On Thanksgiving day, three months after her college graduation Jessica was diagnosed with brain cancer at the age of twenty-four. The doctors successfully managed her diseases for the first three years, after the third year Jessica's headaches started to become unbearable and treatments were ineffective. After going through two surgeries to stop the growth of the tumor unfortunately, the tumor kept coming back and growing rapidly. The doctors told Jessica she had six months to live if she is lucky. Due to the side effects of the treatment Jessicas quality of life was destroyed. During her last months her hair was falling off, she lost a significant amount of weight, was too weak to walk and suffered a degree of pain that she never felt before.
…show more content…
In the article "Active and Passive Euthanasia" (1975), author James Rachels argues that the two forms of euthanasia are morally equivalent: either both are acceptable or both are not. They stand or fall together.”(p 108) Rachel also states that “not only is there no real moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia, but by improperly creating such a distinction we do more harm than good.” Passive euthanasia is a longer process than active euthanasia, since the patient is in unbearable pain it would be cruel for the doctors to favor the longer process. Many medical providers favor passive euthanasia because just letting someone die has less guilt than actively killing someone. Rachels used a great example in his article about a six year old boy to illustrate that there is no moral difference between both forms of euthanasia. In the first case Smith drownes his cousin the six year old boy to gain his inheritance after his death. In the second case as Jones was heading to drown the young boy when he witnessed the boy slip and hitting his head causing the boy to drown, but didn't do nothing to save him from drowning because he wanted the inheritance. Smith and Jones both had the same intention to kill the boy, …show more content…
Why let them be tortured with great pain when we are able to taken them out of their misery by ending their life. Relieving someone from pain is our moral duty. People have the right to choose when to die and how to die. You can't take that away from someone especially when we can't feel the amount of suffering they are going through. People have a right to their autonomy as long as they don't harm others in the process. People have the right to make their own decisions to their own body and life by refusing treatments. Everyone should have the right to die with dignity by choosing a special way to end their last moments in this world. People don't want to be remembered by their family members as a burden or by humiliating moments because they are unable to control their body functions.
Other benefits of legalizing euthanasia in the United states are saving on healthcare costs. Half of the lifetime health-care costs of the average person are incurred in the last six months of the person's life. Treatments for incurable diseases are very expensive and ineffective. Legalizing euthanasia would cut health care cost in the United States because Medicare is the largest insurer of health care provided during the last year of life. Almost 25% of the money medicare spends is for services provided to people in their last year of
In the article "Active and Passive Euthanasia" (1975), author James Rachels argues that the two forms of euthanasia are morally equivalent: either both are acceptable or both are not. They stand or fall together.”(p 108) Rachel also states that “not only is there no real moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia, but by improperly creating such a distinction we do more harm than good.” Passive euthanasia is a longer process than active euthanasia, since the patient is in unbearable pain it would be cruel for the doctors to favor the longer process. Many medical providers favor passive euthanasia because just letting someone die has less guilt than actively killing someone. Rachels used a great example in his article about a six year old boy to illustrate that there is no moral difference between both forms of euthanasia. In the first case Smith drownes his cousin the six year old boy to gain his inheritance after his death. In the second case as Jones was heading to drown the young boy when he witnessed the boy slip and hitting his head causing the boy to drown, but didn't do nothing to save him from drowning because he wanted the inheritance. Smith and Jones both had the same intention to kill the boy, …show more content…
Why let them be tortured with great pain when we are able to taken them out of their misery by ending their life. Relieving someone from pain is our moral duty. People have the right to choose when to die and how to die. You can't take that away from someone especially when we can't feel the amount of suffering they are going through. People have a right to their autonomy as long as they don't harm others in the process. People have the right to make their own decisions to their own body and life by refusing treatments. Everyone should have the right to die with dignity by choosing a special way to end their last moments in this world. People don't want to be remembered by their family members as a burden or by humiliating moments because they are unable to control their body functions.
Other benefits of legalizing euthanasia in the United states are saving on healthcare costs. Half of the lifetime health-care costs of the average person are incurred in the last six months of the person's life. Treatments for incurable diseases are very expensive and ineffective. Legalizing euthanasia would cut health care cost in the United States because Medicare is the largest insurer of health care provided during the last year of life. Almost 25% of the money medicare spends is for services provided to people in their last year of