now,(while they are cognizant, capable and outside of pain or the judgment ofterminality) then they may choose to set up a 'living will'. When the laws are based on fundamental and universal moralprinciples, they must be inflexible. McIver, Cecil. In those cases, all physical and psychological helpneeded should be offered to assist the person in making an informeddecision regarding the grave matters of life and death.ARGUMENT AGAINST EUTHENASIA: There are those who perceive Euthanasia, as an offense against thedignity of the human person, an attack on general humanity and theviolation of one is inalienable right to life.They view the violation of the inalienable right to life comes through: 1. Her family stepped in and asked thecourts for the right to take her off life support. When committing toassisted suicide legislation and court decisions, most legislators andlawmakers draw the moral line of competency at diagnosis. "Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides?". While they'perform euthanasia' on a consistent basis with the wishes of those whodesire it, there are also documented 'mistakes' at a rate of about 9 ayear. How much of the wealthor resources of a healthy family first, then society should be taken forthe care and allowances required for the terminally ill, permanently illand/or disabled? Assisting the suicide of a patient by intentionally prescribing and/or administering lethal doses of drugs with the express purpose of killing the person; and 4. 631-641 How can they then know if they would like to remain living, ifthat living required them to under go life-sustaining treatments?ARGUMENTS FOR EUTHANASIA: Those who would argue for Euthanasia maintain that a moral being iscapable of making the choice to live or die, and if they are no longercompetent in their physical OR mental suffering, then other morallycompetent humans should be avowed that right in their place. By denying ordinary corrective surgery/surgeries that may be required by a handicapped newborn. Unlike the animals, which are not moral beings, wehave the means and the methods necessary to maintain a healthy populationof wanted and viable life energies so why expend limited resources andenergies upon beings who would cease life energy if left without lifeprolonging care under extraordinary circumstances? In her case, she was brain dead and had no will or volitionto be able to prove her competency. Pp. The danger that is argued by those against euthanasia is that we mayset dangerous precedents in deciding who lives and who dies. Interestingly, there aresome cases where a person refuses life-saving treatment as a means toassisted suicide. The patient may otherwise be completely healthy.Those against euthanasia would argue that the psychiatrist had murdered amentally ill person with their permission. When thetermination of suffering has become more important than the preservation oflife, and the patient wishes to terminate his suffering as quickly aspossible" (McIver, 64 ) is it appropriate to end life as a means to endsuffering? MARTINS: CURRENT ISSUES AND ENDURING QUOTATIONS.(2 2) 6th Edition. They would put forth examples of mentallychallenged individuals who are often under conservator ships and 'notcompetent', who often require extreme treatments for genetic defects anddiseases but are able to otherwise live fairly normal lives, as living afull life one day and having conservators make hasty life or deathdecisions the next. MARTINS:CURRENT ISSUES AND ENDURING QUOTATIONS. That it was not their decision thatbrought that life energy into existence, yet they are certain that itshould not involve that life energy when it comes to making a decisionregarding the cessation of that life energy's existence. That all extraordinarymeasures available must be taken in order to keep that life energyexistent. The person then dies as a result of famine rather than as a result of illness or injury. The decision to terminate or continue a moral being's life energy isa power that must be controlled, but who will control it is the greaterquestion and the answers do not come easy. A living willis a documented dictation of their wishes as to what extraordinary measuresmay be taken at what time in order to keep them alive. The deliberate causing of premature death to a patient through the withholding or discontinuation of oxygen, surgery, treatments, medication or required nursing care. They maintainthat since there are unwanted population segments, this is a Darwinian wayof producing a more fit race through elimination of those who areterminally ill, mentally challenged, and otherwise undesirable for thefuture of the species. Withholding or discontinuing nutrition (food) and hydration (water) until the person experiences extreme degrees of dehydration or starvation. "Once a strappingoutdoorsman, he is now strapped to a wheelchair. They maintainthat because of their development potential as a moral human being theymust be given the right to obtain their potential no matter the cost.Since they have not yet achieved the potential for language development orknowledge, they are not yet able to make life or death decisions forthemselves. He is, at worst, a member of the living dead; at best, a shriveledversion of his former self." (Goodman, 627) Since January of 1979, hisfamily has made concerted efforts through the court systems to remove Earlefrom life support systems often utilizing the argument that Earle thenwould not want Earle now to live in this fashion. A formal judgment was entered to remove life support from Earle. In BEDFORD/ST. They view the medical andtechnological advancements of mankind as a sign from the universe (GOD,Buddha, Mohammed, etc) that as long as there is hope, the moral human beingat the end of that hope must not be unplugged. The deliberate termination of an individual's life in order to somehowbenefit the patient through pain termination is commonly called euthanasiaor mercy killing and is alleged to be for the patient's benefit. So at what point, according to these people, does one cross the lineto life not being at all equal in any way to the peace and rest that deathhas to offer? Another group affected by these decisions are the unborn andgenetically deficient newborns. Thereare those in the world community and the medical establishment who maintainthat it is the inalienable right of a competent adult person, capable ofgiving informed consent, to make their own decisions regarding medicaltreatment or the withholding thereof. Who Decides," Ellen Goodman discusses thecase of a Massachusetts man named Earle Spring. 626-628. They indicate that by allowing thosewho choose when to exit to perform their exit, we are being kind andenlightened. In this case, the life support judgment was never carried out for justas it was scheduled, a 'sudden' intervention by an outside nurse and doctorprecluded that Earle had issued a "weak expression of his desire to live."(Goodman, 627) Treatments now continue while the courts seek more andclearer evidence as to the truth about Earle's mental state. Their answer is that at no point does a rational moral humanbeing lose the right to life. The Dutch have been one of the foremost nations in considering thisquestion and have legislated the passivity of euthanasia. 198 . In BEDFORD/ST. The BostonGlobe. In this argument, these people acknowledge that the life energy inquestion came from outside of them. Government has an obligation toprotect persons from suicide, genocide and murder. Those who argue against euthanasia oftencite that the unborn are human beings from the moment of conception andtheir life energy requires the full protections as given to all other humanbeings such as America offers all citizens under the Declaration ofIndependence and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. These people view the patient's nutritional and hydrational needs as essential, basic human needs rather than required medical treatment; 2. Once a patienthas been diagnosed with a terminal illness such as cancer or HIV, they areno longer considered competent enough to establish whether they want tolive or die and to what extent doctors, nurses and family may feelnecessary to keep them holding on to their life energy. Those for euthanasia would onlyindicate that it was what the patient wanted. R E F E R E N C E S Goodman, Ellen. He counters that those who argue that euthanasia will lead to asystematic discrimination against the poor and those who cannot make theirown decisions by stating that the "greater danger is that people willcontinue to be pressured into living when the time for dying has come"(McIver, 636). Who dies? (2 2) "Assisted Dying as a Moral and Ethical Choice:A Physician's View". In other words, their life energies then remain undera constant threat and in need of legislative protection. Interestingly, sheclings to life energy to this day in a comatose, brain dead state. Pp. The Hemlock Society. Once a man with a keenmind, he is now called senile by many and mentally incompetent by thecourts. Interestingly, the Dutch consider that mental suffering constitutesa condition for use of euthanasia so psychiatrists are legally allowed to'perform euthanasia' on overly depressed patients whose sole complaint ofsuffering is depression. This is inclusive to comatose, semi-comatose and incompetent patients; 3. Especiallywhen those who are being decided about live under the label of'incompetent' or 'senile'. (2 2) 6th Edition. However, when a law is based onsectarian opinions, it should accommodate differences of opinion" (McIver,633). If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.