Pros On Euthanasia

1225 Words 5 Pages
One of the controversial issues and a prominent infringement on the right to life is euthanasia. Euthanasia is “An action or an omission which, of itself or by intention, causes the death of handicapped, sick, or dying persons.” Euthanasia is promoted and practiced by doctors and people with the underlining concept that just as every person has the right to life, it follows that they too have the right to end their own life. This sounds like suicide, but what makes the key “distinction” between suicide and euthanasia is that euthanasia is done by a physician at the dying or suffering person’s request by omission to it or direct action for the sake of mercy. Let us merge into the underlining ideology of euthanasia and see what is at the heart …show more content…
We have stated that euthanasia is a direct action or omission that causes the death of another. When analyzing the case of an ill patient close or prone to death, there present are means of care for the patient. These means of care are categorized between ordinary and extraordinary means. The best way to explain ordinary and extraordinary means is through a real life example. An injured person from a car crash in the intensive care unit would have means of care administered to him. Even though he will be bedridden for at least a month until recovery, assisted feeding would be morally binding on the doctors for the patient as well as water and protection. It is morally binding on the doctors to provide this man with all ordinary means of life. For that same man, he might be able to breathe by himself, but the use of a respirator might quicken his recovery. Thus the use of the respirator would not be a necessary or ordinary means of recovery but rather an extraordinary means. Now the important distinction can be made. The use of ordinary means at a given situation is morally binding to be administered to a patient. However, the use of extraordinary means is not morally binding. If however the use of a respirator was need for the person to survive, then it would become an ordinary means and must be administered to the person. Now the …show more content…
It is important to know that the use of extraordinary means is not necessary to administer. Now, when death is imminent, procedures that inflict much pain or present a heavy economic burden all for the short prolonging of the person’s life, are nor morally binding. The person can refuse an indefinite procedure that places definite and great suffering. This simply is not euthanasia. The person is simply allowing death to take its toll with regard to the fact that his means to fight it are not potent, but he may not morally speed up his inevitable death by ending his life through euthanasia. Now euthanasia, in clearer detail, is intervention on the person’s life to take it. This is found in the case of a person who is in much pain from an illness asking for the doctor to take his life. This is euthanasia and murder as it takes the person’s life in an act of intrusion. Euthanasia extends also to the act of a doctor allowing the patient to take his own life by giving him permission or the means, but not directly taking his

Related Documents