Psychology assignment help on: Euthanasia

What is euthanasia and is it morally permissible?It can be said that Euthanasia has emerged from the Greek word which means eu means good and thanatos means death. This word is utilized to explain medical assisted suicide or mercy killing though we shall view that there are few distinctions in the path that these terms might be used (Christian Medical Fellowship, 2011). In simple words, Euthanasia is defined as killing of the individual with the intention to terminate the suffering. It is categorized in 2 categories such as passive and active euthanasia. Active Euthanasia can be considered as when family members and doctors decide to kill the patient to terminate the suffering whereas Passive euthanasia makes the suffering individual die by withholding special medical care permitting the illness kill in comparison to an individual (Rachels, 1996).  The frequent situation in which Euthanasia prevails is when the individual is died in response to his request to put the termination to the unbearable distress or pain being generated by some injury or end disease. There is a moral question for the individual who could lessen the life of another individual. Is it ethically permissible to do something which hasten the killing of the another person. Although euthanasia may also prevail in non –medical context as the battlefield or home, most current discussions of these obstacles consider to the medical contexts (Dan, 1993). One major rationale for this is that technology and medical science have currently advanced to such a difficult state which people may be maintained alive who previously would have expired from their injuries or diseases (Sherwin & Nuland, 1994).

There is a long debate on whether euthanasia must be legalized or not (Singer, 2003).  According to some medical researchers, people who are on life support system and suffering with long diseases producing much distress and pain, in that case euthanasia is considered as a better choice. It can be said that, it might be possible to make patients alive for endless period of the time and moreover, the patient’s family and the hospital and doctors staff for several reasons to save the patient life, the dying process might be prolonged in the way which was not probable only a little decades ago (Sherwin & Nuland, 1994). With this kind of power, to keep the patient life has become the question as it is tolerable not to preserve that life (Tom Regan (ed), 1980). Euthanasia poses the second type of the moral obstacle. In, fact doctors who help in bringing about the killing of other person life have been accused in court, though juries are unwilling to condemn in few cases.It has been examined that there are two types of Euthanasia such as passive and active euthanasia.  There is a one clear instance of the active euthanasia when doctors inject the patients with the toxic substance to kill them. Instances of passive euthanasia could comprise cases where doctors terminate or withhold treatment which has been maintaining the patients alive. The patient may be on the artificial respirator and doctors take patient out of it and let the patient die (Young, 2007). Another difference that connects up with the difference among passive and active euthanasia is the difference among letting die and killing. Active euthanasia comprises intentionally and directly killing the life of the patient. But on the other side, Passive Euthanasia comprises letting the patient to terminate his life on his own. It is viewed that Rachels had recommended that passive and active euthanasia were ethically same because the impacts and intentions of both are same: doctor’s want that the patient dies (Rachels, 1986). It can be said that when the individual is experiencing more pain and with no any sign of cure or relief then in that case ending the life of the suffering patient is good.

There are various arguments from human dignity in response to Euthanasia such as one argument is killing is always considered as wrong because of the violation of the human dignity. But in the situations like where the patients are suffering from extreme pain and not able to communicate efficiently then in that case dignity has lost already (Gott & Linden, 1993).  In that situation, killing of someone is not an offence against the human dignity to bring the humiliation at end. The first significant argument in concern to legalization of Euthanasia prevails from the fundamental principle which covers our civic and political culture. The fundamental idea under this principle is that everybody in community must be permitted to do whatever they want but provided is that they should make no any harm.According to my point of view, Euthanasia is not morally permissible. This argument starts with the basis that there are various fundamental moral commitments which maintain the society together. One of these is killing of human beings (Desh pande, 2004).  The society in which this kind of prohibition is not broadly accepted could be the society of threat and fear in which individuals arm them in against their respective citizens and were the violence is the accepted feature of the social life. No any society wants to become like this. It is recommended, nothing should be done which lowers the value for life or the belief that killing of someone is absolutely forbidden (Jonathan Glover, 1977).  Generally, accepting these kinds of premises recommended that legalization of euthanasia would lessen such respect. Though the legalization of euthanasia could be accompanied by guidelines or safeguards that restrain when euthanasia may be acceptable earlier or later there would be a pressure to widen those guidelines (Gott & Linden, 1993). Earlier or later, the relatives of the dying patient who is not able to request on his own would be permitted to request on the behalf of the patient. Gradually doctors could be permitted to make any decision on their own. Possibly, the guideline which the patient should be in pain could be ignored and patients who are in depression could be killed (Peete, 2010). As per the perspective of the medical community, legalizing euthanasia might be considered as a necessity for the doctors. The criteria must be strict and its application must be careful monitored. Right needs protection, but must be maintained against accountabilities and restrictions if we want to be exactly free (Marvin Kohl, 1974). It is examined that once the euthanasia is legalized in one country, and then individuals from other countries shall start to take advantage of it (Steinbock, 1996). It is very clear that actions made in one country might have a consequence on other countries because of the upcoming changes in their laws. It could be stated that legalization of euthanasia might take doctors less accountable and offer them with more authority. Patients normally decide in favor of euthanasia because of the information obtained by the doctors like information on their diagnosis, treatments and anticipated range of the future suffering. This is also the reason which contradicts the legalization of Euthanasia.

ConclusionAt last, it can be concluded that it is non-ethical to help or indulged in a death of human beings. It shall make the individual having an option to consult with his medical advisor and decides the right way and time to end his life. But at the similar time, laws should be there to make sure that there are standards to avert unnecessary casualties in the existing hectic schedules. At last, it is very clear that Euthanasia is not morally permissible. Euthanasia is viewed as controversial subject because it hampers the normal functioning of the life and lead towards making a violent and abusive society. It could be stated that Life must be treated as a gift not as a practice because a practice like euthanasia violates the vital concept of the human dignity and society (Dan & Brock, 1993). In, fact history has also revealed that legalization of euthanasia may pose a serious threat and risk to the society. It is viewed that Rachels argument views at actions and intentions as two different ideas that could not be compared (Rachels, 1986).  He also explained that how inaction us remain an action because there is an effect (Rachels, 1986).  Therefore, one claims that there is no as such difference among killing someone and letting die because the result of the action would be the same. It has been observed that, there are some cases, where modern medicines may not reduce the pain and suffering. It is immoral ethical method to make the ethical doctrine on some problem cases. Libertarian suggests breaking this principle placing burden on the argument which applies only to the little no. of situations. Even in the situation, where the death is visible and pain could not be minimized with the help of accepted dosage of the medication, then in that case active euthanasia is not the option (Moreland, 2010).  A doctor may offer the essential pain medication, if intention is to reduce the pain not to kill, though if it could be viewed that such type of action shall hasten death. In this type of situation, death is tolerated, foreseen but considered as unintended effect. Finally, persons who believe in God think that life is the gift given by the God and we have no any right to end our lives.  At last, it can be concluded that euthanasia is not morally permissible.

 If you want Psychology management Assignment Help study samples to help you write professional custom essay’s and essay writing help.

Receive assured help from our talented and expert writers! Did you buy assignment and assignment writing services from our experts in a very affordable price.

To get more information, please contact us or visit www.myassignmenthelp.Com