This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
C & E American University
Submitted to the Department of Computer Science Ms Soha Riman By
Rashed Abou Hadir
as well as the emotional pain it causes to those around the sufferers and argues whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. painless or happy) and 'thanatos' meaning death. This paper is a deeper look into what euthanasia is all about. . So the essential meaning of the term Euthanasia is a pain-free and happy end to life. but does this mean we need a "right to die" law? The researcher looks at the legal side. Many researchers support the right of a terminally-ill patient to die and what will happen if the right becomes an obligation.Abstract "Euthanasia is a combination of two Greek words Eu (easy.
This understanding is fundamental to euthanasia. Why societies and religions are against legalization of euthanasia? 2. euthanasia would come out into the open and be an official medical procedure. Research Questions 1. Should dying patients have the right to order their doctors not to start or continue medical treatment? 3. euthanasia provides a way for humans in unbearable and incurable situations to be relieved of their affliction. Because of its current illegality. they think merely of death. This good death is often attacked by people whose ideas are shaped by religion. media. The researcher targeted his study assuming that legalization and acceptance of euthanasia would benefit humanity. rendering them corpse of humiliation that are unable to receive the treatment that the average household pet receives. mean good and death respectively. Should doctors be protected from prosecution if they shorten a patient’s life expectancy with pain-killing drugs? Body .Introduction When most people think of euthanasia. Death usually has a negative connotation to it although often it may be beneficial. and misinformation. The root words for euthanasia. many people suffer. eu and thantos. In reality. Purpose of the Study Legalizing euthanasia would be a turn for the better. Once it was legalized.
but it is inalienable. in his early 19th century treatise on the laws of Connecticut. the States assisted suicide bans have in recent years been reexamined and. and the other by reason of the advice kills himself. The right to life and to personal security is not only sacred in the estimation of the common law. Though deeply rooted. the advisor is guilty of murder as principal. now if the murder of one's self is felony. 1. as was the similar principle that the consent of a homicide victim is "wholly immaterial to the guilt of the person who cause his death. and anxious to continue to live. the life of those to whom life had become a burden--of those who were hopelessly diseased or fatally wounded--nay. At the same time voters and legislators continue for the most part to reaffirm their States prohibitions on assisting suicide. reaffirmed." surrogate health care decision making. That suicide remained a grievous. furnishing another person with any deadly weapon or poisonous drug. though no felonious. were under the protection of law. Hitler's decree of October. equally as the lives of those who were in the full tide of life's enjoyment. and the withdrawal or refusal of life sustaining medical treatment. And the prohibitions against assisting suicide never contained exceptions for those who were near death. A New York commission led by Dudley Field drafted a criminal code that prohibited "aiding" a suicide and. The Nazi euthanasia program to eliminate "life unworthy of life" at first focused on newborns and very young children and quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. stated that if one counsels another to commit suicide.History For over 700 years. even the lives of criminals condemned to death. This was the well established common law view. Rather. the accessory is equally guilty as if he had aided and abetted in the murder. typed on his personal stationery and back dated to Sept. enlarged 'the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons . generally. the Anglo American common law tradition has punished or otherwise disapproved both suicide and assisting suicide. 1939. specifically. In October of 1939 amid the turmoil of the outbreak of war Hitler ordered widespread "mercy killing" of the sick and disabled. The earliest American statute explicitly to outlaw assisting suicide was enacted in New York in 1828. and many of the new States and Territories followed New York's example. Swift. wrong is confirmed by the fact that colonial and early state legislatures and courts did not retreat from prohibiting assisting suicide. Many States of America now permit "living wills. knowing that such person intends to use such weapon or drug in taking his own life.
