| Papers [1-16] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "MEDICAL EUTHANASIA": |
|
|
Medical Euthanasia, 2006.
This paper discusses the contention that medical euthanasia should not be tolerated or legitimised for the simple reason that conduct designed to bring about the end of a life is the antithesis of proper medicine.
2,452 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 19 sources, APA, AU$ 107.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay opens by outlining three distinct categories of euthanasia: active (where a life is taken through positive action such as injecting a patient with a lethal substance); passive (the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment from the patient, thus resulting in their accelerated death); and assisted suicide (when the patient by his or herself commits the last act necessary to cause his/her immediate death, but is actively assisted by another in the process). Each category is then discussed separately with the conclusion raising the issue of whether euthanasia should be considered a medical act at all. The writer concludes that whilst there exist several key arguments to suggest that active euthanasia, which is akin to an act of murder, does indeed appear to be entirely inconsistent to the practice of proper medicine, this is clearly not the case as regards passive euthanasia.
Outline:
Abstract
Active Euthanasia
Assisted Suicide
Passive Euthanasia
Conclusion
From the Paper
"A further argument in support of the contention that active euthanasia should not be legitimised on the basis that it represents the antithesis to proper medicine arises in relation to the submission that it is a 'lazy option' to the use of proper treatment and care. This the argument of Dr. Patrick Dixon, who points out that, whilst countries such as the UK have developed a considerable hospice system for the terminally ill, with around 160,000 people per year being visited by home care teams, this is not the case in the likes of the Netherlands, where hospice care is relatively poor and where, of course, euthanasia is widely practiced . An additional argument following this line of reasoning suggests that palliative care in general will not continue to develop under a regime of legalised euthanasia, precisely because the latter will always be taken as an alternative to the former."
| |
|
Death and Dying: A Medical Perspective, 2004.
A look at some of the significant clinical, ethical, and legal considerations concerning euthanasia.
9,387 words (approx. 37.5 pages), 21 sources, MLA, AU$ 279.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how death has become more clinical and more involved with medical intervention and how, as such, it has been removed from our everyday lives. It discusses how medical professionals of every kind must deal with death and dying issues on a daily basis. It provides a literature review covering aspects of of euthanasia, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and living wills. The common themes identified in studies in end-of-life decisions are discussed and analyzed, and conclusions are reached.
Outline
Introduction
Abstract
Euthanasia
Ending a Patient?s Life
Patient?s Choice: Consent/Autonomy
Living Wills
Do Doctors Really Act Beneficently?
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Do the patient?s desires have any bearing on the outcome of the case? Can the patient be considered to have given informed consent in the matter of the administration of a lethal dose of a lethal drug? In the United Kingdom, all medical professionals are bound by very strict rules regarding informed consent. All patients are considered to be competent to provide consent unless they demonstrate otherwise. In all cases, the medical professional must ask themselves if the patient can understand the decisions being recommended and make a proper decision with the information which has been provided. It must also be understood that a patient who refuses treatment or makes an unexpected decision when full information has been given is not necessarily incompetent, but an unexpected decision may show the need for further explanation by the professional."
| |
|
Withdrawing and Withholding of Medical Treatment, 2004.
This paper is a literature review discussing the withdrawing and withholding of medical treatment in adult intensive care (ICU).
1,545 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 25 sources, MLA, AU$ 73.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses that withholding and withdrawing treatment appears to be more acceptable to physicians than that of shortening life. The author defines ?withholding treatment? as the decision either not to start or not to increase treatments that may sustain life, while ?withdrawing treatment? is defined as removing a life-sustaining intervention that is being used on a patient; ?active shortening? of the dying process is an act specifically performed to end life, such as an intentional overdose, which is not ?active euthanasia? because most ICU patients can not actively participate in the decision. The paper points out that the role of law is to articulate the minimum standards that professionals must achieve in the care of patients.
