Scribd
Upload
6 views

Euthanasia

Euthanasia refers to the intentional ending of a person's life to relieve unbearable suffering, particularly from terminal illnesses, and can be categorized by consent (voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary) and method (active, passive). Proponents argue for autonomy and relief from suffering, while opponents raise moral objections and concerns about potential abuse and the impact on the medical profession. The ethical debate surrounding euthanasia is complex, involving deeply held beliefs about life, suffering, and the role of healthcare providers.

Uploaded by

lauradunia13
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views

Euthanasia

Euthanasia refers to the intentional ending of a person's life to relieve unbearable suffering, particularly from terminal illnesses, and can be categorized by consent (voluntary, non-voluntary, involuntary) and method (active, passive). Proponents argue for autonomy and relief from suffering, while opponents raise moral objections and concerns about potential abuse and the impact on the medical profession. The ethical debate surrounding euthanasia is complex, involving deeply held beliefs about life, suffering, and the role of healthcare providers.

Uploaded by

lauradunia13
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Euthanasia: Meaning, Types, and Ethical Debate

1. What is Euthanasia?
Euthanasia, from the Greek eu (good) and thanatos (death), originally meant a
peaceful death. Today, it refers to intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve
unbearable suffering, especially from terminal illness—often called “mercy killing.”

According to the Oxford Dictionary and the American Medical Association, it


involves painless death for those with incurable, painful conditions.

The main goal of euthanasia is to ease suffering when no other treatment helps,
emphasizing the value of autonomy—the right to choose how and when to die.

Example: A person suffering from a degenerative disease like ALS, who can no
longer speak, move, or eat, and is in constant pain, may choose euthanasia to end their
suffering peacefully and maintain some control over their end-of-life experience.

2. Different Types of Euthanasia


Euthanasia can be categorized based on consent and method.

A. Based on Consent:
1. Voluntary Euthanasia:
This occurs when a patient explicitly requests euthanasia. The person is mentally
competent and chooses death over prolonged suffering. Voluntary euthanasia also
includes cases where the patient, while still healthy, makes a written request in case
they lose mental capacity in the future.
Example: A terminal cancer patient signs legal forms requesting euthanasia when pain
becomes unbearable.

2. Non-voluntary Euthanasia:
In this case, the patient cannot provide consent—often due to unconsciousness,
infancy, or severe mental disability. The decision is made by family members or
doctors, based on what they believe the patient would have wanted.
Example: A newborn with a fatal genetic disorder is given non-voluntary euthanasia
to prevent needless suffering.

3. Involuntary Euthanasia:
This happens when a person is capable of giving consent but is not asked or refuses,
yet euthanasia is still carried out. Though the intention might be to relieve suffering, it
is ethically controversial because it disregards the patient’s choice.
Example: Ending the life of a conscious patient who does not wish to die, based on
the assumption that it's for their own good.
B. Based on Method:
1. Active Euthanasia:
This involves direct action to end a person’s life, such as administering a lethal
injection.
Example: A doctor injects a terminally ill patient with a fatal dose of medication to
end their pain.

2. Passive Euthanasia:
This is the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment, allowing the person
to die naturally.
Example: Turning off a ventilator in a patient who has no chance of recovery.

The key difference is that active euthanasia involves doing something to cause death,
while passive euthanasia involves not doing something that would have prolonged
life.

3. Arguments For and Against Euthanasia

Arguments in Favor of Euthanasia


Supporters of euthanasia emphasize the importance of autonomy—the idea that
individuals should have control over their own lives, including how and when they
die. If a terminally ill person, after careful reflection, chooses to end their life to avoid
unbearable suffering, their decision should be respected. They argue that forcing
someone to endure prolonged pain, especially when there is no hope of recovery, is
inhumane.

Another central argument is the relief of suffering. Modern medicine cannot always
eliminate pain, and for some patients, especially those with terminal conditions,
euthanasia may be the only way to end their agony. In such cases, death is not seen as
harm, but as a compassionate response to relentless suffering. Countries like the
Netherlands allow euthanasia under strict legal guidelines to ensure that it is used
ethically and only when truly necessary.

Some also argue from a practical perspective. Keeping a terminally ill patient alive
through extensive medical intervention can be emotionally draining for the family and
a strain on healthcare resources. Euthanasia may sometimes be seen as a more
humane and responsible choice when all other options have been exhausted.

Arguments Against Euthanasia


Opponents argue that taking a life is inherently wrong, no matter the circumstances.
Many religious and moral traditions—such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—see
life as sacred and believe that ending it intentionally is a grave moral violation. From
this perspective, even mercy cannot justify killing.

Another concern is the “slippery slope” argument. Legalizing euthanasia, even in


tightly controlled situations, might open the door to abuse. Vulnerable patients—like
the elderly or disabled—could be pressured into choosing euthanasia out of guilt,
coercion, or neglect. This could erode society’s respect for the lives of those who are
most in need of care and protection.

Critics also warn about the impact on the medical profession. The role of doctors has
always been to heal and preserve life. Involving them in ending lives may damage the
trust between patients and healthcare providers. The Hippocratic Oath, traditionally
taken by physicians, explicitly prohibits giving a deadly drug, even if requested. Even
though some modern versions of the oath have evolved, many still view euthanasia as
incompatible with the physician’s duty to “do no harm.”

You might also like