Literature Review on Euthanasia. Cangialosi points out that euthanasia is a need but not a want and the government should look at it case by case.

Ethics

“An overview of the debate over euthanasia and the right to die”

Jason Cangialosi, November 2005.

The author started the article by explaining that euthanasia is not a personal decision consciously made but is the choice of the family by suggestion of doctors to end life support. He went on to say that euthanasia is a medical need where keeping the individual alive would cause more physical pain for him/her self and psychological pain for the families. The author stated that when considering most moral decisions, we often evaluate individual’s happiness therefore in the case of euthanasia, we must look at that aspect. Would the individual be capable of happiness or bringing others happiness if his/her life is sustained “artificially”. And since it is based on individuals’ happiness, the author stated, we must also consider whether or not the government has a say. It is a need for the person to decide to end their own life due to an unbearable and incurable physical pain. It would not be a suicidal or selfish decision. In the case of a unconscious person who stated before their will to be relieved, and if it is to be brought to court, the family should not be demanded of evidence to support the decision. From a different point of view, the court helps protect patient from malpractice and misinformed decision on doctors and family. Therefore according to court, euthanasia is considered only when it is the last resort. Another argument is that our medical technology is greatly improved by time, so a patient’s prior will to be relieved cannot be entirely relied on. In that case, the family and the doctor should look at it closely before making the decision and also need to present it in court for a second opinion. Finally Cangialosi sums up that religious or not, euthanasia in front of the laws needs to be treated case by case and scientifically.

This article was really helpful presenting different arguments over euthanasia regarding legal systems. Cangialosi points out that euthanasia is a need but not a want and the government should look at it case by case.

“Psychological Thoughts on the Biomedical-Legal Euthanasia Debate”

, May 16, 1999

After listing three subtypes of euthanasia which are passive euthanasia, active euthanasia and mercy killing, Decaire stated that psychological suffering has been one of the arguments for both sides of the debate. The supporters argue that long term incurable and unbearable illness cause suffering to the individual and the family. There are many ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

“Psychological Thoughts on the Biomedical-Legal Euthanasia Debate”

, May 16, 1999

After listing three subtypes of euthanasia which are passive euthanasia, active euthanasia and mercy killing, Decaire stated that psychological suffering has been one of the arguments for both sides of the debate. The supporters argue that long term incurable and unbearable illness cause suffering to the individual and the family. There are many stressors that can continue long after the individual died such as financial problem and psychological suffering that the family as well as the professional team has to bear. The other side of the debate sees that the medical team has been trained on saving lives therefore it would be a burden for them to take lives. Decaire compares the suffering of the medical team and the victim’s and family’s suffering and said it likely pales. He argues that for those who have personal relationship with the victim, it would be harder to recover, while the doctors and nurses not always, but most of the times have some detachment toward their patients which lets them more likely recover. Another point to look at is euthanasia is being practiced often in different forms such as omission of treatments and since it is illegal, the medical staffs who are enduring psychological suffering after their acts are not getting the helps that they need such as counseling. The author added that a psychiatric evaluations are needed for those individuals who are about to make euthanasia decision to ensure that they are in their right mental state. Those who oppose euthanasia usually say that mercy killing is murder. They argue that without the actually consent, family assumptions and opinions are bias and irrelevant. Decaire opposes that by saying even though the family’s opinions might not be one hundred percents accurate, they should be considered. He suggested using psychological biopsy to increase accuracy of patient’s opinion prediction.

This article helps me look at euthanasia in a different point of view. Not just patient’s pain, but the family’s psychological pain should be considered. It also provided different ways to improve accuracy on prediction on patient’s opinion to fulfill their wish.

“Euthanasia examine, ethical, clinical and legal perspective”

1995: 1-15

John Harris started by explaining his believe of the value of life. He believes that it is what distinct humans from animals; it is what makes an individual a person. The value of life is important because it lets a person value his/her own existence. And so in the cause of euthanasia it is wrong to kill someone who value their life because that is taking away something that they value and vice versa. He goes on to say that respect for person but not respect for life is moral imperative. A respect for a person is to respect their wishes. Harris then look at euthanasia through the liberty view and stated that euthanasia is not wrong in the case of having consent because it simply let the individual pursues his/her own wishes.

“A concise history of euthanasia: Life, Death, God and Medicine”

Ian Dowbiggin – 2007; 1-17

Through listing real life cases of euthanasia, the author showed that euthanasia has different meanings throughout different time line. The article introduces the history of euthanasia, showing readers the changes that were made. He shows different perspective of the Romans and Greeks versus the Judaism and the Augustinian.

I was able to see how euthanasia was looked at during the ancient time and how the point of view change little by little throughout time. The article was different to show the history of euthanasia but not just the debates over it.

"Euthanasia and Religion”

Courtney S. Campbell

Most major religion rejected vitalism. They believe that biological life is to be preserved at all cost with all available technologies. While the Jewish and Christian are more flexible in this matter. They think that preserving life is not an absolute good in and of itself. A doctor can be allowed to let a patient die if the continuation of life assaults the dignity for the person. Those who oppose euthanasia see that suicide constitutes a wrong against one’s nature and violates God. Therefore when a doctor is helping a patient die, he is committing an evil act.

I’ve learned different perspectives of different religion through the article. All the religions have the same point of view; they all worship God and value life. It’s their ways of interpreting it that make them different.