History and Debate of Euthanasia

Euthanasia is defined as the practice of ending a life prematurely in order to end pain and suffering. The process is also sometimes called Mercy Killing. Euthanasia can fall into several categories. Voluntary Euthanasia is carried out with the permission of the person whose life is taken. Involuntary euthanasia is carried out without permission, such as in the case of a criminal execution. The moral and social questions surrounding these practices are the most active fields of research in Bioethics today.

Many Supreme Court cases, such as Gonzales v. Oregon and Baxter vs. Montana, also surround this issue. Voluntary euthanasia is typically performed when a person is suffering from a terminal illness and is in great pain. When the patient performs this procedure with the help of a doctor, the term assisted suicide is often used. This practice is legal in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg. It is also legal in the state of Oregon, Washington and Montana.

Passive euthanasia is carried out by terminating a medication that is keeping a patient alive or not performing a life-saving procedure. Active euthanasia involves the administration of a lethal drug or otherwise actively ending the life. These two types of procedures carry different moral and social issues. Euthanasia Debate Controversy

There is a lot of controversy surrounding the issue of euthanasia and whether or not it should be legal. From a legal standpoint, the Encyclopedia of American Law categorizes mercy killing as a class of criminal homicide. Judicially, not all homicide is illegal. Killing is seen as excusable when used as a criminal punishment, but inexcusable when carried out for any other reason. In most nations, euthanasia is considered criminal homicide: however, in the jurisdictions mentioned above, it is placed on the other side of the table with criminal punishment. Arguments regarding the euthanasia debate often depend on the method used to take the life of the patient.

The Oregon Death with Dignity Act made it legal for residents to request a lethal injection from a doctor. This is seen in other jurisdictions as being a criminal form of homicide. However, passive euthanasia through denial of drugs or procedures is considered to be legal in almost all jurisdictions. Those who argue for euthanasia feel that there is no difference. Those who are against it disagree. Euthanasia and Religion

Many arguments also hinge on religious beliefs. Many Christians believe that taking a life, for any reason, is interfering with God's plan and is comparable to murder. The most conservative of Christians are against even passive euthanasia. Some religious people do take the other side of the argument and believe that the drugs to end suffering early are God-given and should be used. One of the main groups of people who are involved with the euthanasia debate is physicians.

One survey in the United States recorded the opinions of over 10,000 medical doctors and found that sixteen percent would consider stopping a life-maintaining therapy at the recommendation of family or the patient. Fifty five percent would never do such. The study also found that 46 percent of doctors believe that physician assisted suicide should be allowed in some cases. The controversy surrounding euthanasia involves many aspects of religion, medical and social sciences. As this is one of the most studied fields of bioethics, one can rest assured that more studies will be performed to learn more about this issue and how to best address it. For Euthanasia

Pro 65% of members Comment: Anti-euthanasia laws get in the way of cryogenic preservation, which would be the ideal solution to this issue - if someone has an uncurable condition, you can preserve them until it is curable. Comment: Personal issue for me and I fully believe that voluntary painless death is always greater than prolonged painful suffering when the person is going to die soon anyways Comment: The slippery slope argument against euthanasia can be said for Power of Attorney as well. You would have certain parameters for euthanasia, as you would with anything else. Against Euthanasia

Con 35% of members Comment: You own your body and I'm not stopping you from downing pills; however, no doctor should assist a person in suicide, for it's simply murder. Comment: It is hard to know if the person really wanted to die or they were murdered, and this opens up a series of problems as criminals can potentially get away with this. Comment: A doctor ought to work to save lives, not destroy them.

Only exception I would grant would be in terminal painful illness. Comment: Life is too precious. Voluntary is a slippery slope to involuntary. Comment: If A euthanizes B, then A has committed homicide against B, regardless of whether B 'consented' A to act on B's behalf - A is the agent of B. Although we ought to have the right to die, it should be the right to die by our own hands - not by someone else's.

Comment: It is too subject to abuse by greedy heirs who would urge elders to depart. Might craft an exception for painful illness. Comment: You legalize Euthanasia then you give the gov. the right to kill the sick and elderly. Comment: Morally wrong on humans. For animals, it is very sad but sometimes it is needed. Comment: The death of an innocent human being should not be the responsibility of any man. Suicide is an option, and if someone wants to die, they should do it themselves, not force someone else to bear the burden of having killed an innocent man.

