If their patients die under their supervision, the doctors can accept this for as long as they know and can prove that they really did their best and exhausted all possibilities to ensure the survival of the patients. There are just certain instances where the disease or the injury of the patients has become so serious that it is already difficult to treat and make the patients recover.
In these cases, it is unfair to blame the doctors for the death of the patients. The Hippocratic Oath helps the doctors to realize how important their responsibilities are to the people in terms of their health.
This oath also provides an assurance to the people that they can trust their doctors and be assured that they will do whatever is necessary to help them deal with their health problems. If euthanasia becomes legalized, then the effectiveness of the Hippocratic Oath will be negated and the doctors can have the option of immediately resorting to euthanasia especially in difficult cases instead of trying their best until the very end.
Another argument against euthanasia is that it is essentially homicide because the doctors will kill the patient even if it has been approved by the patient himself or the family of the patient. Euthanasia is not that different from murder because they both involve killing a person. The only difference is that in euthanasia, there is mercy and consent involved while in murder there is none Tulloch If murder is prohibited by law because people take matters into their own hands and kill others, then euthanasia should also be banned because doctors take matters into their own hands and kill their patients even if there is consent from the patients and their families or relatives.
Lastly, the continued improvements and innovations in the field of medicine and health care make euthanasia illogical to be implemented as an option. The reason why medical experts continue to work hard to come up with improved medical technologies, medicines and treatment methods is that they want to make sure that the sick people are able to recover faster and healthy people become even healthier. All of these efforts are being done to make the society become more productive due to the presence of healthy and strong people McDougall Thus, doctors will not have an excuse for not doing their best for their patients as they already have access to the best medical technologies, medicines and treatment methods that will prevent them from having to resort to euthanasia as the only option.
There is no doubt that euthanasia needs to be banned as based on the three arguments discussed above, it does not deserve a place in human society. Doctors must never give up on their patients no matter how hopeless the situation might be.
They must exhaust all options to give their patients a fighting chance to survive and recover. Negative euthanasia is defined as the withholding of life preserving procedures and treatments that would prolong the life of one who is incurably and terminally ill and couldn't survive without them. The word euthanasia becomes a respectable part of our vocabulary in a subtle way, via the phrase ' death with dignity'.
Tolerance of euthanasia is not limited to our own country. A court case in South Africa, s. Hatmann , illustrates this quite well. A medical practitioner, seeing his eighty-seven year old father suffering from terminal cancer of the prostate, injected an overdose of Morphine and Thiopental, causing his father's death within seconds.
The court charged the practitioner as guilty of murder because 'the law is clear that it nonetheless constitutes the crime of murder, even if all that an accused had done is to hasten the death of a human being who was due to die in any event'.
In spite of this charge, the court simply imposed a nominal sentence; that is, imprisonment until the rising of the court. Friedman Once any group of human beings is considered unworthy of living, what is to stop our society from extending this cruelty to other groups? If the mongoloid is to be deprived of his right to life, what of the blind and deaf? Courts and moral philosophers alike have long accepted the proposition that people have a right to refuse medical treatment they find painful or difficult to bear, even if that refusal means certain death.
But an appellate court in California has gone one controversial step further. Walter It ruled that Elizabeth Bouvia, a cerebral palsy victim, had an absolute right to refuse a life-sustaining feeding tube as part of her privacy rights under the US and California constitutions. This was the nation's most sweeping decision in perhaps the most controversial realm of the rights explosion: As individuals and as a society, we have the positive obligation to protect life.
The second precept is that we have the negative obligation not to destroy or injure human life directly, especially the life of the innocent and invulnerable. It has been reasoned that the protection of innocent life- and therefore, opposition to abortion, murder, suicide, and euthanasia- pertains to the common good of society. Among the potential effects of a legalised practice of euthanasia are the following: If euthanasia had been legal 40 years ago, it is quite possible that there would be no hospice movement today.
The improvement in terminal care is a direct result of attempts made to minimize suffering. If that suffering had been extinguished by extinguishing the patients who bore it, then we may never have known the advances in the control of pain, nausea, breathlessness, and other terminal symptoms that the last twenty years have seen.
Some diseases that were terminal a few decades ago are now routinely cured by newly developed treatments. Earlier acceptance of euthanasia might well have undercut the urgency of the research efforts which led to the discovery of those treatments. If we accept euthanasia now, we may well delay by decades the discovery of effective treatments for those diseases that are now terminal.
