Mercy Killing Essay -- essays research papers

The applied moral issue of mercy killing, or mercy killing, concerns whether it is mor ally welcome for a third party, such as a physician, to end the life of a terminally ill forbearing who is in intense pain. I testament go further into the facts of this in my paper.The euthanasia controversy is part of a larger issue concerning the refine to die.Staunch defenders of personal liberty argue that all of us are morally entitled to end ourlives when we see fit. Thus, according to these people, suicide is in principle morallypermissible. For health care workers, the issue of the right to die is most prominent when a patient in their care is terminally ill, is in intense pain, and voluntarily choosesto end their life to escape extended suffering. In these cases, there are several theoreticaloptions open to the health care worker. First, the worker can ignore the patients requestand care can push as usual. Second, the worker can dis hide providinglife-sustaining treatment to the patient, and thus allow him to die more quickly. Thisoption is called passive euthanasia since it brings on expiration through nonintervention. Third, the health care worker can provide the patient with the means of taking his own life, such as a lethal sexually transmitted disease of a drug. This practice is called assisted suicide, since it is the patient, and not technically the health care worker, who administers the drug. Finally, the health care worker can take active measures to end the patients life, such as by directly administering a lethal dose of a drug. This practice is called active euthanasia since the health care workers action is the direct attain of the patients death. Active euthanasia is the most controversial of the four options and is currently illegal in the United States. However, several right to die organizations are lobbying for the laws against active euthanasia to change. Two additional concepts are relevant to the discussion of euthanasia. First,volu ntary euthanasia refers to mercy killing that takes place with the explicit and voluntary consent of the patient, either verbally or in a written document such as a living will. Second, nonvoluntary euthanasia refers to the mercy killing of a patient who is unconscious(p), or otherwise unable to explicitly make their intentions known. Inthese cases it is often family members who make the request. This would be done against the wi... ...ss, and not enough on other integral goods, such as justice and rights. Accordingly, Rachels offers a revised utilitarian version active euthanasia is permissible since it promotes the best interests of everyone (such as Jack, Jacks wife, and the hospital staff). Rachels also argues that the fortunate rule supports active euthanasia insofar as we would want others to put us out of our misery if we were in a situation like Jacks. The insipid imperative supports active euthanasia since no one would willfully universalize a rule which condemns people to unbearable pain before death. Rachels closes noting an irony the princely rule supports active euthanasia, yet the Catholic church has traditionally opposed it.My thoughts towards Euthanasia is simply I believe that for people that are in capacious amount of pain or are suffering unbearably and dont have any chance of recovery, can make the choice to continue living or to die. I know if I were in that situation I would like to know I have the choice. In situations were the patient is unconscious or unable to make the decision I think that the family should be able to make the choice for the patient.