EUTHANASIA.   Term Paper ID:18993 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Ethics, pros & cons, public attitudes, roles of patient & medical professionals, religious issues.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 6 sources, 12 Citations, TURABIAN Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Ethics, pros & cons, public attitudes, roles of patient & medical professionals, religious issues. Paper Introduction: Euthanasia is a controversial subject which raises a number of ethical issues. It is generally agreed that there are two basic types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive euthanasia occurs whenever a terminally ill person is simply allowed to die. The case of Karen Quinlan in the mid-1970's and that of Nancy Cruzan in 1990 are two examples of passive euthanasia which have caught the attention of the public in recent years. In both cases, life-support systems were removed from patients who had no hope of recovery. The Supreme Court decision in the cruzan case indicated that the termination of life-support is permissible only if there is evidence "that the patient would have wished it." Thus, it was established that an act of passive euthanasia must be voluntary in order for it to be legal. 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. Specifically, doctors are permitted to removelife-support systems when they have the consent of the patient or family,and when "there is irrefutable evidence that biological death isimminent."[1 ] Many members of the public are influenced in their opinions by theofficial Church position on euthanasia. Therefore, all peopleshould seriously consider the importance of having a living will in orderto express their desires in such cases. (Guilford, Ct.: The Dushkin Publishing Group,1989), 88. No one can predictwhether or not they will be involved in an accident which might leave themhelplessly and hopelessly in a vegetative state. "Principles of Biomedical Ethics." Taking Sides: Clashing views on Controversial Bioethical Issues. For example, some terminally-ill patients may choosedeath because it is more dignified than being kept alive with a life-support system. The Supreme Court decision in the cruzan caseindicated that the termination of life-support is permissible only if thereis evidence "that the patient would have wished it."[1] Thus, it wasestablished that an act of passive euthanasia must be voluntary in orderfor it to be legal. [7]Margaret Pabst Battin, "Euthanasia is Ethical," Euthanasia: OpposingViewpoints, Neal Bernards, ed. However, active euthanasia must never beallowed to become an excuse for the elimination of "undesirables" insociety. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989, 24-29.----------------------- [1]"Prolifers Say Cruzan Death a Signal of Things to Come,"Christianity Today 35 (11 February 1991): 56. Active euthanasia differs from passive euthanasia in that it involvesthe active killing of a person in order to end suffering and pain. Smith actively kills his cousin by holding his head underthe water in a bathtub. This is particularly true in cases in which the patient issuffering with severe pain. Other patients might choose death in order to be relievedfrom the suffering and pain which are associated with terminal illness.Still other patients might choose death because of the financial burdenwhich is required in order to pay for their life-support systems. According to this view, terminally-ill patients should have a rightto choose for themselves whether they want death with dignity or if theywant to be kept alive with life-support systems. [8]Beauchamp and Childress, 86. Nevertheless, active euthanasia is rapidly becoming acontroversial issue at this time. Guilford, Ct.: The Dushkin Publishing Group, 1989, 84-91.Campbell, Robert, and Diane Collinson. With active euthanasia, it is possible to endthe misery of the patient more quickly. Thusfar, the Supreme Court has not permitted the use of active euthanasia inAmerica. Withthis reasoning, the official position of the American MedicalAssociation is that passive euthanasia is sometimes acceptable, but thatactive euthanasia never is. "Euthanasia is Ethical." Euthanasia:Opposing View- points. Neal Bernards, ed. Carol Levine, ed. The religious position holds that God alone hascontrol over life and death. Neal Bernards, ed. It is generally agreed that there are two basic types ofeuthanasia: passive and active. Because the end result of both actions is the same, Rachels arguesthat the difference "between acts of killing and acts of letting die is notin itself a morally relevant differences."[6] Margaret Pabst Battin has more or less agreed with Rachels' view andhas indicated that killing a suffering patient quickly is more humane thanwaiting for death to slowly come. Beauchamp and James F. As an exampleof how this could happen, it is pointed out that the German Nazis duringWorld War Two started out by legalizing euthanasia in special cases.Later, they used it as a tool for the elimination of Jews and other groupswho represented an "unwanted burden on society."[4] On the basis of this,many opponents of legalized euthanasia claim that "there could be a generalreduction of respect for human life as a result of the official removals ofsome barriers to killing."[5] The prevailing public attitude in America today is that passiveeuthanasia is permissible under certain circumstances, particularly whenboth the patient and the doctor agree on it. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988."Prolifers Say Cruzan Death a Signal of Things to Come." Christianity Today 35 (11 February 1991): 56."The Return of Dr. Death." Time 137 (18 February 1991): 45.Schofield, Joyce Ann. Whereas the proponentsassume that euthanasia will always be voluntary, the opponents fear thatinvoluntary euthanasia might also occur. For example, Jack Kevorkian, a Michigandoctor, has built a "suicide machine" which helps patients kill themselveswith an automatically injected dose of lethal drugs.[2] Although it isillegal for Kevorkian to use his machine at this time, there are anincreasing number of people who are arguing in favor of active euthanasiain certain cases. (San Diego: Greenhaven Press t1989), 26. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989, 17- 23.Beauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Some people have argued that killing aterminally-ill patient is not necessarily worse than simply letting thepatient die. [11]Ibid., 87. (San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989), 22. [3]Tom L. Thus, those who oppose euthanasiabelieve that it might some day lead to the killing of the sick and theelderly, as well as all others who fail to fit into society. However, most Americans todayagree that active euthanasia is never acceptable, because it involves aconscious act of killing.Nevertheless, the ethical issue of active euthanasia continues to be acontroversial topic at this time. [9]Robert Campbell and Diane Collinson, Ending Lives (Oxford:Basil Blackwell, 1988), 123. Thus, the major argument in favor of euthanasia is that it pertains to anindividuals right to self-determination. In cases in which patients areincapable of indicating their own choice, proponents of euthanasia believethat the immediate family should have the right to decide what the patientwould have wanted. Of course, some hopeless patients areunable to express their wishes because they are in a coma or a vegetativestate. Thus,, if a person is dying, it is seen asbeing an act of God's will. According to Battin, "if there aregrounds on which it is merciful not to prolong life, then there are alsogrounds on which it is merciful to terminate it at once."[7] At the sametime, many experts have rejected Rachels' argument as being a poor analogyfor the decisions which must be made in euthanasia. In both cases, life-support systems were removed from patients whohad no hope of recovery. The case of Karen Quinlanin the mid-197 's and that of Nancy Cruzan in 199 are two examples ofpassive euthanasia which have caught the attention of the public in recentyears. From this perspective, "it makes sense to talkabout 'placing patients in God's hands,' just as it is important not tousurp God's prerogatives by desperately struggling to prolong life when thepatient is irreversibly dying."[11] In addition to this official Churchopinion, there are also many fundamentalist "pro-lifers" who see euthanasiaunder any circumstance as a serious threat to the moral values of society.Such fundamentalists believe, for example, that the acceptance of passiveeuthanasia in America is a small step toward the acceptance of activeeuthanasia, which will in turn lead to the acceptance of even worseatrocities.[12] It is apparent that there are extreme opinions to be found on bothsides of the euthanasia controversy. "Euthanasia is Unethical." Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Specifically, it canbe seen that both Smith and Jones were acting out of a sense of greedrather than compassion, and thus both were guilty of committing"unjustified actions."[8] Euthanasia differs from this in that it seeks ajustified means for ending the suffering of people who have no hope ofrecovering from their illnesses. It may be noted that all doctors are bound to a HippocraticOath which requires them to always try to save lives rather than end them.At the same time, however, the Hippocratic Oath requires doctors to try andeliminate pain and suffering in their patients whenever possible. Euthanasia is a controversial subject which raises a number ofethical issues. [5]Beauchamp and Childress, 88. Most people agree that the patientshould have the final right to choose in such matters. [4]Joyce Ann Schofield, "Euthanasia is Unethical,"' Euthanasia:Opposing Viewpoints, Neal Bernards, ed. Those who are opposed to euthanasia, on the other hand, see it as aform of murder, because it involves one person helping another to die.Some opponents argue that the power of life and death belongs to God alone.others argue that euthanasia iswrong because a cure for a person's illness could be discoveredat any time. 3rd ed. It is also noted that a patient who was wronglydiagnosed could be allowed to die unnecessarily.[3] Perhaps themost powerful arguments against euthanasia are centered around the threatthat it could lead to worse things in society. In the 197 's, James Rachelsdeveloped the argument that active euthanasia is really not any worse thanpassive euthanasia. [6]Ibid., 85. Childress, "Principles of BiomedicalEthics," Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bioethical Issues,3rd ed., Carol Levine, ed. For this reason, most proponents of euthanasia recommend the use of"living wills," in which people are able to tell in advance what they wouldwant done in such cases. Ending Lives. Just as people should have a right to choose death when they arehopelessly ill, underprivileged groups in society should also have theright to not be killed unnecessarily by any government agency. Childress. Passive euthanasia occurs whenever aterminally ill person is simply allowed to die. Rachels used the example of two men, Smith and Jones,who wish for their cousins to be dead in order that they might collectinheritances. In this regard,"normally we take it that people are the best judges of their own interestsand this is why, in so many circumstances, consent is so important."[9] Itis believed that euthanasia must always be voluntary, otherwise it crossesover into the realm of murder. There are a number of pro's and con's regarding the issue ofeuthanasia. [12]"Prolifers Say Cruzan Death a Signal of Things to Come,"56.----------------------- 9 Jones, on the other hand, walks in on his cousinwhile he is already drowning in the bathtub and simply decides not to savehim. Despite the traditionalviews on the sanctity of human life, it can also be argued that activeeuthanasia is sometimes more humane than simply waiting for a patient todie through passive euthanasia. The keyconcept in making euthanasia acceptable is the idea that it always be keptvoluntary. For this reason, a "living will" is an important considerationfor everyone, whether they are currently ill or not. However, it is also possible toarrive at a moderate view on the topic which captures the best of bothsides. BibliographyBattin, Margaret Pabst. Euthanasia raises a number ofreligious issues because it pertains to life and death and the power ofhuman beings over such forces. The majority of the public believes that the patient plays animportant role in euthanasia decisions. In allof these cases, the idea of the patient's right to free choice is involved. The Church believes that all human life issacred; however, it also contends that there are certain cases in whichpassive euthanasia is more humane than keeping a person alive byextraordinary means. [2]"The Return of Dr. Death," Time 137 (18 February 1991):45. The proponents of active euthanasia believe that it ismore humane to end the suffering of a terminally-ill patient immediately,rather than prolonging that suffering by allowing the patient to die slowlythrough the process of passive euthanasia. Those who favor euthanasia believe that a patient should beallowed to choose death in cases in which there is no hope of recovery.They feel that dying is sometimes better than being kept alive throughextraordinary means. Medical professionals also play an important role in euthanasiadecisions. [1 ]Beauchamp and Childress, 84. 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.