Brock 76 "Abandonment of Hope". Every doctor can tell stories of patients expected to die within days who surprise everyone with their extraordinary recoveries. Every doctor has experienced the wonderful embarrassment of being proven wrong in their pessimistic prognosis. To make euthanasia a legitimate option as soon as the prognosis is pessimistic enough is to reduce the probability of such extraordinary recoveries from low to zero.
Despite all the efforts of health education, it seems there will always be a transference of the patient's fear of illness from the illness to the doctors and hospitals who treat it.
This fear is still very real and leads to large numbers of late presentations of illnesses that might have been cured if only the patients had sought help earlier. To institutionalize euthanasia, however carefully, would undoubtedly magnify all the latent fear of doctors and hospitals harbored by the public. The inevitable result would be a rise in late presentations and, therefore, preventable deaths.
Both the Dutch and the California proposals list sets of precautions designed to prevent abuses. They acknowledge that such are a possibility. The history of legal "loopholes" is not a cheering one. Abuses might arise when the patient is wealthy and an inheritance is at stake, when the doctor has made mistakes in diagnosis and treatment and hopes to avoid detection, when insurance coverage for treatment costs is about to expire, and in a host of other circumstances.
Maguire "Pressure on the Patient". Both sets of proposals seek to limit the influence of the patient's family on the decision, again acknowledging the risks posed by such influences. Families have all kinds of subtle ways, conscious and unconscious, of putting pressure on a patient to request euthanasia and relive them of the financial and social burden of care.
Many patients already feel guilty for imposing burdens on those on those who care for them, even when the families are happy to bear the burden. To provide an avenue for the discharge of that guilt in a request for euthanasia is to risk putting to death a great many patients who do not wish to die. The pro-euthanasia movement cheerfully hands the dirty work of the actual killing to the doctors who by and large , neither seek nor welcome the responsibility. There is little examination of the psychological stresses imposed on those whose training and professional outlook are geared to the saving of lives by asking them to start taking lives on a regular basis.
Euthanasia advocates seem very confident that doctors can be relied on to make the enormous efforts sometimes necessary to save some lives, while at the same time assenting to requests to take other lives. Such confidence reflects, perhaps, a high opinion of doctor's psychic robustness, but it is a confidence seriously undermined by the shocking rates of depression, suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction, and marital discord consistently recorded among this group.
It must never be forgotten that doctors, nurses, and hospital administrators have personal lives, homes and families, or that they are something more than just doctors, nurses, or hospital administrators.
They are citizens and a significant part of the society around them. We should be very worried about what the institutionalization of euthanasia will do to society, in general , how will we regard murderers? Brody 89 "The Slippery Slope". How long after acceptance of voluntary euthanasia will we hear the calls for non-voluntary euthanasia? There are thousands of comatose or demented patients sustained by little more than good nursing care. They are an enormous financial and social burden.
How long will the advocates of euthanasia be arguing that we should "assist them in dying". Perhaps the most disturbing risk of all is posed by the growing concern over medical costs. Euthanasia is, after all, a very cheap service. The cost of a dose of barbiturates and curare and the few hours in a hospital bed that it takes them to act is minute compared to the massive bills incurred by many patients in the last weeks and months of their lives.
Already in Britain, There is a serious under- provision of expensive therapies like renal dialysis and intensive care, with the result that many otherwise preventable deaths occur. Legalizing euthanasia would save substantial financial resources which could be diverted to more "useful" treatments. These economic concerns already exert pressure to accept euthanasia, and, if accepted, they will inevitability tend to enlarge the category of patients for whom euthanasia is permitted Now is the time for the medical profession to rally in defense of its fundamental moral principles, to repudiate any and all acts of direct and intentional killing by physicians and their agents.
We call on the profession and its leadership to obtain the best advice, regarding both theory and practice, about how to defend the profession's moral center and to resist growing pressures both from without and from within. We call on fellow physicians to say that we will not deliberately kill.
We must say also to each of our fellow physicians that we will not tolerate killing of patients and that we shall take disciplinary action against doctors who kill. Chapman On the other hand some people strongly feel that euthanasia is not bad and should not be looked down upon.
