EUTHANASIA.   Term Paper ID:19301 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Argues against termination of patient's life on moral, medical & social grounds.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 7 sources, 15 Citations, TURABIAN Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Argues against termination of patient's life on moral, medical & social grounds. Paper Introduction: Euthanasia occurs whenever a doctor is involved in one way or another in the termination of a patient's life. There are many reasons why euthanasia should not be legalized. one of the strongest arguments against euthanasia is that it goes against the traditional moral codes of society. Since ancient times, all of the major religions have encouraged a respect for human life. According to this viewpoint, life is a divine gift. As such, it is morally wrong for a person to take another person's life for any reason. Proponents of euthanasia claim that there are certain circumstances in which killing may be humane. For example, it is argued that killing a terminally ill patient is merciful because it stops the suffering of that patient. Despite this argument, the strong moral and social prohibitions against killing still exist. These values are reflected in the 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. [8]Beauchamp and Childress, 88. Applied to the euthanasia issue, it isfeared that "once society starts down the slippery slope by allowing anexception to the ancient commandment 'Thou shalt not kill,' it becomesharder and harder to stop the slide - it is irresistibly tempting to permitfurther exceptions."[9] In this regard, the legalization of voluntary andpassive euthanasia might lead in turn to society's acceptance ofnonvoluntary and active euthanasia. [14]Kim A. Medical Ethics: Moral and Legal Conflicts in Health Care. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989, 24-29.----------------------- [1]Joyce Ann Schofield, "Euthanasia is Unethical," Euthanasia: OpposingView-points, Neal Bernards, ed. [3]James Rachels, "Active and Passive Euthanasia," Taking Sides:Clashing Views on Controversial Bioethical Issues, 3rd ed., Carol Levine,ed. For example, aterminally ill patient can be moved to a hospice, where attentive care isprovided on a daily basis. Yet another argument holds that the legalization of someforms of euthanasia will lead to other, more dangerous, forms beingaccepted as well. [6]Tom L. Over the course of time, this idea of "mercy killing" wasapplied more and more to the people that the Nazis did not like or agreewith. [4]Stephen G. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989, 68-76.Rachels, James. However, the AMA makes a distinction between this type ofeuthanasia and the "assisted suicide" which occurs when a doctor activelykills a patient. Thus, on the basis of theslippery slope argument, all forms of euthanasia should be illegal. "Active and Passive Euthanasia." Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bioethical Issues. [15]Jussim, 79.----------------------- 6 (Guilford, Ct.: The Dushkin Publishing Group,1989), 88. Potts, "Euthanasia Should Not Be Legalized," Euthanasia:Opposing Viewpoints, Neal Bernards, ed. [1 ]Beauchamp and Childress, 88. "Euthanasia Should Not Be Legalized." Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. "Has the 'Right to Die' Arrived?" Christianity Today 34 (2 August 199 ): 38- 39.Potts, Stephen G. one of the strongest arguments againsteuthanasia is that it goes against the traditional moral codes of society.Since ancient times, all of the major religions have encouraged a respectfor human life. (San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989), 27. "Principles of Biomedical Ethics." Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bioethical Issues. Although the AMA accepts voluntary, passive euthanasia insome cases, the nonvoluntary and active forms of euthanasia are denouncedunder all circumstances. This is clearlybetter than rushing into an "easy death" when the cure for one's diseasemight be discovered any day. In the words of Daniel Jussim: "Our policy should express ourprinciples against killing and prevent the bad consequences that wouldresult from the acceptance of euthanasia."[15] BibliographyBeauchamp, Tom L., and James F. Thus, as noted by Beauchamp and Childress, "easy resort to killingto relieve pain and suffering may divert attention and resources fromother strategies that may be effective."[6] Since ancient times, society has condemned the taking of human life.The arguments against killing are supported by both moral and legalprecedents. Euthanasia occurs whenever a doctor is involved in one way or anotherin the termination of a patient's life. Thus, Rachels' argument provides further proof for thethreat which is posed by the slippery slope of euthanasia. Acceptance of passive euthanasia opensthe door to thinking that active euthanasia might not be so bad after all.In fact, James Rachels, arguing in favor of legalized euthanasia, hasclaimed that there is really no difference between letting a patient die(passive euthanasia) and killing a patient outright (active euthanasia).According to Rachels' argument, active euthanasia is often more humane thanpassive euthanasia, because it ends suffering more quickly.[13] Althoughhe is arguing in favor of euthanasia, Rachels' point of view shows how easyit is to move from acceptance of passive euthanasia to acceptance ofoutright killing. Thisis the only way that society can avoid becoming conditioned to the conceptof "legalized murder." Another threat which is related to the slippery slope argument isthat legalized euthanasia of terminally ill patients today might lead tothe unwarranted killing of other "social burdens" in the future.[1 ] Ifsociety learns to live with the idea of killing people who are sick anddying, it will be a short step to also accepting the idea of killing peoplewho are elderly or mentally ill. "Doctors Debate Helping the Terminally Ill Die." New York Times, 24 May 1989, Al+.Jussim, Daniel. Lawton, Kim A. Englewood Cliffs: Julian Messner, 1991. For all of thesereasons, it is important that euthanasia remain illegal within the UnitedStates. It is ironic to think that a patient might beput to death when a cure for that patient's disease is just around thecorner. [9]Jussim, 79-8 . On a specific level, seriously ill patients might worry thattheir doctors will put them "out of their misery" without their consent.On a more general level, legalized euthanasia would probably increase thefears that people have about the medical profession. [2]Lisa Belkin, "Doctors Debate Helping the Terminally Ill Die," NewYork Times, 24 May 1989, A25. 