Euthanasia needs to be made legal for those who need it ProMany people die a slow death because the law is against Euthanasia, but why? Why is it so bad if thousands of people beg for it and even go to the courts for the right to die? It is a personal choice and it needs to be made legal.ConI appreciate this debate and look forward to it. First Euthanesia (doctor assisted suicide) Should not be legal due to three main reasons that i will state with sub-topics. The reasons are, Value of human life, it undermines medicine research, its contradicts the right to live.

Value of human life. As stated in the constitution, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life liberty and pursuit of happiness." Euthanasia undermines the human life. Giving doctors the right to assist in suicide is giving power to doctors or to kill. All humans have the right to live. One does not choose his or her birth day, why should one choose his or her death day.

This is a case of right to die versus right to kill. We have a right to die naturally. This is the reason when someone is murdered, the murderer is arrested. Samething in any case where a person does not die naturally. One could argue what about medicine and people who die from overdose and things like that because medicine is not natural. Dying naturally is simply the body not being able to handle whatever is the cause of death. Body not being able to handle medicine, alcohol, etc. Something that is not caused directly by someone else.

Undermines medical researchI understand people suffer. The pain is a big factor in this. Many with natural illnesses or termanlly ill want to die. One thing you have to consider is the medical research society has come to invent. Years ago, society lacked medicine, treatmants and such that temporarily help those who are suffering with their pain. By allowing someone to say "i want to do" and allowing this, the value of the medicine research that has been done to help treat the patient and potentially cure the patient is undermined. Eventually you fall into a society that could view it alright for a doctor to take the liffe of someone who wants to die.

Same thing with suicide which is also illegal. By making this legal, you open a door that says "suicide is ok." Many do not realize that people in critical conditions facing pain are often not in the right mind and suffer a false sense of worthlessness. That person may want to die simply because the pain is unbearable. Many in critical situations are not in the right mind. People whom have attempted suicide sometimes come to realize they do not wanna die, they just want happiness. It is difficult to let someone pursue happniess when we allow one to decide that their life is meaningless.

Contradicts right to live Humans have a right to live. We know this. We do not have a right to die though. If we had a right to die i beleive society would not be as strict on murders. If the right to die was in the Declaration of independence, or Constituion, a murder could simply kill and use the right to die as the reason for the murder. This could open doors for more murders and issues among society. Simply one cannot have a right to die as it is too vague. The right too die could be phrased as right to choose death. As far as it being a slow death, to many that slow death can be worth it to famliy members and others whom are effected directly.

Overall i beleive people should not be allowed to decide that. Curing versus killing is a big part of the right to die. I beleive it should not be allowed because people are not always in the right mind when terminally ill, and often suffer from depression. There can be alternative treatments that prolong eath and can help patients. By offering the right of death it could lead to more people deciding it is better to kill then find a cure. This leads to unreasonable deaths. Report this Argument| |

ProI understand what you are saying that we should not be allowed to take out own lives, but isn't that your choice to make? Why even live in this world if we can't make out own decisions. Yes there could be medicine but what if a person has a disease where medicine doesn't work and euthanasia is the only option? The process of euthanasia is a process with full consent from the patient, and the doctor can't even be in the room when they pass so it is completely the patients choice.

We shouldn't be able to tell someone what they can or can't do. Just think if you were in their shoes, how would you feel if someone was making you live in pain because you wanted to be euthanized and you couldn't do that? It may be seem unconstitutional to most people but its not their decision to make, it's the patients decision and no one else should make it for then. If they want it, they should get and that's how it needs to be. Period.ConRegardless. Once you put down that one can choose to die, what do you do if that does become an issue in the court system and justice system.

Lets sy someone is murdered and the person says that the victim wanted to die, what grants the doctor more powerful than a criminal why should a doctor be able to take the life. If anything the person should be taking his own life. It should be just suicide but this is about Euthanasia.

Rebuttal "what if a person has a disease where medicine doesn't work and euthanasia is the only option?"

Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available.

http://www.ethicsforschools.org...

That is from the site i introduced here.

