When we lose all the pleasure in our life and there is absolutely no hope for recovery, is it reasonable if we choose death or should we tolerate pain until death chooses us? The Controversy of euthanasia is still considered to be one of the biggest dilemmas in our present time. Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending life to relieve suffering. As of November 2017, Euthanasia is legal in only 5 countries around the world and Physician aid in dying (PAD) is legal in 3 countries along with 7 states in the United States of America. In the U.S, to request PAD you must meet certain requirements such as being over the age of 18, capable of making healthcare decisions and most importantly having a terminal illness that will terminate your life
…show more content…
The principle of Autonomy, which gives individuals the right to pursue their own personal views of what kind of life is best including when and how to die, seems to justify PAD and VAE. In order to respect autonomy, it is required to allow individuals to weigh their own values and decide when it is better to end their lives rather than continue living in the face of terminal illness. Also the principle of mercy and beneficence seem to permit PAD or VAD. In many cases of terminal illness, living creates more pain and suffering than death, allowing that to happen lacks mercy and beneficence in the sense of we are not doing what is best for the …show more content…
That argument states “legalizing euthanasia would violate one of the most important medical ethics, which in the words of the International Code of Medical Ethics is: 'A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception” (Euthanasia and assisted suicide). A very valid argument that aims to not make death become an administrative routine. The American Medical Association (AMA) believes that PAD and VAE are “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious risks” (American Medical Association). Reading this perspective puts me in confusion because I don’t believe that terminating life-sustaining treatments, which is ethically justified and AMA approved, is different from PAD and VAE for the following reasons. In both situations, the patient consents to accelerate his or her death and the physician intends to end the patient’s life to relieve their suffering and takes some actions to cause this to happen (withholding treatment in this case). The final outcome is the patient’s death. So if there is absolutely no difference in the patient consent, physician intention, or the final result then there should not be a difference in the ethical
The principle of Autonomy, which gives individuals the right to pursue their own personal views of what kind of life is best including when and how to die, seems to justify PAD and VAE. In order to respect autonomy, it is required to allow individuals to weigh their own values and decide when it is better to end their lives rather than continue living in the face of terminal illness. Also the principle of mercy and beneficence seem to permit PAD or VAD. In many cases of terminal illness, living creates more pain and suffering than death, allowing that to happen lacks mercy and beneficence in the sense of we are not doing what is best for the …show more content…
That argument states “legalizing euthanasia would violate one of the most important medical ethics, which in the words of the International Code of Medical Ethics is: 'A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life from conception” (Euthanasia and assisted suicide). A very valid argument that aims to not make death become an administrative routine. The American Medical Association (AMA) believes that PAD and VAE are “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious risks” (American Medical Association). Reading this perspective puts me in confusion because I don’t believe that terminating life-sustaining treatments, which is ethically justified and AMA approved, is different from PAD and VAE for the following reasons. In both situations, the patient consents to accelerate his or her death and the physician intends to end the patient’s life to relieve their suffering and takes some actions to cause this to happen (withholding treatment in this case). The final outcome is the patient’s death. So if there is absolutely no difference in the patient consent, physician intention, or the final result then there should not be a difference in the ethical