MORALITY OF EUTHANASIA.   Term Paper ID:26356 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Definition, pros & cons, theory, right to die, role of health workers.... More...

7 Pages / 1575 Words 3 sources, 16 Citations, APA Format $28.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Definition, pros & cons, theory, right to die, role of health workers. Paper Introduction: / Advances in medical science have helped extend the quantity Advances in medical science have helped extend the quantity and the quality of life. Paradoxically, by extending the lives of terminally ill patients, those advances have created a raging debate about euthanasia. Many argue that just because we can keep certain people alive does not necessarily mean that we should keep them alive. This paper will examine the morality of euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as "the action of inducing the painless death of a person for reasons assumed to be merciful" (Morris, 1980, p. 453). That broad definition covers three different situations. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient’s life support equipment is turned off, when food or water is 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. Health professionals are committed to curing the sick, and when thatis not possible, they are committed to alleviating the last painful days oflife. But one must take a step backfrom that experience to properly assess this dilemma. The benefits of taking a life to endsuffering do not outweigh the negative impact on the health profession andsociety. (Ed.). The question is not whetherpatients have the right to die but whether they have the right to enlistothers in securing that aim. The patient maydesperately want to die, and may achieve some measure of self-realizationby dying in this manner. As J. Third, the principle ofdouble effects (death is the unintended consequence of the doctor's attemptto alleviate pain) does not apply because euthanasia requires the physicianto actively cooperate in the patient's death. Indeed, the doctor is morally obligated not toperform the procedure, lest the physician increase the patient's suffering.The doctor is not killing the patient, but rather letting nature take itscourse without interference. 282). Thatbroad definition covers threedifferent situations. Where will the issue end? Medical science reportsnumerous instances of unexplained recoveries that can only be described as"miraculous." Such hope, no matter how slim, outweighs the irreversibleoutcome of euthanasia (Satris, 1998, p. For example, to kill in self-defense or the defenseof another is universally recognized as a moral act. Even if the patient would suffer no more physical harm,the psychic harm could be extensive. The doctor, however, may achieve no selfrealization, and actually may be harmed, which could harm us all if itprevents the doctor from properly doing his or her job. / \ Advances in medical science have helped extend the quantity Advances in medical science have helped extend the quantity and thequality of life. 281-83). "Thus, euthanasiadenies our basic human character and requires that we regard ourselves orothers as something less than fully human" (Satris, 1998, p. 288-89). Conduct ~ character: Readings in MoralTheory. 94). A careful review of all of the evidence could produce aconsensus as the patient's wishes, satisfying the second tenet of Brandt'sanalysis (Satris, 1998, pp. While euthanasiawould involve some very clear-cut cases, most of the patients seekingactive euthanasia or physician assisted suicide fall into a gray area inwhich there is no universal agreement. In bothinstances, no more injury can come to thepatient, and the killing would not violate their preferences. (1998). A doctor should not interfere with a patientwho refuses medical care, but neither should a patient ask a doctor or afamily member to kill them. For example, a patient with strongreligious beliefs no doubt would be injured if they knew their doctor wasinducing their death (Satris, 1998, p. Gay-Williams' opposition to active euthanasia and physician assistedsuicide rests on three premises. He concludes that killing is wrong because itinjures another human being and because killing violates the victim'spreferences (Satris, 1998, pp. Euthanasia in that instance would be immoralbecause it would violate the second tenet of Brandt's formulation.Depending on the definition of injury, such a killing might also violatethe first tenet. Conversely, any patient who expressed a desire to stay alive at allcosts would be kept alive. This paper will examinethe morality of euthanasia. Gay-Williams' practical argument revolves around the effect ofeuthanasia on the medical profession. Euthanasia in such asituation would result in needless death. Brandtenvisions friends and family offering testimony as to the patient's wishes.What if the patient has no friends and family? The option of euthanasia offers aneasy way out, which weakens the will to survive. A patient may believe that he or she is dying as the resultof a mistaken diagnosis or a mistaken prognosis. Gay-Williams' argument from self-interest rests on human fallibility.Yes, medicine has come a long way in the 2 th century, but doctors stillmake mistakes. Society is ambivalent about this issueprecisely because taking a life is a universal wrong, save for veryspecific exceptions, such as defense of self or others. The issue might fall to ahospital review board. As for passive euthanasia, withholding treatment that will notcure the patient is permissible. Gay-Williams' nature argument centers on the body and its defensemechanisms. Taking sides. (Ed.). Patients may be motivatedby concern for the suffering of others or by a desire to end the pain.Whatever the reason, patients often change their mind as their suffering(and the suffering of their friends and family) ebbs. Euthanasia is not a question about choice. Ordinary measuresare medicines, treatments, and operations that benefit a patient withoutexcessive pain, expense, or inconvenience. 285-87). By contrast, a doctor who injects a patient with a lethal dose ofmedication, with the intent of killing the patient, is committing an overtact. What about situations where a patient is comatose, with no hope ofrecovery, but no legally enforceable document expressing their preferencesregarding euthanasia? If a terminally ill patient required a certain procedure, but thatprocedure will bring no benefit (or marginal benefit), the doctor shouldnot perform the procedure. 291). But that is onlythe starting point for his discussion of euthanasia. An individual patient has the right todie. 