"We shouldn't be able to tell someone what they can or can't do.

Then you can not establish order or maintain a society. If we should not tell someone what they can or can not do then we should not tell people they can not murder, assault and things of that nature. Regardless of wether it is consensual it is still technically murder. Just as if i have a friend that asks me to kill them and i do then it is murder. Its under the same juristiction.

"how would you feel if someone was making you live in pain because you wanted to be euthanized and you couldn't do that?"

Again it can be noted that doctors dealing with terminally ill patients, notice that the patients suffer from depression and lack of self worth. What if death is not what they want? What if they just want the pain to go away which as stated above can be temporarily aleiviated.

"If they want it, they should get and that's how it needs to be. Period."

This goes along with medical ethics. Doctors are here to help save lives regardless. You still have not show why it "needs to be" like that.

Your argument is based around "if someone is in pain they have the right to end their life." 1. What about suicidal teenagers, adults, kids. You might say "well they are not terminally ill" but, since depression is classified as a mental disorder and one trys to take his or her own life that is the same boundries as terminally ill. That person is gonna try to kill themselves and its a matter of time before they do. So, do we allow it or try to fight it and help it?

If one wanted to go as technical to say "everyone is terminally ill" one could. We are all guranteed to die and that death should be prolonged when it comes to terminally ill patients. Im sure there were millions of people in modern times who wished death could have been prolonged. We should not undermine the research and allow so much power to a doctor in these situations.

My argument stands as 1. It undermines medical research 2. There are ways to allievate the symptoms and fight it 3. Terminally ill patients often suffer from depression (http://jco.ascopubs.org...) 4. Contradicts right to live.

The second link is a study i found interesting that talks about terminally ill patients and how depression plays a huge part in decision making. Report this Argument| | ProI want you to look up who Tony Nicklinson is and tell me why euthanasia was not a legal option for him? It was clearly his choice, and other people(judges and attorneys in the court system) made him live in lockout syndrome even longer. He ended up refusing food and starving himself to death. Your statements saying we need to find better medical research obviously doesnt apply to cases like such, and most patients who want Euthanasia have similar cases.

Going back to what you said, your saying we should make people like Tony Nicklinson live if he doesnt want to anymore? (look him up for a better understanding of his story)Report this ArgumentConThis is not about tony or any specific person. This about offering a process that should not be offered. If you use that argument then why should Tony die. Your overall argument has ignored every point i have made.

I will not reintroduce any new arguments i will respond to what you said however.

Again you have ignored my argument that these patients suffer from depression which can alter their decision. Which could mean maybe tony just needed a happier atmosphere.

Killing him would affect his family. His friends and others. Last minutes should be cherished.

Furthermore your argument is centered around the idea that ""If they want it, they should get and that's how it needs to be. Period." Not whether it is truly needed.

Euthanasia should not be made legal due the key points that my opponent has not refuted. -Undermines medical research -Medicine can be used to prolong and help patients - Patients suffer from depression that could alter decision making

My opponent has not argued what determines whether a patient needs euthanasia and has based his argument strictly on feeling and not other circumstances that are affected

Vote ConReport this Argument| | Copyright © 2013 Debate.org. All rights reserved. Home | About | Blog | Feedback | Privacy | Terms | Help | Site Map http://www.debate.org/debates/Euthanasia-needs-to-be-made-legal-for-those-who-need-it/1/

'Doc, ano po ang Euthanasia?' WHAT'S UP DOC? Ni Dr. Tranquilino Elicaño Jr.  | Updated January 15, 2012 - 12:00am  0  0 googleplus0  0 Magandang araw po, Dr. Elicaño at sa bumubuo ng Pilipino Star NGAYON. Gusto ko lang pong malaman ang kahulugan ng Euthanasia. Kahit na mayroon na akong nabasa sa libro at internet, gusto ko pa ring marinig ang opinion mo ukol dito.Maraming salamat po.” —Maricel Buena, [email protected]

Salamat sa message mo. Ang Euthanasia ay ang pamamaraan ng pagkitil sa isang taong may malubhang karamdaman na hindi na maaari pang gumaling o yung mga tinatawag na “gulay” na o comatose na. Ang salitang Euthanasia ay nangga-ling  sa mga salitang “good and death”. Gusto ko lamang i-emphasize na isasagawa lamang ang Euthanasia kapag ang taong may mabigat na sakit ay hiniling sa doctor ganoon din sa kanyang mga kamag-anak na kitilin na ang kanyang buhay.

