Euthanasia: Humane and Dignified Essay -- Euthanasia Killing Argumenta

Advances in new-fashi iodind medical examination technology have served to deny pack the remediate to die, and mercy killing, it may be argued, has emerged with the purpose of reclaiming that right. Euthanasia, which is defined as granting painless death to a unhopefully ill patient with a non-curable disease, is a very disputable issue (Russell 3). Illegal in all countries, except the Nertherlands, it is still upright all over the world in an attempt to give concourse the right to a painless, and natural, death (Emanuel 1). In short, the advances in modern medical specialty and its techniques, have created a situation whereby peoples lives are unnaturally extended, despite the incident that they could be in an irrecoverable coma or woefulness from an incurable chronic illness, leading increasing numbers of people to support euthanasia, as an option for a humane and dignified death. turn there is a tendency to treat euthanasia as a single concept, it is actually a very g eneral one involving cardinal distinct methods and practices. In general terms, it is defined as the mercy cleaning of a mortal, that is to say, the intentional and express termination of a life whose superior is such that it is non worth living (Kluge 132). In more special terms, euthanasia is either active and positive, or passive and negative, with both being further defined according to whether they occurred voluntarily, involuntarily, or nonvoluntarily. That is, whether it occurred according to a persons wishes, or against his wishes, or simply without his wishes due to his being in a condition where he cant express himself.In examining the different forms of euthanasia, it ultimately becomes clear that both voluntary and non-voluntary passive, or negative, euthanasia do not violate ethical principles as they act in such a way that they basically restore mans right to death. This form of euthanasia means discontinuing or desisting from the use of peculiar life-sustaini ng measures or heroic efforts to prolong life in hopeless cases when such prolongation seems an unwarranted extension of either suffering or unconsciousness (Russell 20). That is, it is an action that has the purpose of allowing death to occur naturally, whereby it becomes very concentrated to criticize passive or negative euthanasia according to ethical and religious arguments. This form of euthanasia, although it can occur without ... ...ed before carrying it out.When reviewed from ethical perspectives, it becomes increasingly difficult to defend the artificial extension of life, and to reject passive euthanasia. If one were to consider the doctors role as a healer, or a reducer of pain and suffering, it would seems that medical technology actively prevents the fulfillment of this role. Thus, the objective has become the extension of life, through unnatural and artificial means, irrespective of the hopelessness of recovery, or the pain and suffering experienced by the patient. It would not be an exaggeration to call this unethical, both from the religious perspective and the medical one. According to the first perspective, it is unethical insofar as it interferes with Gods wishes that a person die. In relation to the second, the unethical aspect emerges from the fact that many doctors are no longer fulfilling their professional duty to reduce suffering but are, in reality, prolonging and intensifying it. Thus, to support passive euthanasia means supporting traditional religious and medical ethics. That is, the simple right to a natural and humane death, with as little extension of suffering as possible.