Euthanasia essay
Carly smart
The word euthanasia originated from the Greek language; eu means "good" and thantos means "death". One meaning given to the word is "the intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who dies". The term euthanasia normally implies that the act must be initiated by the person who wishes to commit suicide. There are many different types of euthanasia these are: passive euthanasia which is the hastening of a persons death by altering some form of support and letting nature take its course e.g. removing life support equipment. Another form of euthanasia is active euthanasia; this involves causing the death of a person through a direct action, in response to a request from that person. A well known example was the mercy killing in 1998 of a patient with ALS by Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician.
There is also physician assisted suicide, this is where a physician supplies information / or the means of committing suicide e.g. a prescription for a lethal dose of sleeping pills, or a supply of carbon monoxide gas.
Involuntary euthanasia which seems to cause the most outrage is where the killing of a person takes place in which the person has not explicitly requested aid in dying. This is most often done to patients who are in a persistent vegetative state and will probably never recover.
Euthanasia raises both moral and religious issues. These issues can affect both the suffering individual and the person who carries out the termination. An Issue which kuhse brought up which relates to both passive and active euthanasia is what is the distinction between killing and letting die?
Some may see the distinction being the person who kills causes death whereas the person does nothing is simply letting nature run its course.
Glover stated that when looking at this distinction it is necessary to look at "the degree to which they are expensive, unusual, difficult, and painful or dangerous. These are called ordinary and extraordinary means. There is now understood to be a difference in the way the line is drawn between ordinary and extraordinary means by medical science on the one hand, and moral theology on the other. In medicine, a means is ordinary which is scientifically established, statistically successful, and reasonably available. If any of these conditions is lacking, the means is considered to be extraordinary. In moral theology, a means is ordinary if it is beneficial, useful or not unreasonably burdensome (physically or psychologically) to the person. There is a consideration of reasonable cost as well The double effect argument links in with the beliefs in ordinary and extra ordinary means.This argument stresses greatly that there is a huge difference between foreseeing an event and directly willing it to happen. Christians believe that in certain cases the double effect argument can be justifiable. the principle of double effect generally states that, in cases where an agent contemplates conduct that has both good effects and bad effects, the course of conduct selected is ethically permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly intend the bad result.
Carly smart
The word euthanasia originated from the Greek language; eu means "good" and thantos means "death". One meaning given to the word is "the intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who dies". The term euthanasia normally implies that the act must be initiated by the person who wishes to commit suicide. There are many different types of euthanasia these are: passive euthanasia which is the hastening of a persons death by altering some form of support and letting nature take its course e.g. removing life support equipment. Another form of euthanasia is active euthanasia; this involves causing the death of a person through a direct action, in response to a request from that person. A well known example was the mercy killing in 1998 of a patient with ALS by Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician.
There is also physician assisted suicide, this is where a physician supplies information / or the means of committing suicide e.g. a prescription for a lethal dose of sleeping pills, or a supply of carbon monoxide gas.
Involuntary euthanasia which seems to cause the most outrage is where the killing of a person takes place in which the person has not explicitly requested aid in dying. This is most often done to patients who are in a persistent vegetative state and will probably never recover.
Euthanasia raises both moral and religious issues. These issues can affect both the suffering individual and the person who carries out the termination. An Issue which kuhse brought up which relates to both passive and active euthanasia is what is the distinction between killing and letting die?
Some may see the distinction being the person who kills causes death whereas the person does nothing is simply letting nature run its course.
Glover stated that when looking at this distinction it is necessary to look at "the degree to which they are expensive, unusual, difficult, and painful or dangerous. These are called ordinary and extraordinary means. There is now understood to be a difference in the way the line is drawn between ordinary and extraordinary means by medical science on the one hand, and moral theology on the other. In medicine, a means is ordinary which is scientifically established, statistically successful, and reasonably available. If any of these conditions is lacking, the means is considered to be extraordinary. In moral theology, a means is ordinary if it is beneficial, useful or not unreasonably burdensome (physically or psychologically) to the person. There is a consideration of reasonable cost as well The double effect argument links in with the beliefs in ordinary and extra ordinary means.This argument stresses greatly that there is a huge difference between foreseeing an event and directly willing it to happen. Christians believe that in certain cases the double effect argument can be justifiable. the principle of double effect generally states that, in cases where an agent contemplates conduct that has both good effects and bad effects, the course of conduct selected is ethically permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly intend the bad result.