Table of Contents
Definition
Geographical Perspective
Ethics and Legal Considerations
Law and the Withholding or Withdrawal of Care
Physicians Personal Perspective
Summary
From the Paper
"For example, in the United States, the care of patients at the end of their lives has become care that actively involves the patient, or if the patient is unable to participate in the decision making process, those family members who hold power of attorney to make such decisions for them. In North America, there is a trend toward earlier abandonment of life sustaining therapies. In Europe, active euthanasia is common in the Netherlands and Belgium although it is practiced legally in only one European country. The overall incidence of the withdrawal of life sustaining measures in European ICUs is not known, although withholding and withdrawing life support is actively used by most European intensivists, shortening of the dying process remains rare."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2004.
A discussion of why euthanasia is medically, religiously, ethically, and morally wrong.
1,492 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 7 sources, MLA, AU$ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how euthanasia is a delicate ?life and death? issue that evokes passionate arguments both for and against its legalization. It looks at how proponents of euthanasia look at the issue as a compassionate act and want euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide to be legalized and how a number of seemingly valid arguments have been advanced in support of making euthanasia legal. It shows how a closer scrutiny of the medical, religious, and ethical arguments, however, reveals that, on balance, the disadvantages of making euthanasia legal far outweigh the supposed benefits of such a move.
From the Paper
"From a religious perspective, most major religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism believe that God gives life and therefore only God should take it away. Most religious people and faith groups consider suicide, euthanasia and assisted suicide and euthanasia ?as a rejection of God?s sovereignty? and are some of the most committed groups that oppose the legalization of euthanasia. According to the Christian belief, life is a gift from God, and that ?each individual [is] its steward.? Thus, only God can start a life, and only God should be allowed to end it. This belief further stipulates that God does not send us any experience that we cannot handle and He supports people in suffering; therefore to actively seek to end to one?s life amounts to lack of trust in God?s promise and such an act is considered as a cardinal sin."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2005.
This paper examines some political, social and economic considerations in opposition to the practice of euthanasia.
2,735 words (approx. 10.9 pages), 4 sources, MLA, AU$ 117.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the results of euthanasia being legalized since 1969 in the Netherlands as an example of the impact euthanasia can have on a society and concludes that, although the majority of the euthanasia cases in the Netherlands involved terminally ill patients, there also were rampant abuses of the system by doctors violating the procedures. The author points out that euthanasia does not increase the rights of the patient but rather increases the rights of doctors because, in the Netherlands, many patients were killed without their consent. The paper concludes that, unlike in Canada or Europe where medical
care is automatically provided to everyone, in the U.S. millions of people cannot afford medical insurance or even medical care; if euthanasia or assisted suicide were to become accepted in the U.S., death might be the only "medical option" many could afford. Many long quotations.
From the Paper
"Back in the days of the Middle Ages, aristocratic families would throw blanket parties when a member of the family became top feeble to take care of themselves. They would throw a pile of blankets on the victim, jump on top of the blankets and drink wine. Thus, euthanasia is not a new idea. It has been around in many different forms for thousands of years. Some call it mercy killing, or dying with dignity, but others are vehemently opposed to it on moral grounds. Webster's defines Euthanasia as "a practice of putting to death in a painless manner one suffering from fatal disease or disability; a painless death.""
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2002.
Analyzes the ethical, medical and social aspects of euthanasia.
2,677 words (approx. 10.7 pages), 15 sources, MLA, AU$ 116.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Euthanasia is the deliberate ending of life or the hastening of death of the patient. Over the last few years Euthanasia has become a much-debated topic, not only in the medical circles but also in the legal and the social domains. The paper shows that when looking into the topic of mercy killing we find that it is the ?fear factor? which underlies both sides of euthanasia debate. While from the patients perspective it is the fear of unbearable pain that cannot be assuaged, the embarrassment of dependence and the feeling of worthlessness and loss of self love. From the other angle we have a fear of doctors and the possibility of the abuse of the power. This paper analyzes the issue from ethical, social and medical perspectives and ultimately argues against the legalization of euthanasia.
