Euthanasia and Medical Ethics
This is an excerpt from the paper...
One of the principal questions in contemporary medical ethics that bleeds into societal morality is the question of euthanasia. Should modern medicine do all it can to save a patient, or should quality of life issues enter into the question? What is the moral balance between preserving life and preventing a once vital human from remaining comatose, sometimes for years? Should religious beliefs prevent medical professionals from helping to ease the pain and suffering of prolonged treatment in a terminally ill patient? These are but some of the difficult questions surrounding the debate on the subject of euthanasia. This paper will present an overview of the major issues on the subject, give both the pro and con sides of the argument, and conclude with a synthesis of the dilemmas faced by both health professionals and society at large.At the basis of the traditional view on euthanasia lies Christian teaching. Christianity teaches that every human was created in the image of God, therefore all human life is sacred and cannot be taken except by God (Rachels 3). However, a variety of variables exist within the issue of life. For instance, capital punishment is traditionally sanctioned, yet mercy killing is considered anathema. There are also issues involved as to killing people or letting them die. The medical ethics involved in keeping people alive who are permanently damaged with no hope of recovery may clearly change the conception of the Judeo Christian tradition
. . .
at it is at least important to identify the type of life a terminally ill or injured person might be subject to before making any generalized judgments on the right to die (Munk; Weir, ed.).
Another important issue is that of a patient's decision to decline certain aspects of medical treatment, or even to refuse food. Typically, the State enters into this situation in order "to protect the patient from themselves." However, the legal climate has changed within the past two decades, and is now more supportive of the individual right to decide for themselves whether they wish to continue treatment for a terminal illness. The issue of patient suicide is also included in this argument, for some individuals opt to end their own lives at the time of their choice rather than to wait for an illness to progress. Although it is legally difficult to prove whether a patient suffering a terminal illness is of "sound mind," it is evident that "deference to the patient's refusal treatment reflects sensitivity toward personal interests in bodily integrity and self determination . . ." (Cantor in Weir 269). In this sense, there is a considerable difference between "being alive" and "having a life," with the later clearly offering the prefer
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Arthur Dyck, Weir Finally, , Capron Public, Munk Weir, Singh Adams, God Rachels, Fletcher Moreover, Cantor Weir, United Various, quality life, life support systems, rachels 166, terminal illness, sanctity life, capital punishment, medical professionals, terminally ill, life death, quality life issues, question rachels, support systems elderly, public attitudes,
Approximate Word count = 1525
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Euthanasia and Medical Ethics
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