Ang active Euthanasia ay mahigpit na ipinagbabawal sa maraming bansa. Sabi ng religious groups ito ay malinaw na pagsu-suicide o murder kaya isang immoral. Gayunman marami ang nagsasabing mas mabuti ang Euthanasia sapagkat natatahimik na ang tao kaysa ha-yaan itong buhay pero “comatose” na. Isa sa mga paraan ng pagsasagawa ng Euthanasia ay ang pag-aalis ng medical treatment. Hahayaan ang pasyente na mamatay naturally at ito ay legal sa batas.

Mahirap magdesisyon para sa pamilya ng pasyente. Nagbibigay ito ng pagkabahala at hindi malaman ng bawat isa kung tama bang kitilin na ang buhay ng pasyente. Mayroong  iba na hindi itinutuloy ang balak at hinahayaan na lamang ang pasyente sa sitwasyong nakaratay ito at hintayin ang oras ng pagkawala ng hininga o pagtibok ng puso. http://www.philstar.com/opinyon/767592/doc-ano-po-ang-euthanasia

eutanasya..tumatalakay sa pagwakas ng buhay ng isang tao sa isang paraan na hindi na sya makararanas pa ng sakit,, ginagawa lang ito sa mga taong hindi na kayang tumagal pa sa sakit na nadarama nila.. at ito ay ginagawa lamang kung hiniling ng pasyente o ngf pamilya nito.. ang EUTHANASIA" ay pagpatay sa taong wala ng pag-asang mabuhay dahil sa matinding karamdaman....

--tumatalakay ito sa pagwakas ng buhay ng tao sa isang paraan na hindi na siya makararanas pa ng sakit. --ginagawa lang ito sa mga taong hindi na kayang tumagal pa sa sakit na nadarama.."EUTHANASIA"

Bottom of Form Pabor ba kayo na ang voluntary euthanasia (or good death) ay maging legal dito sa Pilipinas? | posted July 11, 2012 09:52AM

* The proponents of voluntary euthanasia say that the voluntary euthanasia should be legalized because people have their own right to make the decision for their own lives. Pag alam nila na ang sakit nila ay talagang malala na at wala na silang pag-asang gumaling, pwede silang pumili na tapusin na yung buhay nila para maiwasan ang di kanais nais na pagdurusa. At the same time, they don’t have to bring burden to the family as well as the society. By doing so, they don’t bring any harm to others, but they can rather contribute to the betterment of the life of other people.

However, others may argue that life is so important, so we should respect and revere life. kahit na nahihirapan na ang tao.

The right to a life is universally guaranteed. It is not right at all to kill an innocent person. It is sacred and only God can decide when to take a person’s life. We are to preserve and take care of life because it is just lend by God. What would people say about our society when we kill the terminal ill before their age? Don’t we have compassion on the dying person? Don’t the families want to show love and care for the dying family member?            ano po sa palagay ninyo? Should voluntary euthanasia (or good death) be legalized in our country? maraming salamat po.| * | @bjram : i agree, although mukha nangayayari na ata siya, kasi uso na sa iba un tinatangalan na lang ng life support esp un mga coma patients.

* | ang Diyos ang lumikha sa atin....anuman ang ating pagdurusa sa buhay..wala tayung ni kahit konting karapatan na tapusin ang ating buhay..o maging myembro ng ating pamilya dahil lamang sa sya o tayo`y naghihirap sa karamdaman.Sapagkat inialay ng Panginoon Diyos ang kanyang Anak na si Jesus..para lamang sa ating mga Buhay..kaya sya lamang ang may karapatan sa lahat..higit sa ating Buhay.... Ang batas minsan ng Tao hndi lahat ay tama.pero mas marami pang sumusunod dito kesa sa kautusan ng Panginoon.