From the Paper
"Euthanasia seems to be the only solution for the patient to escape from the clutches of unbearable and medically interminable illness and pain. For old people who are suffering miserably in the last stages of their life without any sort of control over their agonizing condition, it indeed seems rightful to assist them to rest peacefully once and for all by Euthanasia. The Pro Euthanasia groups argue that unless we are only considered with prolonging life without any consideration for the quality of the life and the costs that might be incurred we have to start thinking about the decisions that affect the end of life. In other words when the quality and the length of prolonged life do not go together we have to make some kind of a practical decision. The argument is that there is no point in simply sustaining a terminally ill patient and increasing his suffering without any hope of recovery. The justification for Euthanasia lies in the fact that the either the ?burden of the treatment' or the distress and the disability of the prolonged life do not merit the sustenance of the patient. Euthanasia is best advised in severe and chronic cases where condition seems to deteriorate day by day and the patient expresses a sincere wish to end the unbearable agony."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2002.
An explanation of the current debate on euthanasia and the arguments for and against it.
2,709 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 15 sources, MLA, AU$ 117.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the medical, legal, and ethical aspects of the euthanasia debate. The writer offers a number of scenarios and analyzes the best possible outcome for the patient, offering alternatives to euthanasia, as well.
Contents
Introduction
Euthanasia and the Different types
Passive and Active Euthanasia
Voluntary and Involuntary Euthanasia
Euthanasia (the appropriate Solution)
Dependency Vs Autonomy
Euthanasia (Not a Right Solution)
Palliative Care
Euthanasia (Medical perspective)
Euthanasia a Legal perspective
The Danger in Legalizing
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Euthanasia is a combination of two Greek words Eu (easy, painless or happy) and ?thanatos? meaning death. So the essential meaning of the term Euthanasia is painfree and happy end to life. So Euthanasia is the term for the act of delivering the suffering patient from his troubles by putting him to death. In other words it is nothing but physician assisted suicide (PAS). [Michigan Technological University]. There are basically two different forms of Euthanasia namely Active or Passive Euthanasia and Voluntary or involuntary Euthanasia."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2007.
A look at the sensitive issue of euthanasia and a discussion regarding the issues surrounding life and death.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 83.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the controversial issue of euthanasia. According to the paper such an idea seems to be the opposite of sensible thinking, especially at a time when medical miracles seem to occur every day. However, the paper further discusses how some people feel that it is those medical miracles that cause euthanasia to be a desirable option for some people, because these medical miracles can extend life beyond the point where life is tolerable.
From the Paper
"There is no doubt that we must have some curbs on personal freedom. For instance, the United States actively supports freedom of speech, but that freedom ends if it holds the potential to harm others. Therefore we can give a speech criticizing government policy, but we cannot go into a crowded movie theater and shout "Fire!" just because we felt like it. The other people's reactions to the danger a fire in a crowded theater represents could result in injuries, not to mention interfering with their right to freedom of speech as expressed by their choice to watch that movie.
However, over the centuries, both personal and legal opinions of where the line must be drawn curbing personal freedoms has shifted on a variety of issues. Seventy-five years ago, homosexual acts constituted criminal behavior. At one time such an interpretation was widely accepted although today the great majority of people believe that people's sexual behavior is nearly always no business of the government's."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2006.
An examination of legal, moral and medical issues involved in euthanasia.
1,410 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 5 sources, MLA, AU$ 67.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the issue of euthanasia. The author begins by discussing Dr. Jack Kevorkian and his court room trials for assisted suicide and then briefly looks at U.S. state law regarding euthanasia. The author also provides a comparison between passive and active euthanasia and reviews some of the many myths about euthanasia. It concludes with a study of the varying reasons people oppose euthanasia, including the author's personal feelings on the subject.
From the Paper
"The people who are against euthanasia give several reasons for their belief. They believe that family members will talk their elderly relatives into euthanasia, so they can have their inheritance. Or they will withdraw food and drink per relative request. Or it will eventually turn into a situation where doctors and such can decide when it is time for a person to die. Even if the request is genuine, they believe that counseling will help. There is no difference between a well person wanting to die, then a sick. The only thing is one has a mental illness, and the other has a physical ailment. They are not saying that doctors should try everything in the world to keep a person a live. They believe that is inhumane. What they are saying is don't help a person die (Johansen, 1-3)."
| |
|
Euthanasia: Whose Choice Should it Be?, 1999.
This paper analyzes ideas for and against euthanasia and then argues why euthanasia should be a choice for everyone.
