Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Euthanasia
means easy death painless way, of an individual suffering from an incurable and agonizing disease popularly known as mercy killing, insofar as it is regarded as a merciful release from an incurable and prolonged suffering theory witch affirms an individuals right to die in a painless and peaceful manner when he is confronted with a horrible disease and the quality of his life deteriorates
Other administered
can be classified into four ways: 1. Active and voluntary euthanasia is on in which either a physician spouse, or a friend of the patient will terminate the latters life upon the latters request. It is voluntary insofar as it requested by the patient; in is active insofar as some positive means is used to terminate the patients life 2. Passive and voluntary euthanasia is one in which a terminally ill patient is simply allowed to die by the physician, spouse or an immediate relative, upon the patients request. It is passive insofar as no positive method is employed; the patient is merely permitted to pass away. It is voluntary insofar as this is done upon the patients request
3.
Active and nonvoluntary euthanasia occurs when it is the physician spouse, close friend, or relative who decides that the life of the terminally ill patient should be terminated. It is active insofar as some positive method is utilized to terminate the patients life; it is nonvoluntary insofar as the terminate of the patients life decided by an individual other than the patient
4. Passive and nonvoluntary euthanasia is one in which a terminally ill patient is simply allowed to die, as requested by immediate family members,(spouse or parents) or the attending physician. It is passive inasmuch as no positive means is employed to end the patients life; it is nonvoluntary insofar as other persons make the moral decision to terminate the patients life
Different views
T. Gary William, considers it to be morally wrong:
1. Because it is an intentional killing and opposes the natural moral law, or the natural inclination to preserve life 2. Euthanasia may be performed for purposes of self-interest or other consequences
3. Doctors and other health care professionals may be tempted not to do their best to save the patient; they may resort to euthanasia as an easy way out and simply disregard any other alternatives
Philippa Foot, endorses both active & passive euthanasia, in which patient explicitly gives consent:
1. Everyone has a right to life hence it is what a person wants that counts 2. Only when a person has decided after batting some incurable disease, that life is no longer worth living that both active and passive voluntary euthanasia can be endorsed and regarded as legitimates and justified
Furthermore, a terminally ill patient in a vegetative state is no longer an autonomous person with a self-regulating will. Hence, by Kantian principles, our duty to preserve life no longer holds.
Moreover, organ-transplant advocates may argue that a comatose patient is going to die anyway, and his transplantable organs will benefits those who are in need (upon informed consent or with the permission of his immediate relatives), in this way, promoting the greatest benefits for the greatest number of individuals to be benefited will make euthanasia morally acceptable
The pragmatic moralist argue: the bottom line is this: the most realistic, beneficial and useful thing to do in a situation where recovery is nil, is to offer ones healthy organs to people who can still benefit from them. Why render them useless and allow them to die with the patient if others can still use them to continue living? From the pragmatic point of view, reason seems to dictate (although it may sound unorthodox) that offering out spare parts to others for their own survival, if and when we no longer have use them, appears to be legitimate and acceptable.
In the light of Rosss ethical principles, under facie duty to put a comatose patient to an easy death, depending upon a good motive e.g. to put an end, once and for all, to the prolonged suffering of the patient. It may be the most prudent thing to do under the prevailing balance of goodness over badness.
For him to live and suffer needless pain and agony would be doing him more injustice than justice, more harm than good