A discussion as to whether euthanasia is a moral or immoral act

Voluntary Euthanasia gives doctors too much power The prestigious position of doctors could quite easily be abused if euthanasia were to become legalised. But, ultimately, it is only an instrument just as the canvas is--the "painting" is what matters.

Since physicians cannot be held responsible for wrongful deaths if they have acted in good faith, substandard medical practice is encouraged, physicians are protected from the con-sequences, and patients are left unprotected while believing they have acquired a new right, and ultimately defeats the purpose of legalizing PAS.

The system allows organ donation to be completed more efficiently, effectively and even at all in some cases. It is murder There are strong proponents on both sides of the debate for and against euthanasia. A Lack of Responsbility Ethical safe-guards may not be achieved in the time frame allotted by the affirmative.

California has made it illegal, and so it seems feasible to do that in more cases. At later stages of many terminal illnesses, organs are severely weakened and, in some cases, failing - it may not be possible to use them at that point.

Euthanasia, in contrast, involves taking an innocent life. PAS limits the view of the patient to a mere biological mass. The question is whether it can be a justified trade-off, and if so, how to ensure that euthanasia is only performed when it is fully justified under the criteria we set forth.

The main problem lies with a lack of knowledge. That puts the "interests" argument in favor of the Pro position in this debate, as in the vast majority of cases it is in the patient's interests.

It is their life and they have the right to choose how and when it ends.

Do You Agree or Disagree With Euthanasia or Mercy Killing?

Persons at the end of their lives typically have neither the energy nor the ability to meet such conditions. What a categorical imperative amounts to is a description of a maxim within us that is moral when we follow it for its own sake.

Day by day more and more governments and citizens are recognizing this right and are strongly disavowing the antiquated positions that our opposition has argued for. Why should assisted suicide for terminally ill patients be any different?

Since physicians cannot be held responsible for wrongful deaths if they have acted in good faith, substandard medical practice is encouraged, physicians are protected from the con-sequences, and patients are left unprotected while believing they have acquired a new right, and ultimately defeats the purpose of legalizing PAS.

More thanmen women and children are waiting for organ transplants in the US alone with only 14, eligible donors. This is more an argument against any sort of medical procedure, life saving or life ending because these problems are not unique to any medical procedure, whether it be perceived as simple or complex.

Harold Shipman committed his crimes when euthanasia was illegal, which illustrates that psychopaths can commit crimes whatever the legal situation.

We support the inalienable pursuit of Life but we do not support force-feeding life to citizens whom declare that they no longer want to participate in this pursuit for the ethically justifiable reasons stated in our case.

It is acceptable to send soldiers into war to die and kill to achieve certain ends. We believe that to support PAS is supporting a flexible and ethical system that can address this complex situation with the patient and doctor in mind and at the forefront. Finally, if patients who have been cleared for PAS under the guidelines set out by the proposition, then they are already terminally ill, and thus, have failing organs already, not in good enough condition for transplant.

While religious morality may be precise on who sets decides when a person dies secular values also recognise if a person is suffering unncessarilly they should be helped to eliminate that suffering.

In addition, the option of assisted suicide for mentally competent, terminally ill people could give rise to a new cultural norm of an obligation to speed up the dying process and subtly or not-so-subtly influence end-of-life decisions of all sorts.

Sanctity of life Religious and secular morality decrees that no one has the right to take the life of another human being, A principle stated in the Quaran "[2. Essentially you are segregating out a class of doctors as a political body having certain sets of powers over a population considered their patients.

It cannot be viewed as a quick and easy fix, or a way to protect patients from inadequate care arrangements. It is time to break free from the shackles of these ideals into a world where citizens are individually empowered by supporting the right-to-die.

Rather, its about helping terminal patients die who want to die. Sanctity of life Religious and secular morality decrees that no one has the right to take the life of another human being, A principle stated in the Quaran "[2.

We are not advocating a vast increase in quantity but rather a quality increase in organ donation. It can be violated or risked for certain, highly valuable ends security, justice, discovery. These details may not even be well founded: Critics point to the fact that permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide, as is done in the Netherlands, does not prevent violation of procedures e.

Moral dilemma of whether euthanasia is ethically acceptable - Essay Example

This is not the general euthanasia proposal, which is to allow patients with exceptional circumstances to seek euthanasia and receive it if they are eligible.This is the core of discussion whether there is a general moral obligation to obey the law.

This discussion started in the 's in the United States.

Voluntary Euthanasia

The background to it was the civil rights movement in the United States, and the Vietnam War with its political scandals. Euthanasia is the act of putting to death a person suffering from an incurable condition.

Voluntary active euthanasia occurs when a medical provider or some other person administers a lethal dose of a drug to a patient upon the patient’s specific request. Euthanasia is legal in a few modern democracies: the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland. In the Netherlands, voluntary euthanasia has been legal sincewith some 3, people requesting it each year.

Euthanasia and the Right to Die - Moral, Ethical and Legal Perspectives Bruce Vodiga,Euthanasia and the Right to Die - Moral, Ethical and Legal Perspectives, 51Chi.-Kent L.

Rev.1 regardless of its motivation, or of whether it is an act or omission. Euthanasia is not permitting death to occur or allowing the inevitable.

Euthanasia is legal in a few modern democracies: the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland. In the Netherlands, voluntary euthanasia has been legal sincewith some 3, people requesting it.

Preface Varrack approached me about doing this debate, and I think it will be an interesting discussion. Euthanasia is an important question now more than ever, as more and more places begin considering the merits of some form of euthanasia.

Download
A discussion as to whether euthanasia is a moral or immoral act
Rated 3/5 based on 14 review