Teleological Ethical Dilemma Essay: Euthanasia

1378 Words 6 Pages
Ethical Dilemma Essay: Euthanasia Euthanasia is defined as the painless action to end the life of someone suffering from an incurable or terminal disease. There are three different types of euthanasia: active, passive, and voluntary. Active euthanasia is the administration of a lethal drug or another measure to end life and alleviate suffering. Passive euthanasia involves the withdrawal of extraordinary means to support life. Lastly, voluntary euthanasia is when a physician provides access of a lethal dose of medication to a patient who is dying that has disclosed their wishes regarding the management and time of death. Euthanasia relates to the teleological ethical model of reasoning because it results in decreased suffering. The teleological …show more content…
A compassionate society would allow them the choice to spend their last days where and with whomever they choose.” Patients should have the freedom to make choices and decisions about their own care, and the right to die should be included in these choices. Who are we to decide whether or not someone should continue to suffer endlessly? What makes it okay for someone else to make this decision for the patient, we do not have to feel what they do. With all of the inventions, machines, and new technology we have today, we can keep someone alive for much longer periods of time. We can prolong life, but when does quality of that life come into play, when is enough, enough. Just because we can prolong life does not mean that it is ethically right either. We can keep patients alive for years on machines that literally do everything for them to sustain life, like breath and eat. Do these interventions cause more harm than good? Are we in fact creating more suffering when prolonging life that could not be sustained on its own? We would not intentionally be causing harm, but we would in fact be doing just that. We have the duty to treat all patients with dignity and respect. There is no dignity in watching someone who is completely helpless suffer day after day, knowing that with euthanasia that suffering could …show more content…
The first argument is physician prescribed suicide would become a medical treatment giving insurance companies an opportunity to deny payment of more expensive treatments while approving payments for less costly prescriptions for lethal doses of drugs. Insurance companies already have this right, they can deny treatments based on what is set forth in their different plans. Insurance companies already deny costly treatments that could prolong life; at least they would have another option if the companies would approve the cost of the drugs. Just because the lethal drugs are approved does not mean a patient needs to choose that path. Another argument is the bill would force every physician to facilitate physician prescribed suicide. There is an easy solution to this argument, if a physician is not comfortable performing such a task they can refer their patient to a physician who is. Physicians are faced with situations they may not agree with or feel comfortable with everyday. As healthcare providers we have the ethical and moral duty to put our own personal views aside and listen openly to our patients, provide them accurate information, and if we are able to provide the care they need or request to refer them to a professional that can. Another agreement against the current bills in legislator is all of the safeguards in the bill cease the moment the prescription is received. It is argued

Related Documents

Related Topics