3rd ed. [5]Daniel Jussim, Medical Ethics: Moral and Legal Conflicts in HealthCare (Englewood Cliffs: Julian Messner, 1991), 81. According to this viewpoint, life is a divine gift. Another argument against legalizedeuthanasia is seen in the fact that doctors are sworn to save lives ratherthan end them. Childress, "Principles of BiomedicalEthics,," Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bioethical Issues,3rd ed., Carol Levine, ed. Neal Bernards, ed. By contrast, the doctor is expected to not "interveneto lower the health standards ofthe patient or to shorten his life."[1] Even with terminally ill patients,the doctor's responsibility is not to end life but rather "to find ways tomake them more comfortable in the days and weeks before death."[2] Theofficial position of the American Medical Association (AMA) reflects thispoint of view. (Guilford, Ct.: The Dushkin Publishing Group, 1989), 78. Guilford, Ct.: The Dushkin Publishing Group, 1989, 84-91.Belkin, Lisa. In addition to the people who were sick or otherwise a burden tosociety, the Nazis committed "euthanasia" on Jews and other nonGermangroups of people. The opponents of euthanasia believe that the injunctionagainst killing applies in all cases. Another medical argument against euthanasia is concerned with thepossibility that a doctor might make an incorrect diagnosis of a patient.For example, a doctor might accidentally diagnose a patient as beingterminally ill. According to Beauchamp and Childress, "therewould be a general reduction of respect for human life as a result of theofficial removal of some barriers to killings.[8] This leads to the anti-euthanasia perspective that some people callthe "slippery slope" argument. Carol Levine, ed. 3rd ed. (San Diego: Greenhaven Press,1989), 72. The most serious threat related to theeuthanasia issue is that acceptance of voluntary euthanasia today mightlead to the use of involuntary euthanasia in the future. Neal Bernards, ed. In such a case, "someone could be 'euthanized' who wasn'treally terminally ill after all."[5] Yet another medical argument againsteuthanasia is that cures may soon be found for some of the terminalillnesses that exist today. Because of this problem, even passive and voluntary forms ofeuthanasia should be kept illegal. Thus, "it is an absolute prohibitionin the sense that no society can be indifferent about the taking of humanlife."[7] Respect for human life is an important component in themaintenance of social order. Most doctors are trained to uphold the Hippocratic Oath. [7]Jussim, 79. For example, it is arguedthat killing a terminally ill patient is merciful because it stops thesuffering of that patient. Acceptanceof euthanasia reflects a lack of respect for the sanctity of human life.The practice of euthanasia does not belong in the medical professionbecause the doctor's role is not to kill, but rather to save lives. [11]Jussim, 8 . Proponents of euthanasia claim that there are certaincircumstances in which killing may be humane. [13]Rachels, 79. The logic behind this practice was to "build a perfectrace according to Nazi standards."[12] In retrospect, the actions of theNazis seem to border on insanity. These values arereflected in the legal tradition which likewise prohibits the taking ofhuman life under any circumstance. [12]Schofield, 26. Childress. Accordingto the Hippocratic Oath, the doctor's role in society is to save lives andrelieve suffering. However, at the time, the Nazis thoughtthey were doing what was best for their particular society. Beauchamp and James F. By undermining thesense of trust that is normally found in doctor-patient relationships,legalized euthanasia "would undoubtedly magnify all the latent fear ofdoctors and hospitals harbored by the public."[4] As a result, many peoplewho need medical help might avoid going to a doctor because of theirincreased feelings of fear. The staff of a hospice is trained to help thepatient accept death and prepare for it in a natural way. once societyaccepts the idea of passive euthanasia, or death by "omission," "it doesn'ttake much to cross the barrier to the proposition that you can causesomeone's death by commission."[14] Euthanasia is morally wrong because human life is sacred. From there, society could easily move onto the extreme position of simply killing anyone who is perceived as being"a nuisance."[11] This may sound like a wild argument; however, thehistorical record has shown that this type of thing has happened before.Specifically, Nazi Germany started out by legalizing euthanasia for theterminally ill. The tragedy ofthe Nazi-caused "Holocaust" in World War Two is an excellent example of theway in which the slippery slope of euthanasia can get out of hand. Thus, a doctor is permitted in some cases toallow a terminally ill patient to die if that is the expressed wish of thepatient. Ifeuthanasia became an accepted part of the medical profession, the elementof trust which is essential in the doctor-patient relationship would bedestroyed. "Euthanasia is Unethical." Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Guilford, Ct.: The Dushkin Publishing Group, 1989, 78-83.Schofield, Joyce Ann. Assuch, it is morally wrong for a person to take another person's life forany reason. Carol Levine, ed. According to this argument, society'sacceptance of one negative value leads eventually to the acceptance ofother values which are even worse. Inparticular, it is feared that legalized euthanasia would undermine thefeeling of trust which is essential in an effective doctor-patientrelationship. Lawton, "Has the 'Right to Die' Arrived?," ChristianityToday 34 (2 August 199 ): 39. According to a 1973 statement by the AMA: "Theintentional termination of the life of one human being by another - mercykilling - is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands andis contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association."[3] Many members of the medical profession are concerned about what wouldhappen to the doctor-patient relationship if euthanasia were legalized. Despite this argument, the strong moral andsocial prohibitions against killing still exist. In fact, these forms ofeuthanasia are virtually the same as murder. Furthermore, euthanasia is unnecessary, because terminally illpatients have various alternatives to choose from. Although arguments have been advancedfor voluntary and passive euthanasia in some cases, nonvoluntary and activeeuthanasia are unacceptable in all cases. There are many reasons whyeuthanasia should not be legalized. 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.