2,031 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 6 sources, MLA, AU$ 93.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article the writer discusses and explains the different forms of euthanasia. The writer looks at both sides of the euthanasia argument. The writer notes that those in favor of euthanasia bring up the comparison of passive euthanasia to active euthanasia and then discusses the differences. The writer covers issues such as doctor-assisted suicide and voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. In conclusion, the writer argues that euthanasia is ethically, morally and, should be, legally right for people whose medical condition is terminal, and whose suffering and hardship outweigh the benefit of trying to prolong their life.
From the Paper
"Euthanasia has three sub-categories that can go along with either the passive or active definition. These include voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary. The firs sub-category is voluntary. This simply enough means that the patient willingly and capably made the choice. The second sub-category is involuntary. Involuntary, on the other hand, means that the choice was made without the patient's approval, who is otherwise capable of making the decision. Non-voluntary refers to the choice being made for an incompetent patient who is not believed to be capable of making the choice for himself. These three sub-categories play a major factor in how euthanasia is viewed and determined legally."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2005.
This paper argues that doctor assisted suicide in the form of passive euthanasia and sometimes active euthanasia should be legalized.
995 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 3 sources, MLA, AU$ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that doctor assisted suicide in the form of passive euthanasia should be legalized on the primary basis that human suffering should not be prolonged by medical science simply to extend physical life. The author stresses that terminally ill human beings have the inherent right to refuse medical treatment because they are the moral guardians of their own lives and the ultimate authority to be considered---not doctors, lawyers, insurance companies nor the government. The paper suggests that priorities have to be established in circumstances involving contending rights; in right-to-die issues, the highest priority should be the emotional, psychological and physical well-being of the person faced with inevitable death.
From the Paper
"This moral argument offered by opponents of doctor assisted suicide is of particular interest, for many of these groups explicitly assert that morality includes physical causality and moral culpability. It holds that active euthanasia establishes the physical causality of the physician, while passive euthanasia establishes the physical causality of the disease itself. In other words, in active and passive euthanasia the moral culpability remains the same, that is, it is in the hands of the physician. This is the due to the fact that the physician has the duty and the moral obligation to keep the patient alive. While these two separate worlds within the moral realm may cross in some places, it does not mean that they are one and the same, and this is one of the many reasons that the distinction should not be abolished."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2005.
Presents arguments in opposition of mercy killing.
2,200 words (approx. 8.8 pages), 8 sources, APA, AU$ 99.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Euthanasia or "mercy killing" is a life and death issue. Recent advances in medical sciences that have conquered many previously incurable diseases and greatly extended human life spans, make the issue more relevant today than ever before. As a result, euthanasia continues to evoke heated debate among doctors, philosophers, academicians, lawyers and the general public, with well meaning people taking committed positions both for and against the issue. The paper shows that proponents of "mercy killing" look at the issue as a compassionate act and advance a number of seemingly valid arguments in support of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Opponents of euthanasia, on the other hand, advance equally compelling arguments against taking of lives, irrespective of the justification. The author of this paper, despite sympathizing with some pro-arguments, is firmly against the practice of euthanasia for a number of medical, religious, ethical and moral reasons. Besides presenting these arguments in the essay, the paper examines some of the major arguments in favor of euthanasia and shows why they are misplaced.
Paper Outline:
Abstract
Some Relevant Definitions
Types of Euthanasia
Arguments for Euthanasia and their Rebuttal
Further Arguments Against Euthanasia
Possible Abuses of Legalized Euthanasia
References
From the Paper
"Even when it is not possible to eliminate pain entirely, lessening it to a manageable level is almost always possible. In the present day and age, if a person's pain cannot be relieved sufficiently, it is almost certainly due to inappropriate treatment due to inadequate access to the required medical facilities and/or inadequately trained doctors in palliative care. The problem, therefore, that needs to be tackled is the lack of proper pain management training for doctors and access to adequate medical coverage for everyone, rather than access to legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide. (Foley, 1997)."
| |
|
Voluntary Euthanasia in the United Kingdom, 2004.
This paper is an extensive discussion of voluntary euthanasia in the United Kingdom based on secondary research.
