Argumentative Paper Euthanasia
Should Euthanasia be legalized?
Because of remarkable advances in medical technology pharmacology that can artificially prolong a patient’s life, the field of medical ethics has been confronted with a new controversy: the legalization of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The word Euthanasia comes from the Greek word for “eus” which means godly or well, and “thanathos” which literally means death (F.A. Davis Company, 2001, p. 476). Before its contemporary use, the word euthanasia meant a peaceful, quiet way to depart from earth. However, in modern times, this concept has sparked an incredible controversy. Today, the word euthanasia also commonly, but wrongfully, used for the practices of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Advances in medical technology sometimes artificially prolong a patients suffering and deny them the right to a peaceful, quiet death. Many terminally ill people, who suffer from tremendous physical and psychological pain, would rather opt to die humane and dignified than to be kept alive artificially. Such unnatural extension of a person’s anguish has lead to an increasing number of euthanasia supports, who view the practice of euthanasia as ways and means to a peaceful, dignified, humane and self determined death. The most substantial argument of euthanasia and PAS supporters is that a human being should have the right to self determination and the freedom of choice when and how to end one’s own life. They also argue that certain practices, such as terminal sedation, are already commonly used and ethically and legally accepted. Proponents also condemn cultural and religious beliefs that forbid the practices of euthanasia and PAS. They argue that the right to die is a civil rights issue and not one of religion or culture. However, there are also supporters of this issue who do not wish further governmental involvement or regulation of these practices for they fear that such interference would restrict the practice too much.
This
Because of remarkable advances in medical technology pharmacology that can artificially prolong a patient’s life, the field of medical ethics has been confronted with a new controversy: the legalization of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The word Euthanasia comes from the Greek word for “eus” which means godly or well, and “thanathos” which literally means death (F.A. Davis Company, 2001, p. 476). Before its contemporary use, the word euthanasia meant a peaceful, quiet way to depart from earth. However, in modern times, this concept has sparked an incredible controversy. Today, the word euthanasia also commonly, but wrongfully, used for the practices of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Advances in medical technology sometimes artificially prolong a patients suffering and deny them the right to a peaceful, quiet death. Many terminally ill people, who suffer from tremendous physical and psychological pain, would rather opt to die humane and dignified than to be kept alive artificially. Such unnatural extension of a person’s anguish has lead to an increasing number of euthanasia supports, who view the practice of euthanasia as ways and means to a peaceful, dignified, humane and self determined death. The most substantial argument of euthanasia and PAS supporters is that a human being should have the right to self determination and the freedom of choice when and how to end one’s own life. They also argue that certain practices, such as terminal sedation, are already commonly used and ethically and legally accepted. Proponents also condemn cultural and religious beliefs that forbid the practices of euthanasia and PAS. They argue that the right to die is a civil rights issue and not one of religion or culture. However, there are also supporters of this issue who do not wish further governmental involvement or regulation of these practices for they fear that such interference would restrict the practice too much.
This
Bibliography: American Association of Suicidology. (1996). Report of the Committee on Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior.26 (2) February 25, 2009, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 10313755). Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1989). Principles of biomedical ethics (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Catholic Online. (2008). Catholic.org. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11143 F.A. Davis Company. (2001). Taber 's Cyclopedic Medical Dictonary (Vol. 19). (D. Venes, & T. Hendin, H. (2004). The Case Against Physician-Assisted Suicide: For the Right to End-of-Life Care Social Science Journals database. (Document ID: 790847271). Ledger, S. D. (2007). Euthanisia and Assisted Suicide: There is an Alternative. Ethics and Medicine , 23 (2), 81-94 (Document ID: 1298386961). Lewis, P. (2007). The Empirical Slippery Slope from Voluntary to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , 35 (1), 197-210. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from ProQuest database Materstvedt, L. J., Clark, D., & Ellershaw, J. (2003). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a view from an EAPC Ethics Task Force North, M. (2002). National Library Of Medicine. Retrieved March 5, 2009, from Greek Medicine- The Hippocratic Oath: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html Schildman, J., Herrmann, E., & Burchardi, N. (2006). Physician Assisted Sucide- Knowledge and Views of Fith Year Medical Students In Germany Retrieved January 27, 2009, from CINAHL database. Wilkinson, J. (1988). Christian Ethics in Healthcare. Kincardine, Scottland: Handsel Press. Yakunina, E., Richmond, J., & Werth, J. L. (2007). Euthanisia and Assisted Suicide. In W