Mahal tayo ng Panginoon Jesus..isinakripisyo nya ang kanyang buhay inalay nya ang kanyang Banal na Dugo at Laman upang tayo ay hndi mapahamak. ang sumusunod sa kautusan lamang ng Gobyerno o ng Tao...ay Mang mang sa salita ng Diyos..maling mali ito. Sumunod po tayu sa kautusan ng ating Dakilang DIYOS!! GODBLESS U ALL. | |

Actually, nangyayari na yang good death sa pinas. Doon sa mga kawawang nilalang na wala nang pambayad sa ospital at doctor. Ospital na mismo ang nagde-decide dahil wala rin silang mapapala kung wala kang perang ibabayad.

Pero sa mga taong may kakayanang magbayad, ay pilit kang binubuhay ng mga doctor, at binibigyan ng pag-asa ang family member kahit wala na talagang pag-asa. sabi nga ng iba, pera-pera-lang yan.

Kahit patay na , sasabihin lang ng doktor, na coma lang, natutulog lang, tapos binibigyan ng life support na kung anu-ano. Dahil doon sila kumikita. Lahat ng gadget na gagamitin para sa taong binibigyan ng life support ay napakamahal ng charge at per hour pa, especially sa mga mamahaling hospital.

I remember, I paid 300k for my apo in a private hospital, kesyo mahina raw yong bata na kapapanganak lang. kesyo inarkila pa raw yong oxygen sa kabilang hospital, kesyo especialista raw yong doktao na galing pa raw sa asian hospital.

Samantalang yung isang apo na araw lang ang pagitan nang ipinanganak, at sa clinik lang, ay gumastos lang kami ng 5k.

Kaya huwag na wag ninyon ipapaalam sa ospital na abroad ang isa sa pamilya nyo at tiyak na mahuhuldap kayo, ang bata kahit walang sakit, binibigyan ng sakit. | bjram posted on July 11, 2012 09:52AM

The proponents of voluntary euthanasia say that the voluntary euthanasia should be legalized because people have their own right to make the decision for their own lives. Pag alam nila na ang sakit nila ay talagang malala na at wala na silang pag-asang gumaling, pwede silang pumili na tapusin na yung buhay nila para maiwasan ang di kanais nais na pagdurusa. At the same time, they don’t have to bring burden to the family as well as the society. By doing so, they don’t bring any harm to others, but they can rather contribute to the betterment of the life of other people.

However, others may argue that life is so important, so we should respect and revere life. kahit na nahihirapan na ang tao. The right to a life is universally guaranteed. It is not right at all to kill an innocent person. It is sacred and only God can decide when to take a person’s life. We are to preserve and take care of life because it is just lend by God.

What would people say about our society when we kill the terminal ill before their age? Don’t we have compassion on the dying person? Don’t the families want to show love and care for the dying family member?            ano po sa palagay ninyo? Should voluntary euthanasia (or good death) be legalized in our country? maraming salamat po.parang mahirapan sa atin maging batas yan ang alam ko kasi na euthanasia clinic na approved ay yun sa switzerland dignitas pero kung yun yan naman ay tungkol sa pagtanggal ng aparato sa mga brain dead na comatose hindi naman na kailangan ng batas kasi waiver lang naman katapat nununiversal right yan - voluntary euthanasia

but in cases where the patient is already comatose and cannot decide for himself, his ascendants, descendants, or collateral may decide for him.. However, in the absence of a relative, an advanced directive that is notarized will be useful for the doctor to apply euthanasia legally. Kawawa kasi ang mga doctors pagdating sa issue na ito dahil pwede silang sampahan ng kaso with either letting the patient live or letting the patient die depending upon the situation.

However again, in the absence of any advanced directive and relatives, the state has the right to decide..

in cases where the patient is still able to decide, he has the right to die. It is only here in the Philippines where it seems like a patient has no right to die.

Therefore, my answer is yes! | We have similar situation po, my dad passed away in 2007 because of so many complications. Yes it is really hard to see your loved one die in front of you. Darn I missed my dad so much! But it is easier to put it in a way that your loved one is better dead rather than alive because of his condition.Yes, truly, doctors had taken oath to do no harm, but in critical cases wherein the patient can no longer sustain his financial resources for his illness, it is ethical to apply euthanasia, considering the family's decision or the patient's decision. It is useless to prolong the agony of an individual if there is no more way to improve his quality of life.|