Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Liam Aranas
Professor Moore
English 1301
12 October 2017
In past couple of years, the practice of euthanasia has been a hot seat question that
medical professionals debate to this day. Euthanasia is the practice of physician assisted suicide
allowing for patients to have the choice in whether they continue living or die. However,
euthanasia is only an option to patients with incurable and painful diseases and those in a coma
that they may never wake up from. Euthanasia is a practice that is only legal in Switzerland,
Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and two American states (Washington and Oregon).
Euthanasias morality has become a significant issue for those involved with bioethics due to the
Firstly, the main concern of euthanasia is the differing moral stand points. As medical
professional most would argue that the main objective of a nurse or doctor is to try and make the
condition of the patient significantly better no matter the condition. However, in terms of
euthanasia we see two sides of a coin. Two arguments that present themselves for both sides are
that a patient is suffering an incurable and painful disease and their condition would only be
bettered through the peaceful means of doctor assisted suicide. However, the other side of the
coin is that some may see death as the exact opposite of making the patients condition better and
that it goes completely against the whole purpose of a healthcare provider. These people are also
concerned about what can be considered incurable and painful as there are people who request
doctor assisted suicide with disorders such as extreme depression (Lu). Questioning what is
Aranas 2
that is was changed significantly. the Dutch definition of euthanasia (Saad) allows for the
conscious and competent patients only; [to determine] that ceasing futile treatment is not
euthanasia (Saad) This allowed for a compromise that allowed for certain situations to proceed
with euthanasia.
Furthermore, we have the argument that is involved more with politics. Originally
for non-terminally ill patients (Saad) Though this would not have been made possible as quickly
if there were more Christian Democrats after June 1999 (Saad). However, it was still argued
that a stricter procedure concerning patients who are not terminally ill (Saad) be present to
ensure that even if the bill concerning euthanasia was passed we would take extra precautions
with these new patients that were deemed able to participate in euthanasia. The irony in the
situation is that though euthanasia was permitted The Belgian Act does not permit assisted
suicide. (Saad) Through the course of the argument assisted suicide became distorted in
parliamentary debate. In the minds of many it meant simply killing someone at their request
with no additional conditions, (Saad) Post this bill we also had the argument of the age that can
choose the option of physician assisted suicide. Previously it was agreed that you must be at least
the 18 to choose this option. However, the amendment was changed to say, the patient has
attained the age of majority or is an emancipated minor, who is competent or is still a minor who
is capable of judgment, and is conscious at the time of making the request (Saad). Other
political issues include organ procurement. However, it was an opt-out opt-in situation and
between 2005 and 2007, only four patients who underwent euthanasia also expressed a wish to
Furthermore, we see the argument briefly presented in the moral argument of who is
considered eligible for euthanasia. As discussed it is seen that those who have psychological
suffering, and for [those who are] non-terminally ill patients (Saad) can ask for the option of
physician assisted suicide. This causes a huge moral situation that prevents euthanasia to become
legal all around the world. As many believe that suicide is clearly an example of the intentional
killing of a human person. (Lu) and is an unacceptable practice. However, how does one deem
the right to kill or not kill a patient. If we allow disorders such as extreme depression to consider
euthanasia what else would be considered ethical and moral. The obvious place to start is with
the distinctive fact that in suicide the same person is both killer and killed. (Lu). The question
that stands is if this justifies the killing. An argument that is also made about euthanasia is that
doctor-assisted suicide simply is an example of intentional killing (Lu) and though there are
many things that may morally bother people we must question whether society finds this to be
true or false. Some parts of the world have already found this to be false and has gone through
with it. Through its legalization it has been deemed justified, but many will still strongly stand
In conclusion, euthanasia is a topic that will be controversial for the times to come as it is
human nature to find sympathy in those who suffer, and it is also human nature to think about
moral and ethical consequences that may proceed with allowing such an act. Through the
decisions of time we will see whether society changes its ways to become more accepting to
Work Cited
Saad, Toni C. "Euthanasia in Belgium: Legal, Historical and Political Review." Issues in Law &
libproxy.uhcl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth
&AN=125384596&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Lu, Mathew. "On the Moral Wrongness of Suicide: Self-Murder and Euthanasia." Human Life
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=125447877&site=ehost-live.