and Belgium legalizes euthanasia. Patience and endurance are highly regarded and highly rewarded values. or other symptoms included on a questionnaire from the Reich Health Ministry. this spiritual dimension can be very effectively called upon to support the patient who believes that accepting and standing unavoidable pain will be to his/her credit in the hereafter. and the Stoics. Attempting to kill another person is a crime in Islam as well as a grave sin. the real and enduring life. In 1935 The Euthanasia Society of England was formed to promote euthanasia. be accorded a mercy death. It is rejected in traditional Christian belief. When means of preventing or alleviating pain fall short. Some churches also emphasize the importance of not interfering with the natural process of death. Plato.who. The Qur'an says: "Do not kill yourselves. according to human judgment. To a person who does not . The concept of a life not worthy of living does not exist in most religions such as justification of taking life to escape suffering is not acceptable. upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness. state of Oregon legalizes assisted suicide. Then Australia's Northern Territory approved a euthanasia bill and went into effect in 1996 and was overturned by the Australian Parliament in 1997. finally in 2000/2002 The Netherlands. are incurable can. The arguments are usually based on the beliefs that life is given by God. Euthanasia: Society and Religion The opinion that euthanasia is morally permissible goes back to Socrates. nurture and safe keeping. for verily Allah has been to you most Merciful". we are entrusted with them for care. and that human beings are made in God's image. Next year the U. Other wise the Islam said that since we did not create ourselves we do not own our bodies.S. God is the owner and giver of life and his rights in giving and in taking are not to be violated. Midwives and doctors were required to register children up to age three who showed symptoms of mental retardation. There is still another dimension to the question of pain and suffering. chiefly because it is thought to come within the prohibition of murder in the Ten Commandments. physical deformity.
Why Euthanasia should be legalized? . People have certain rights as individuals.within the confines of the law. there are many different types of euthanasia. Groups that represent disabled people are against the legalization of euthanasia on the grounds that such groups of vulnerable people would feel obliged to opt for euthanasia as they may see themselves as a burden to society. euthanasia is certainly nonsense. the way we live our lives and so on .believe in a hereafter this might sound like nonsense. but society has rights of it's own as well: the rights of an individual must not interfere with the rights of another. other groups of more vulnerable people will become at risk of feeling pressured into taking that option themselves. We are all individuals. If it's only people that want to die that are going to be affected then why should other people be worried? The answer is that death rarely affects just the person that dies. People suffering from terminal diseases are often faced with the prospect of experiencing great deals of pain as the disease progressively worsens until it kills them. yet discussions about voluntary euthanasia tend to include involuntary euthanasia as well. Society is made up of individuals and groups of individuals (as in groups of different religious faiths).or perhaps society has an impact on them. Voluntary euthanasia is the type that is normally discussed. It is feared that by allowing certain individuals help in ending their lives. Societies considered Euthanasia as is a complex matter. The ethical question is whether people should be given assistance in killing themselves. but to one who does. each of which has its own advantages and disadvantages. or if they should be forced to suffer the pain and indignity caused by terminal illness. It can be said that all types of euthanasia have an impact on society . we are free to make our own choices about what we do. as the boundaries between the two can blur. This prospect may be so frightening for them that they would rather end their lives before they have to face it.
Doctors feel that euthanasia is sometimes very necessary to relieve the patients of all there suffering. It is an act of love to stop this suffering. to alleviate suffering and to provide more hospital care and beds for other patients.Euthanasia should be legalized to insure legal rights. It would also provide more care for patients. it should be carried out. and be carried out by every hospital in the world. yet today people are unable to choose to have their unendurable life terminated. Nurses should have the right to end patients life. The doctors and nurses at the hospital also have to see the patient suffer day after day and if the person wants it and the doctor feels its right. If euthanasia were legalized it would prevent suffering. Euthanasia should be legalized because it would help many sick and dying patients end their lives peacefully. Usually patients who request euthanasia are the ones who need the most 24 hours hospital care and if these patients want to end there life they should be able to. People have the right to choose their own death at their own time as an expression of free will. The loved ones of the person dying should have some say in the person’s future too. hospitals spend tremendous amounts of money each year on terminally ill patients. The choice to continue to live in pain . If this is what that is how they choose to end there lives. Also. Someone should have the right to die. By legalizing euthanasia more patients would choose it to help them deal with their pain and there would begin to be less and less hospital overcrowding. There should be laws permitting this everywhere. 3. Many patients are terminally ill and in great amount of pain. Euthanasia is a very humane and very good way to help people to end their lives. Out of 852 nurses surveyed sixteen percent were said to have preformed euthanasia or help terminally ill patients commit suicide. to alleviate suffering and to provide more hospital beds and care.000 patients die each year after specifically requesting that their lives be terminated. because it would provide more care to other people. it should be done. Money spent on hopeless intensive care treatment could be used better toward a package of benefits for all those in the Medicaid programs well as for other social good. They are committed to compassion and empathy and understand the basis of patient requests for assisted suicide. Many people choose to die each year. Acts of euthanasia are preformed to eliminate suffering and allow the patient to die with dignity. If euthanasia were legalized it would provide more care and hospital beds for many patients. but only if they request it. The loved ones are the people who see the person suffer the most and if the person and their loved ones both decide they should have a right to carry it out. The law of Euthanasia will bring all assisted suicide under closer scrutiny. euthanasia should be legalized. Freedom of choice is a basic right to all people. To insure legal rights.
