This world is one step closer to accepting Euthanasia, but is it righteous?

  • Thread starter Hyperreality
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation revolves around the topic of euthanasia and its acceptance in society. Some argue that it can be seen as mercy killing and a way to relieve pain, while others believe it is murder. The impact on society and the value of life is also discussed, with some saying it promotes living life to the fullest while others fear potential abuses. The debate also delves into the practical and legal considerations, such as the difference between active and passive euthanasia, and the role of doctors as healers. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the complex moral and ethical issues surrounding euthanasia.
  • #1
202
0
This world is one step closer to accepting Euthanasia, but is it righteous? Is it murder or mercy death? What if the patient doesn't want to die, and last of all, what impact will it have on our society and the way we value life?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I see euthanasia as mercy killing. Obviously it's a tough choice to make, but, I think it can be seen as a way of relieving pain rather than a murderous act.
In all honesty, I don't think it changes the way humans value life, if anything, I think it promotes that more emphasis should be placed on living your life to the max.
 
  • #3


Originally posted by Hyperreality
This world is one step closer to accepting Euthanasia, but is it righteous? Is it murder or mercy death? What if the patient doesn't want to die, and last of all, what impact will it have on our society and the way we value life?
If the person doesn't want to die, it isn't Euthanasia, its murder.
But if he does, and you don't allow him to ... that's cruel. As cruel as murder !
The right to life includes the right not to choose life. Otherwise, it aint a right, its a damn directive!

- S.
 
  • #4
There are some odd ironies to the euthenasia debate here in the US. The truth is, doctors had been assisting suicide quietly for years before Dr. Jack Kevorkian made it famous. The openness it now has attained has ironically brought about more scrutiny, making it less common. This scrutiny has impacted palliative care, the relief of pain in the last stages of fatal illness, as well. Doctors are hesitant to even prescribe previously acceptable levels of pain relief for the dying, for fear of being charged with assisted suicide.

I think the debate is based upon religion. It is an affront to some people's religious beliefs that other people wish to die rather than suffer. One person is made to suffer for another's religious beliefs. This seems about as un-American as can be, but it seems to be the way we're going.

Njorl
 
  • #5
I think that if a person is sick of living, especially if they are very ill, death should be their choice, and a doctor shoudl assist to make it as painless as possible.
 
  • #6
If the patient is terminally ill and aware that there is no hope to get out of misery, allowing him/her to die seems reasonable. but could not reconcile that it is not cold blooded murder from the doctor's perspective. the doc might feel he had to do that for his inability to avoid that.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
I don't think doctors would be 'forced' to use euthanasia if they are personally against it - there would always be someone else willing to do it.

The main problem about legalising euthanasia is the practical one of how to avoid abuses of the system. eg would severely handicapped patients feel 'pressured' by their relatives to end their lives (because they feel as if they are a burden to others)? Would the drive towards euthanasia mean that less resource is given to palliative care for those who rather live in pain than die?

Legally there seems to be a difference between active and passive euthanasia. In some places, it is legal for a patient to refuse life-saving treatment, but illegal to take a poison to kill oneself. Morally I don't see a real difference between the two . . .

The major moral argument against euthanasia (moral, as opposed to legal/practical) rests on religious beliefs stating that individuals have no right to terminate their god-given lives. And then there's the issue of how doctors are supposed to be healers, not 'killers'. On the last point I would say that doctors should care about the health and welfare of the patients - which may be best served by euthanasia in some cases.
 

1. What is euthanasia?

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a person's life in order to relieve suffering.

2. What are the types of euthanasia?

The two main types of euthanasia are passive euthanasia, which involves withholding or withdrawing treatment that is necessary for sustaining life, and active euthanasia, which involves administering a lethal dose of medication to end a person's life.

3. Is euthanasia legal?

Euthanasia is legal in some countries and states, but it is still a highly debated and controversial issue. In many places, it is considered a form of murder and is therefore illegal.

4. What are the arguments for and against euthanasia?

The main argument for euthanasia is that it allows people who are suffering from terminal illnesses to end their lives in a peaceful and painless manner. The main argument against euthanasia is that it goes against the value of preserving human life and can lead to abuses and mistakes in the healthcare system.

5. What is the current state of acceptance of euthanasia in the world?

The acceptance of euthanasia varies greatly around the world. Some countries, such as the Netherlands and Belgium, have legalized euthanasia under certain conditions, while others, such as the United States and most Asian countries, still consider it illegal. Overall, there is a growing trend towards accepting euthanasia, but it remains a highly controversial and sensitive topic.

Back
Top