• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

What are the main issues in the debate about euthanasia.

Extracts from this document...


Euthanasia means 'good death.' It is used in situations where death is deliberately chosen, and not when someone is killed by accident (for example, in a car accident or failed medical treatment). Someone will choose to kill themselves or someone close to them because they feel that death is the best option in the situation. This usually happens when someone is suffering from a terminal illness and wishes to die in less pain, and so therefore, wishes to die sooner. There are different types of circumstances when it comes to euthanasia, and there are two different ways of administering it; 'actively' (deliberately enforcing death, for example, by a lethal injection) and 'passively' (simply 'letting die,' for example, by withholding life-prolonging treatment). Although there are moral issues with particular circumstances in which euthanasia is administered, (for example, suicide) the main form of euthanasia that I shall be commenting on is active euthanasia, voluntary and non-voluntary, because I believe it is a factor with more ethical consideration and I personally have strong views on the matter. The simple justifications of euthanasia are as follows; it humanely ends a patient's suffering, it shortens the grief of loved ones, and many people argue that one should have a right to decide when they die. If the law were changed, doctors could carry out euthanasia legally. If one could die with dignity, then it could possibly help others face death. It would also help doctors if they knew of their patient's intentions. The simple criticisms of euthanasia are as follows; some may argue that patients are incapable of making a rational decision, and may change their mind, but would be unable to tell the doctors this. People have also been known to recover after doctors have diagnosed them of having a terminal illness, and so euthanasia would be wasteful in this case. Some may believe that euthanasia devalues life, as it becomes 'disposable.' ...read more.


Then there are quotes spoken by Jesus, such as the famous 'love your neighbour as you love yourself.' This can be interpreted in many ways under circumstances such as a request to die from a relative. Is the correct care for an individual the care that serves their request? Is it more caring to let the patient die painlessly, with dignity, or more caring to extend life as much as possible? In the case of Christianity, I believe duties towards one another conflict with duties towards God. This is because duties to one another require respect for every living thing. With respect, comes respect of one another's decisions. Of course, to accept one another's decisions, they'd have to respect another's rational decision to have their treatment stopped, or even their request to be actively killed. As I mentioned in the ethical analysis, it is up to the individual Christian to decide which is more important - 'quality' or 'quantity.' If Christians generally interpret the idea of 'quality' in life and that one another's decisions must be respected, then it can conflict with early teachings that life is a gift from God. It could be the other way round; Christians may prefer quantity to quality, and believe strongly that life is a gift from God. If a request for an early death from a relative came about, then Jesus' preaching of 'love your neighbour' would probably be neglected. Christians also believe that no one can judge the value of an individual's life: it lies within God's understanding and it is not for us to decide. Humanists, on the other hand, believe that the value of life lies in oneself. Thus, Christian beliefs need a compromise when it comes to euthanasia. Christians have especially set up hospices for the terminally ill. These are aiming to care for the patients individually, and prepare them for death. This is because in the past, the dying were deprived of the truth, and brave faces were put on by friends and relatives, pretending that everything was all right. ...read more.


For example, in Holland, (where euthanasia is legal) a decision for euthanasia will be responded to thirty days afterwards, when a doctor will induce it. I believe that this system works, and also believe that non-biased professionals should judge the situation and decide whether or not a request for euthanasia should be granted. It would, therefore, still be judged upon the situation. It would then be up to friends and relatives to decide if they feel that it is the best thing to do in the situation. A lot of people do, of course, have objections to the legalisation of euthanasia. Mainly, it is because it is against their personal morals, which includes conflict with their religion. There is obviously no way of compromising all of these principles, other than simply saying that there is of course no obligation for them to go through with euthanasia themselves. I do personally think that they should accept this, but no one can demand them to do so. We must also consider the effects of the legalisation of euthanasia besides others' disapproval. Because no one is able to predict the future, we can only guess the consequences of any action. Many people argue that life would be taken too light-heartedly if euthanasia were legalised; I personally do not think that this will happen, providing that the rules for which euthanasia can be carried out are strict. If I may, finally, quote Joseph Fletcher, 'Christian action should be tailored to fit objective circumstances, the situation.' This sums up my argument completely, except that it should apply to everyone, and not just Christians. If the morally right action were judged upon the situation, rather than merely condemning particular actions without any consideration of the individual circumstances of a situation, then perhaps religious and non-religious people, moral and not-so-moral people would agree that euthanasia, under some circumstances, is morally right. On the same scale, people could decide when euthanasia is morally wrong in some situations. Alice Clark An analysis of the moral and religious issues raised by euthanasia 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Euthanasia section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Euthanasia essays

  1. My hypothesis: Euthanasia should be legalized in the UK.I am going to answer a ...

    * Proper palliative care makes Euthanasia unnecessary. * Accepting Euthanasia accepts that some lives (e.g. those of the disabled or sick) are worth less than others. * A dying patient may not be able to make a rational decision. * Doctors and other people in the medical profession can never know for a certain 100% that a

  2. What is meant by euthanasia?

    They also support natural law and sanctity of life, that life is sacred, it's created by God, we're all images of God, we're all gifts from God who should be preserved and cherished. Only God can take away our life.

  1. Explain how Islamic teachings about the sanctity of life affects a Muslim's attitude towards ...

    Its states that even if the person is in blind pain, he should not pass it on to another person's shoulders, even if it is members of their own family. "Whoever commits suicide with something will be punished with the same thing in the (hell)

  2. Arguments Against Euthanasia

    He does thousands a year for $200 each. How does the law protect people from him? Does it specify that a doctor can only approve 50 requests a year? 100? 150? If you don't think there are such doctors, just look at recent stories of doctors and nurses who are charged with murder for killing dozens or hundreds of patients.

  1. To what Extent was Hitler’s Euthanasia policy a distinct “Nazi” Policy?

    He gives much great firsthand information about how euthanasia was worked and what sought of methods they used to kill the people. This source has great use for historians in trying to capture the emotion and thought process of the man.

  2. Choose a case which you consider to be of crucial importance for medical ethics ...

    As Philosophers such as Harris and Glover argue when making decisions relating to ending of life the idea of quality of life should be encompassed. They believed human life should no longer be regarded as possessing intrinsic value per se; rather, what makes life valuable is the life-holders capacity for pleasurable states of consciousness3.

  1. Explain how Act and Rule Utilitarianism differ. How far can Utilitarianism help in making ...

    However this principle potentially allows for people to go round doing evil. On this basis any action could be justified. Rule Utilitarians still judge actions based on the consequence using the Utility principle but instead of looking at the consequences of an individual outcome it looks at the possible consequences

  2. “An acceptance of the practice ofvoluntary euthanasia is incompatible with Christian belief in the ...

    all the values to see if they are ordinary or extraordinary means? And also if the act is intrinsically good in itself, or do the consequences of the act make it right or wrong. The Sanctity of Life argument (1)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work