Voluntary Euthanasia
Title: Euthanasia in Philippines, deal or no deal?
Introduction: As a Filipino citizen, we have great trait towards family which we called “close family ties”. This means that we have strong connection and great affection on our family members whether to our parents, grandparents, siblings or any other relatives. We value our relationship with our relatives so much that we can’t go on with our live easily without them. But what if the time comes when we we’re about to decide whether to let go or not on our family member who is suffering too much because of illness? Are we going to let go to finish his or her sufferings? Or are we going to pretend that we cannot see how much he or she is suffering just to live together with him much longer? In that case, euthanasia issue opens. Euthanasia from the Greek word “eu-” meaning well or good and “-Thanatos” meaning death. Euthanasia is a broad term for mercy killing—taking the life of a hopelessly ill or injured individual in order to end his or her suffering. Mercy killing represents a serious ethical dilemma. People do not always die well. Some afflictions cause people to suffer through extreme physical pain in their last days, and euthanasia may seem like a compassionate way of ending this pain. Other patients may request euthanasia to avoid the weakness and loss of mental faculties that some diseases cause, and many feel these wishes should be respected. But euthanasia also seems to contradict one of the most basic principles of morality, which is that killing is wrong. Viewed from a traditional Judeo-Christian point of view, euthanasia is murder and a blatant violation of the biblical commandment “Thou shall not kill.” From a secular perspective, one of the principal purposes of law is to uphold the sanctity of human life. Euthanasia is so controversial because it pits the plight of suffering, dying individuals against religious beliefs, legal tradition, and, in the case of physician-assisted death, medical
Introduction: As a Filipino citizen, we have great trait towards family which we called “close family ties”. This means that we have strong connection and great affection on our family members whether to our parents, grandparents, siblings or any other relatives. We value our relationship with our relatives so much that we can’t go on with our live easily without them. But what if the time comes when we we’re about to decide whether to let go or not on our family member who is suffering too much because of illness? Are we going to let go to finish his or her sufferings? Or are we going to pretend that we cannot see how much he or she is suffering just to live together with him much longer? In that case, euthanasia issue opens. Euthanasia from the Greek word “eu-” meaning well or good and “-Thanatos” meaning death. Euthanasia is a broad term for mercy killing—taking the life of a hopelessly ill or injured individual in order to end his or her suffering. Mercy killing represents a serious ethical dilemma. People do not always die well. Some afflictions cause people to suffer through extreme physical pain in their last days, and euthanasia may seem like a compassionate way of ending this pain. Other patients may request euthanasia to avoid the weakness and loss of mental faculties that some diseases cause, and many feel these wishes should be respected. But euthanasia also seems to contradict one of the most basic principles of morality, which is that killing is wrong. Viewed from a traditional Judeo-Christian point of view, euthanasia is murder and a blatant violation of the biblical commandment “Thou shall not kill.” From a secular perspective, one of the principal purposes of law is to uphold the sanctity of human life. Euthanasia is so controversial because it pits the plight of suffering, dying individuals against religious beliefs, legal tradition, and, in the case of physician-assisted death, medical
Bibliography: * Biggar, N., 2004, Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia, London: Darton, Longman and Todd. * Brock, D., 1993, “Voluntary Active Euthanasia”, Hastings Center Report, 22 (2): 10–22. * Burleigh, M., 1994, Death and Deliverance: Euthanasia in Germany c. 1900–1945, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Commission on the Study of Medical Practice Concerning Euthanasia: Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life, The Hague: SdU, 1991. (This is known as ‘The Remmelink Report’.) * Foley, K * Gorsuch, N., 2006, the Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. * Griffiths, J., A. Bood, and H. Weyers, 1998, Euthanasia and Law in the Netherlands, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. * Keown, J., 2002, Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalization, New York: Cambridge University Press. * Kuhse, H., 1987, the Sanctity-of-Life Doctrine in Medicine: A Critique, Oxford: Clarendon Press. * Kuhse, H., P. Singer, P. Baume, A. Clark, and M. Rickard, 1997, “End-of-Life Decisions in Australian Medical Practice”, The Medical Journal of Australia, 166: 191–196. * Lewis, P., 2007, Assisted Dying and Legal Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press. * McIntyre, A., 2001, “Doing Away With Double Effect”, Ethics, 111: 219–255. * McMahan, J., 2002, the Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life, New York: Oxford University Press.