13,785 words (approx. 55.1 pages), 36 sources, APA, AU$ 360.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper focuses on voluntary euthanasia, euthanasia in which a clearly competent person makes a voluntary request for assistance in dying, which is different from non-voluntary euthanasia because, in this case, a person is either not competent or unable to express a wish about euthanasia. The author points out that many critics believe permitting voluntary euthanasia, which is supported by many people, will lead to permitting non-voluntary euthanasia. The paper states that, in the United Kingdom, physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia is illegal, but euthanasia was legalized in certain circumstances in the Netherlands in 1994, in the Northern Territory of Australia in 1997, and, in November 1997, Oregon voters approved the Death with Dignity Act (DWDA); the United Kingdom also should legalize a humane death.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Hypothesis
Literature Review
Legalized Euthanasia
About Euthanasia
United Kingdom Law
A Look at the Issue
Conditions for Candidacy for Voluntary Euthanasia
A Case for Voluntary Euthanasia
Objections to Voluntary Euthanasia
A Closer Look at U.K. Legislation
The Importance of Autonomy and Consent
Methodology
Results and Conclusion
From the Paper
"Many religious groups oppose euthanasia because it goes against their faiths. Thomas Aquinas documented traditional Christian beliefs on the issue of suicide (Gula, 1997). Suicide was condemned because it harms other people, and because life is the gift of God and can only taken away by God. Muslims, and Jewish are amongst other faiths that believe life is given by God, and can only be taken away by God. One of the other major points made by religious groups is that "God does not send any experience that we cannot handle (p. 145)". For some faith groups, such as the Roman Catholics, "human suffering can have a positive value for the terminally ill and the caregivers"."
| |
|
Euthanasia - Theory and Practice, 2002.
A definition of euthanasia and a discussion of different theories and opinions on this controversial topic.
1,370 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 6 sources, MLA, AU$ 65.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains how the rise of advanced technologies in the medical field, especially those that sustains life, has brought issues in the ethics and morality of those involved in the field of medicine. It discusses how the most significant to these issues is the practice of Euthanasia on patients diagnosed to have no chance of surviving and regaining life after any treatment has been implemented. In view of the issues on Euthanasia, this paper presents a discussion of this medical practice by analyzing the stands and views of Ned Cassem, James Rachel, Sidney Hook, and Leon R. Kass. This paper also explains the meaning of ?good death? as mentioned by Ned Cassem.
From the Paper
"On many medical books and dictionaries, ?euthanasia? or ?mercy-killing? is defined as ending a life of a terminally ill patient by ways such as removing life support machines or stopping treatments that somehow prolongs life. The basic reason why euthanasia is performed on terminally ill patients is to end their prolonged suffering. There are two basic types of euthanasia: passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is the act of discontinuing artificial life support treatments, thus allowing a natural death to take place. This process is sometimes referred to as ?pulling the plug?. Active euthanasia on the other hand is the direct killing of a patient either by himself, also known as ?self-deliverance?, or by another person, as in the case of a physician assisting suicide."
| |
|
Euthanasia - Moral Rightness or Wrongness of Robert Latimer's Act, 2000.
This paper tries to answer the question regarding euthanasia cases: Can euthanasia in any form can be morally acceptable in our society?
1,830 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 4 sources, MLA, AU$ 84.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the issue of euthanasia and attempts to define whether euthanasia should be considered morally wrong or right. In order to give an answer to this question and as part of con and pro arguments several cases of voluntary and involuntary euthanasia are discussed in this paper. The case of Robert Latimer occupies a central place in this discussion and ultimately brings into the debate several moral principles-- benefit, sanctity of human life and autonomy.
From the Paper
"Robert Latimer's trial was described in the press as "Trial by popularity" and as newspapers' headlines stated "despite his second murder conviction, Latimer retains legal and public support" regardless of the fact that he caused death of his 12 year old disabled daughter by carbon monoxide. Support and sympathy for Latimer has poured in from all parts of Canada bringing with it the question of the moral rightness of what Tracy's father did."
|
| Essay # 51003 |
temporarily unavailable
|
|
|
|