In a further 1. Such help would be restricted to patients who are terminally ill with six months or less to live.000 deaths through euthanasia last year. while maintaining its rejection of euthanasia. Others has swung the other way.930 cases doctors said they ended life "without an explicit request from the patient". but last year many associations dropped its opposition and switched to a neutral stance on assisted dying. which some call "non-voluntary euthanasia. and have made persistent and well-informed requests to die. Traditionally doctors have been vocal opponents of assisted suicide. but some clearly act without consent cannot be safe. including an assessment by two independent doctors as well as consultation with a palliative care expert to explore alternatives. suffering from unbearable pain. In any case. Ethical Issue The specificity of my case study meant that my research is limited. more than 170. evidence suggests that doctors are already helping thousands of patients to die. and exchanged its previous position of neutrality for outright opposition following a survey of members. The medical profession is split on the issue. where patients made a request of their doctor. In addition. almost a third of all deaths. Some doctors do risk prosecution by helping their patients to die. but my concern was from the beginning to provide detailed discussion in order to . Extrapolating from a poll of 870 doctors. only a small proportion of deaths were attributable to voluntary euthanasia. The bill includes 20 safeguards to protect vulnerable people. Some of these doctors are acting compassionately on their patients' wishes. had treatment withdrawn or withheld which hastened their demise. who are mentally competent. suggested doctors in the UK were responsible for 3. Doctors opposed to the right to die would be allowed to opt out of helping terminally ill patients end their lives.000 patients. Doctors and Euthanasia A doctor's role would be limited to writing out a prescription or providing an oral barbiturate for a patient to self administers and die a peaceful death. More controversially.or to die and end the suffering will be available with the legalizing of euthanasia.
and most people hope for a quick and painless death. I can understand at the individual level that in some cases you wish it was all over with. but the problem is as a society you have to choose what's going to be your norm. The problem with euthanasia is it requires another person to do it. Legislation allowing voluntary euthanasia should be firmly resisted on the grounds that it sidesteps true compassionate care and ultimately undermines rather than protects patient autonomy. Evaluation and Conclusion We need to recognize that requests for voluntary euthanasia are extremely rare in situations where the physical. In conclusion then. our highest priority must be to ensure that top quality terminal care is readily available. As the symptoms which prompt the request for euthanasia can be almost always managed with therapies currently available. It would give people greater autonomy over their own lives and give terminally-ill people a chance to avoid great pain and emotional distress. There are many problems and conclusions towards legalizing euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of kindly and painlessly putting a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or extreme oldness to a supposedly peaceful death. the search for better therapies is compromised and involuntary euthanasia inevitably follows. People will still differ in their opinions toward euthanasia. Some people suffer unbelievable pain from cancer or other diseases. history has clearly demonstrated that legalized euthanasia poses serious risks to society as a whole.facilitate the future research. However. The study can be used for further studies to test the hypothesis raised by the research to confirm or contradict the findings or to build future research of similar interest. emotional and spiritual needs of terminally ill patients are properly met. euthanasia is a complex issue. and it requires a complicit society to authorize it. I said that we all must die one day. Others may lie in a permanently unconscious state due to an accident or some other cause. Patients can be coerced and exploited. We have this idea that what happens to me is nobody's business. it begins the degradation . But sometimes life isn't so easy. While recognizing the importance of individual patient autonomy.