Are there no conditions when life is meaningless and should be quietly ended? If a person is subject to pain that won't stop as a result of a disease that can't be cured, must he or she suffer that pain as long as possible when there are gentle ways of putting an end to life?
If a person suffers from a disease that deprives him or her of all memory and makes him or her a helpless lump of flesh that may live on for years. If euthanasia were legalized,it should be admitted that there might be some abuses of virtually every social practice. There is no absolute guarantee against that.
But we do not normally think that a social practice should be precluded simply because it might sometimes be abused. The crucial issue is whether the evil of the abuses would be so great as to outweigh the benefit of the practice. In the case of euthanasia, the question is whether the abuses, or the consequences generally, would be so numerous as to outweigh the advantages of legalization. The choice is not between a present policy that is benign and an alternative that is potentially dangerous.
The present policy had it's evils, too. We spend more than a billion dollars a day for health car while our teachers are underpaid, and our industrial plants are rusty. This should not continue. There is something fundamentally insustainable about a society that moves its basic value-producing industries overseas yet continues to manufacture artificial hearts at home.
We have money to give smokers heart transplants but no money to retool out steel mills. We train more doctors and lawyers than we need but fewer teachers. On any given day, 30 to 40 percent of the hospital beds in America are empty, but our classrooms are overcrowded and our transportation systems are deteriorating. We are great at treating sick people, but we are not that great at treating a sick economy. And we are not succeeding in international trade. When you really look around and try to find industries the United States is succeeding in, you discover that they are very few and far between.
Lamm There is no way we are going to come to grips with this problem until we also look at some of these areas that aren't going to go away. One of the toughest of these is what Victor Fuchs called "flat-of-the-curve medicine"- those medical procedures which are the highest in cost but achieve little or no improvement in health status.
He says that they must be reduced or eliminated. We must demand that professional societies and licensing authorities establish some norms and standards for diagnostic and therapeutic practice that encompass both costs and medicine. Wer'e going to have to come up with some sort of concept of cost-effective medicine. Individuals have the right to decide about their own lives and deaths. What more basic right is there than to decide if you're going to live?
A person under a death sentence who's being kept alive, through so called heroic measures certainly has a fundamental right to say, "Enough's enough. The treatment's worse than the disease. Ironically, those who deny the terminally ill this right do so out of a sense of high morality. Don't they see that, in denying the gravely ill and suffering the right to release themselves from pain, they commit the greatest crime? The period of suffering can be shortened. If you have ever been in a terminal cancer ward, It's grim but enlightening.
Anyone who's been there can know how much people can suffer before they die. And not just physically. The emotional, even spiritual, agony is often worse. Today our medical hardware is so sophisticated that the period of suffering can be extended beyond the limit of human endurance. What's the point of allowing someone a few more months or days or hours of so-called life when death is inevitable?
In fact, it's downright inhumane. When someone under such conditions asks to be allowed to die, it's far more humane to honor that request than to deny it. Barry People have a right to die with dignity.
Nobody wants to end up plugged into machines and wired to tubes.
Against Euthanasia essaysLiterally, euthanasia means "good death" but the controversy surrounding it is just the opposite. In active euthanasia the immediate cause of death is not the patients disease but something that is done to the patient to cause his or her death.
Non voluntary passive euthanasia. General Arguments: Against euthanasia: 1-One should not interfere in the doings of God: As God has a purpose to everything. Counter point: A person in favor of it usually says how one can be sure of what god wants or what god has in His mind. God has given us intellect to make one's life as better as possible.
Essay on A Christian's Arguments For or Against Euthanasia Words | 5 Pages Euthanasia is the act of bringing about the easy and gentle death, usually someone who is terminally ill or in great pain, which is why some recognise euthanasia as 'mercy killing'. Another argument against euthanasia is that it is essentially homicide because the doctors will kill the patient even if it has been approved by the patient himself or the family of the patient. Euthanasia is not that different from murder because they both involve killing a person.
Another argument against euthanasia, this time a practical one, is that euthanasia is not needed when proper palliative care is available. Terminally ill patients are given drugs and other types of support to help relieve the physical pain and mental effects of being terminally ill. Argument Against Euthanasia, Free Study Guides and book notes including comprehensive chapter analysis, complete summary analysis, author biography information, character profiles, theme analysis, metaphor analysis, and top ten quotes on classic literature.