Euthanasia is the act of ending someone’s life (Goldberg, 1987, p. 22). This issue raises controversy, as many individuals perceive this act as a criminal homicide. The capacity to sustain human life through the use of technology and improved life support measures causes people to question the controversial topic of patients’ right to die. According to Goldberg (1987, p. 22), active euthanasia is the direct act of shortening a human being’s life, such as providing a patient with a lethal injection. However, passive euthanasia is the act of withdrawing life prolonging measures with the intention of ending someone’s life, such as removing a ventilator. Euthanasia could either be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary meaning the individual has given
…show more content…
If an action were to help people stop pain, there would be many supporters, as pain is often very distressful and sometimes intolerable. According to Collier (2009, p. 463), individuals with incurable illnesses suffer the longer they live, and to deal with this, they must take away what is allowing it to occur, which is their life. The only person who can measure the tolerance or limitation of pain is the patient (Boisvert, 2010, p. 320). According to Collier and Haliburton (2015, p. 98), the principle of beneficence refers to the duty to do good and positive actions to prevent harm. Keeping a patient alive through the use of life support systems, such as respirators or intravenous medication does not necessarily mean that healthcare providers are prolonging the life of the patient, but they may be prolonging the dying process. Patients who are in critical care are often isolated from their families and the public in order to protect and stabilize their condition and are constantly being watched over by nurses. The dying patient is no longer a living being, but is a living corpse with a low quality of life. Doctors are not obliged to prolong the life of a patient, but are obliged to meet their basic needs, which could be, but is not limited to dying with dignity. If the principle of beneficence were to be exemplified in a case in which a terminally ill patient wanted to end their pain,
If an action were to help people stop pain, there would be many supporters, as pain is often very distressful and sometimes intolerable. According to Collier (2009, p. 463), individuals with incurable illnesses suffer the longer they live, and to deal with this, they must take away what is allowing it to occur, which is their life. The only person who can measure the tolerance or limitation of pain is the patient (Boisvert, 2010, p. 320). According to Collier and Haliburton (2015, p. 98), the principle of beneficence refers to the duty to do good and positive actions to prevent harm. Keeping a patient alive through the use of life support systems, such as respirators or intravenous medication does not necessarily mean that healthcare providers are prolonging the life of the patient, but they may be prolonging the dying process. Patients who are in critical care are often isolated from their families and the public in order to protect and stabilize their condition and are constantly being watched over by nurses. The dying patient is no longer a living being, but is a living corpse with a low quality of life. Doctors are not obliged to prolong the life of a patient, but are obliged to meet their basic needs, which could be, but is not limited to dying with dignity. If the principle of beneficence were to be exemplified in a case in which a terminally ill patient wanted to end their pain,