Euthanasia . We believe that the issue of euthanasia is one in which the interest of the individual cannot be separated from the interest of society as a whole. and opens up the possibility of further erosion of the system. Personally. often in ways and to an extent which cannot be foreseen.of the prohibition of murder. euthanasia provides a way for humans in unbearable and incurable situations to be relieved of their afflictions. Finally. I agree with legalization and acceptance of euthanasia for it would benefit humanity and would be a turn for the better. all what can I say for all who are against…. The death of a person affects the lives of others. In reality. Let them die in peace. Findings World: Morale .
The mean score given from all the participants in the respective country is shown in the graphs below: 1) Developed countries: People in Netherlands. Switzerland. running from 1-10. New Zealand. 1 being “never justifiable” and 10 being “always justifiable”. Denmark. On . Australia. France and Sweden scored more than 6 points out of 10 on the issue of euthanasia: most of them agreed that euthanasia is justifiable.Justifiable: Euthanasia The answer in the scale form was given. Japan.
South Africa and Hungary think the otherwise. around 3. Islamic countries like Bangladesh. Portugal. Their scores are less than 2. Mexico. 2) Selected Asia countries: Among the selected Asia countries.the other hand. people in Ireland. Although it is not completely legalized in all countries it should offer some defense against a prosecution. Egypt. . Japan is the only country scored such a high point (agreeing towards that euthanasia is justifiable). thus their score is low. Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are strongly disagree that euthanasia is justifiable. Perhaps it was due to the society aging pressure? On the other hand.
I hereby revoke all former Living Wills made by me and declare this to be my last Living Will......... who at his request and in his presence and in the presence of each other have subscribed our names as witnesses? Witness signature…………………….. . present at the same time.. of (Address) Witness signature……………………... Witness name….. Witness name…. of (Address) Prisoner of Conscience . (Town) in the County of (County) made this day of (Date).This is the Living Will of me (Full Name) of (Address).. irrespective of any law forbidding this. In the event of my sustaining mental incapacity so that I am unable to express my will. As witness my hand the day and year first above written. Testator’s signature…………………… Signed by the said testator in the presence of us.. it is my final wish that my life should be ended without delay by any painless means. two thousand and (Year).Dr………………….
NY: Baywood.fratfiles. M.com/topics/history+of+euthanasia/0 . : William B. MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Washington D. (ed. http://www. Wilcockson. S. Last rights: Christian perspectives on euthanasia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The End of Life. J. Amityville.Eerdmans Publishing Company. (1997). Euthanasia and Morality. J. Dutch doctors pushed on to 'slippery slope' over euthanasia. Cambridge: Grove books. Rachels. and Simon. Discussion and Policy Implications. Right to Die Versus Sacredness of Life.Bibliography BBC Religion & Ethics: Euthanasia – The Christian View Whipp. M. S. The difficulties of euthanasia. Kaplan. Euthanasia . J. Thomas. The Independent Wednesday 17 February 1993 p8. Scherer. (1986). Ogden.A. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. (1997). K. M. (2000).. R. M. Canada: Peroglyphics Publishing. In Euthanasia . (2000). Whipp. ed. Cambridge: Grove books. Last Rights? Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Debated. (2000). Euthanasia and the Right to Die. J. In Euthanasia. Assisted Suicide and AIDS.a Good Death?. pp18-19. http://www. Lanham.. New Westminster. R. IL: Charles C. Uhlmann). British Columbia. (1999). (1986). (1981).org/GoMeshPubMed/gomeshpubmed/TermStatistics/TermStatic_mesh_33101 Greenberg. Springfield. Boundaries of Autonomy.a Good Death? Cambridge: Grove books. I.C.gopubmed.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.