This paper “Debate for Australia euthanasia” will show why the majority have prevailed to have euthanasia remain illegal but also the logic and strength of those who argue for the legalization of the same. It has been argued that legalization of euthanasia will lead to disrespect for human life…
The same view is held by the Islamic religion (Bulow et al., 2008). Therefore, the opponents view legalization of euthanasia as being immoral and against God’s commandment since it does not sanctify life. However, the proponents have responded by arguing that legalizing euthanasia will actually uphold human dignity. They have argued that no person should be allowed to undergo torture from terminal illness. Such continuous pain, they have pointed out, which medicine has no control over degrades human dignity and defeats the very logic for continuing to live. Therefore, euthanasia will do more good than harm (Norval & Gwyther, 2003). In addition, they have also said that the society is built on fundamental values of compassion and mercy. The society should therefore rise to the occasion and help the terminally ill from suffering unbearably without any help (Norval & Gwyther, 2003). Euthanasia as murder versus right-based arguments The opponents have viewed legalization of euthanasia has a commission to commit murder. They have argued that any action intended to take away another person’s life is inherently wrong and should never be allowed even if the victim has given the consent (Somerville, 2003). Euthanasia has therefore been viewed has killing of other human beings and fervently opposed on those grounds. On the other hand, the proponents have made an argument against this view by pointing out to the principles of autonomy and self-determination. The argument has been that a patient has a right to his or her life and therefore can determine on how he or she should die (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010; Kerridge, Lowe & Stewart, 2009). The autonomy principle allows...
The argument has been that a patient has a right to his or her life and therefore can determine on how he or she should die (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010; Kerridge, Lowe & Stewart, 2009). The autonomy principle allows a patient of sound mind to make any decision pertaining to his or her life as long as such a decision does nobody any harm (Norval & Gwyther, 2003). Along this line, it is argued that a patient has a right to determine when he or she no longer wants to live. It is further argued that, due to the principle of autonomy, a patient has a right to his or her own decisions and equally a right to a dignified death (Bartels & Otlowski, 2010). In general, the proponents argue that by patients being denied the right to euthanasia, the society is actually tramping upon their (patients’) rights and forcing decisions on them (patients) which they (patients) do not necessarily ascribe to. In other word, the insistence on the sustenance of the status quo in reference to legalization of euthanasia is a continued violation of patients’ rights and thus those of human rights. How have the opponents responded to these accusations of violating human rights specifically the principles of autonomy? The proponents have come out strongly and fiercely claiming that actually allowing euthanasia is an abuse of autonomy and human rights contrary to what the proponents have said. The opponents have argued that the principle of autonomy advocates for conditions that favor autonomy. Any attempt to suppress any condition. ...
Cite this document
(“Debate for Australia euthanasia Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/nursing/91696-debate-for-australia-euthanasia
(Debate for Australia Euthanasia Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 Words)
“Debate for Australia Euthanasia Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/nursing/91696-debate-for-australia-euthanasia.
Euthanasia is Greek for “happy death,” and involves the active killing of another because one's life is not worth living. The practice has been widely legalized throughout Europe, although the United States has yet to legalize it.
Euthanasia is commonly referred as ‘mercy killing’ or a ‘good death’. It entails bringing about the death of a patient in belief that the existence of the patient is so bad that he or she is better off dead than alive.
Euthanasia in Australia Introduction The ethics of euthanasia has been debated for quite some time in Australia. Though certain territories of Australia managed to legalise the same for a short time; presently, euthanasia is illegal in all territories of Australia.
Law and Euthanasia.
Terminal illness or disease is a medical term that found its popularity in the 20th century. Terminal illness is regarded as a disease that cannot be cured; therefore, patients suffering such diseases are bound to die specifically within a very short period (Keown, 2002; Pg.
They are illegal in many jurisdictions but data shows that physicians still conduct these procedures. This paper reviewed existing literature on the controversy as to the practices and identified the need for legalization of physically assisted death within the context of the involved ethical concerns and public utility.
Life is valued but in certain conditions when it is extremely painful or intolerable, the word euthanasia that is merciful end of life comes to the minds of patients, their families, or medical authorities. The aim of this essay is to discuss euthanasia, definition, types, religious, cultural, and ethical debate, to reach a conclusion of how and when euthanasia can be ethical (if ever).
Legislative discussions for permitting active euthanasia in various countries have been repeatedly debated among their politicians, jurists, ethicists and even medical practitioners often resulting in drastic to insignificant or ambiguous changes in the concerned country’s legal framework.
death free of anxiety and pain brought about through the use of medication or deliberately putting an end to someone’s life in order to spare the individual from suffering”. Euthanasia is therefore believed to be beneficial to the person on whom it is brought about because