288). Third, the practical effects of turningcaregivers into killers could corrupt the medical system and cause adecline in the quality of medical care (Satris, 1998, pp. That distinction is meaningful. How do we resolve conflicts between an individual's rightto die (and need for self-realization) and the self realization interestsof family, doctors, and others who may have to participate? Opponents of euthanasia object to the latter two circumstancesbecause, in their eyes, both involve intentional and deliberate acts ofkilling. 281). "In our daily lives we exercise the caution and care necessaryto protect ourselves. Brandt's argument is very persuasive, especially for anyone who hasendured the painful death of a loved one. Can doctorsmaintain their often-obsessive dedication to preserving life in thesecircumstances? He points out that notall killing is wrong. 453). Paradoxically, by extending the lives of terminally illpatients, those advances have created a raging debate about euthanasia.Many argue that just because we can keep certain people alive does notnecessarily mean that we should keep them alive. Whatabout an incapacitated patient who expressed no preference about euthanasiawhen the patient was competent? Gay-Williams wrote, "[W]hen apatient's condition is such that it is not reasonable to hope that anymedical procedures or treatments will save his life, a failure to implementthe procedures or treatments is not euthanasia. "Death is final and the chance oferror too great to approve the practice of euthanasia" (Satris, 1998, p.282). Harris points to natural-law theorists, who distinguish between"ordinary" and "extraordinary" measures to preserve life. Richard Brandt also believes that killing is wrong. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient'slife support equipment is turned off, when food or water iswithheld, or when doctors administer large doses of morphine toalleviate suffering. Therefore, the killing iswrong (Timmons, 1999, pp. Finally, the key to anypatient's recovery is the will to live. A patient who chooseseuthanasia never has the opportunity to reconsider (Satris, 1998, p. 282-83). Our bodies are similarly structured for survivalright down to the molecular level." Euthanasia runs counter to everynatural inclination of our bodies and minds. Timmons, M. Similarly, a doctor would be morally justified in inducing thedeath of a patient in a persistent vegetative state who previouslyexpressed their wishes not to be kept alive in such a state. 289). Brandt then inquiresinto why killing is wrong. Do we want health professionals, the members of society committed topreserving life, also serving in the role of taking life? The first point thatneeds to be addressed is the claim by some philosophers that there is nomoral distinction between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia orphysician assisted suicide (Satris, 1998, p. Harris follows a three-stepanalysis. If euthanasia is an option for such apatient, it is not a leap to envision "involuntary euthanasia conducted aspart of a social policy" (Satris, 1998, pp. Moreover, who will make the life and death decisions when patients areunable to communicate their wishes and have left no instructions? 28 -81). References Morris, W. Extraordinary measures aremedicines, treatments, and operations that cause excessive pain, expense,or inconvenience without offering "a reasonable hope of benefit" (Timmons,1999, p. 9394). Euthanasia is defined as "the action of inducing the painless death ofa person for reasons assumed to be merciful" (Morris, 198 , p. Harris makes a better caseagainst euthanasia based on natural law. First, active euthanasiaviolates "one of the four fundamental values of natural lawnamely, thevalue of life." The only question is whether one of the two qualifyingprinciples applies, which would justify the killing. Will patients be movedfrom hospital to hospital until a review board finally approves a requestto kill them? The American Heritage dictionary of theEnglish language. The morality of suicide is beyond the scope of this paper, but it issafe to say that most people would agree with that statement at some level.How we die is important because it is a person's last chance for self-realization. Clinton University. The tougher case for Brandt involves a stroke victim who is not inpain and can continue to live, albeit at a "very low level, and who hasantecedently requested that his life be terminated if he comes, incurably,into such a situation." No injury is being inflicted on the patient bykeeping him alive, while terminating his life might cause "some slightinjury." In this tough case, Brandt opts for the preference of the patient."[T]here seems something indecent about keeping a mind alive after a severestroke, when we know quite well that, could hehave anticipated it, his own action would have been to terminate his life"(Satris, 1998, p. (198 ). 282). Satris, S. Moreover, even if the diagnosis or prognosis is correct, thepossibility of a medical breakthrough remains. Continuinglife in either situation actually would cause injury (Satris, 1998, p.287). If the person dies, thiswill be as a result of his injuries or disease and not because of hisfailure to receive treatment." Death is only an ancillary result of eitheraction, not the intended outcome (Satris, 1998, pp. Second, itgoes against self-interest. Doctors and nurses, obsessed with thepreservation of life, might not be so committed if the case is too severeor too hard. The question when it comes to euthanasia is whether others canor should help? In addition, "euthanasia as a policy is a slippery slope." Ifa patient can choose to die with the aid of others, where does it end? Gay-Williams puts his strongest argument last, instead choosing tolead off with an appeal to natural law. "It is literally actingagainst nature because all the processes of nature are bent towards the endof bodily survival." Furthermore, euthanasia harms human dignity because itruns counter to the fundamental human goal of survival. (1999). First, it goes against nature. Memphis, Tennessee: University of Memphis Press. (Ed.). C.E. Thus, for Brandt, assessing the morality of a killing requires ananalysis of two factors: "(1) whether the killing would be an injury and(2) the person's own wishes and directives." It follows, then, that killinga terminally ill patient who is suffering immense pain and wishes to die isnot immoral. Physicianassisted suicide occurs when the patient's doctor supplies themeans or the information the patient needs to end their life. In that situation, Brandt would turn to the patient'sfriends and family. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Second, assuming thepatient has committed no heinous wrong, the principle of forfeiture (whichwould justify killing the patient) would not apply. Active euthanasia describes the instancewhen another person helps the patient end their life. 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.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.