Euthanasia In Our Society Today

Read the full essay 395 words
Euthanasia in our society today


Euthanasia is a controversial subject, not only because there are many different moral dilemmas associated with it, but also in what constitutes its definition. At the extreme ends of disagreement, advocates say euthanasia (which in Greek means "easy death") is a good, or merciful, death. Opponents of euthanasia say it is a fancy word for murder.

Between the two extremes, there are various positions for and against euthanasia. One position opposes cases of "active" euthanasia, where an active, or overt, effort is made to bring about death, such as in administering a lethal injection, but accept "passive" euthanasia, which is generally described as declining to initiate extraordinary or even ordinary medical treatment, as moral.

Another position advocates that passive euthanasia is acceptable when the person to die has consented. Other positions include situations where a terminally ill patient is unable to consent as justifiable, because it resolves a hopeless situation. Conversely, even with this gradation, some opponents to euthanasia believe that voluntary, passive euthanasia is the same as suicide; involuntary euthanasia is considered to be murder.

Because euthanasia poses classic dilemmas as to its morality, it is not surprising that many issues arise in the legal and medical arenas. In law, the resolution of a particular case cannot always be applied to resolve another. In the medical realm, interpretation of medical doctrine concerning treatment of terminally-ill patients can result in entirely different applications.

In two relatively recent cases, the Supreme Court had to decide the future of patients that were considered to be in chronically persistent vegetative states. The courts had to decide whether to continue with the prevailing treatment, as advocated by the medical community, or discontinue treatment at the request of the patients' guardians. The courts considered several factors in making a determination: What are the state's interests in terms of human life? When does the patient's right to refuse treatment override the state's interest? What does the right to refuse treatment entail, and is it included in the patient's right to privacy? Do a patient's guardians have the right to refuse treatment on behalf of a patient? What constitutes ordinary and extraordinary medical treatment?

The court indicated that a patient's right to refuse treatment was an extension of the constitutionally-derived "right to privacy" and, more importantly, permitted the assignment of those rights to Quinlan's guardians.

Related Topics

Euthanasia Medical ethics Disability rights Voluntary euthanasia Involuntary euthanasia Euthanasia in the United States Legality of euthanasia voluntary passive euthanasia medical arenas involuntary euthanasia terminally ill patients active euthanasia medical doctrine medical realm persistent vegetative states easy death extreme ends hopeless situation fancy word ill patient controversial subject moral dilemmas lethal injection medical community gradation several factors medical treatment

More Free Essays Like This

Active Euthenasia - A Kantian Perspective
All Kinds Of Love
Assisted Suicide and the elderly
Capital Punishment
Euthanasia In Australia
Euthanasia In Our Society Today
Morality Is Culturally Relative
My topic is: Should Terminally Ill Patients Be All
Suicide: My Thoughts
The Aborted Contract
The Benefits Of Science And Technology
The Murder Of Oneself
Why Euthanasia is wrong ByAlimameh FattyEnglish 10