Download file to see previous pages...
In the opinion of Chan & Lien (n.d, p.2) the scholars claim that if the benefits outweigh the costs, then selecting euthanasia is a rational choice.
The scholars point out that the benefits of euthanasia are zero pain, zero mental suffering, and reduced economic costs. On the other hand, continuing treatment means increasing pain as the disease progresses, increased mental and physical suffering, and medical cost of pain management and other medical services. Thus, it is pointed out that under the given circumstances, continuing treatment is more expensive than adopting euthanasia. In other words, if any society wants to reduce the demand for euthanasia, it should reduce the expenses involved in medical services and pain management.
Thus, one gets a clear idea about what is meant by Mills as the confusion between personal troubles and public issues. In the case of euthanasia too, the same situation arises. On the one hand, it is a personal trouble as the patient is the only one suffering. On the other hand, a large number of factors come into play while deciding whether Euthanasia should be adopted or not. They include religious and social values, medical costs, and so on (Infed, n.d).
Thus, the scholars point out that as the fruits of euthanasia come from reduced pain ad suffering linked to additional treatment and medications, if medical services succeed in making life painless for terminally ill people, there will be a considerable decline in the demand for euthanasia. According to Chan and Lien (n.d, p.6) yet another strategy as suggested by the scholars is to increase the cost of euthanasia which can be achieved by political and religious condemnation.
Another important claim from the scholars is that euthanasia can be used as an altruistic act. This can be achieved by using the medical and financial resources saved through euthanasia to treat those who are not terminally ill.
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
This first section focuses on public opinion on euthanasia. There is little question that euthanasia is a complicated issue. For the purpose of this paper euthanasia will refer to any activity that is enacted to enable a more rapid ending of a life that relieves pain and suffering of a patient.
They also argue that the sentiment of humane treatment afforded animals that are terminally ill or injured and are suffering should be given to humans as well. Opponents suggest that euthanasia is a ‘slippery slope’ that would allow increasing instances of coerced suicide, family members pressuring the elderly not to postpone their inevitable demise for financial reasons.
The author states that the euthanasia debate contains impassioned and compelling arguments on both sides of the discussion. Advocates of euthanasia want to diminish needless suffering. Numerous diseases such as cancer are responsible for causing patients to linger while experiencing an excruciatingly painful existence.
The era of slavery has gone and the human beings are now conscious regarding their freedom of choice and their rights to take important decisions about their lives. These developments have provoked many controversies and important subjects that were beyond human thinking have surfaced.
The major arguments presented by proponents of euthanasia include autonomy, mercy, public policy, best interests’ arguments and golden rule. Opponents of euthanasia argue that the practice is against medical ethics and it defeats the rationale of medical care.
They include assisted suicide, active voluntary euthanasia and physician-aided suicide. In essence, these terms describe the ending of one’s suffering via termination of their life often via drugs administration. Today, Patients Rights Council (2012) reveals that assisted suicide is considered illegal in 47 U.S States apart from Washington, Montana and Oregon which support physician-assisted suicide.
ocesses include: identification of the dilemma, the potential issues involved, the relevant ethical codes, applicable laws and regulations, consultation on the dilemma, courses of action and the consequences of decisions made among others. The two that matter the most among all
If the patient cannot take such a decision because of his/her physical condition, the choice can be made by his/her relatives. The question of permitting or prohibiting euthanasia is associated with constant and
In this manner, it is not right to make people to live more than they need. Actually making individuals continue living when they would prefer not to abuse their individual flexibility and human rights. It is improper; they say to
11 Pages(2750 words)Research Paper
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Research Paper on topic Euthanasia for FREE!