Euthanasia literally means "good death" in Greek. There are two forms of euthanasia, passive and active. Active euthanasia occurs when an action is performed that ends the life of a patient such as injecting a lethal dose of a medication. Passive euthanasia occurs when the normal treatment is not followed for a patient such as failing to give antibiotics to a patient who is sick with pneumonia. The narrow interpretation states that active and passive euthanasia are always morally wrong. The broad interpretation states allows for both passive and active euthanasia to be morally okay in situations where the end is painless when the patient is terminal. Both of these concepts deal with the somewhat gray area of killing and allowing to die. These definitions can be helpful for doctors in end of life situations with patients who have their own set of beliefs regarding what is morally right or wrong.
Euthanasia like Meghan said consists of passive and active euthanasia. It can be carried out by either taking actions or by not doing what is necessary to keep a person alive. It is not euthanasia if a patient dies as a result of refusing burdensome treatment. Passive euthanasia, for example, is switching off life-support machines, disconnecting feeding tubes, not giving life-extending drugs. This is where the gray area comes of what is an act and what is allowing to die. Because in a way isn't allowing to die a deliberate act? It is hotly debated. It all comes down to what the patient wants and doing what the patient wants should eliminate the doctor may feel from a patient dying.
I view euthanasia as a drug that ends pain and discomfort for the person or animal. When we or our parents take our pets to the Vet to be "put down", they are given euthanasia and as owners we do this because we do not want to see them suffer anymore. With people it is more of a touchy subject because this is an individual that we all care about deeply and do not want to leave our lives. Euthanasia for humans though has been more of a controversial subject to try and talk about because some people want natural. Meaning to let it happen when it is supposed to. While for others it is more of wanting suffering to end. Active euthanasia is knowing that the person is going to die, in a way of giving a lethal injection. Which is legal for prisoners in some states. Passive euthanasia is when a person no longer wants to take medication that will prolong their life because they know the pain will still exist. They are useful distinctions because there are people who think euthanasia is just black and white, when in reality there is a whole bunch of other shades in there.
Diane, I agree with what you said about euthanasia having a lot of gray area. There are so many different cases and circumstances, such as what type of life support someone is on, how much pain they are in, whether their family knew of their wishes beforehand or if the patient is conscious and states their wishes, and all of these and more play their own part in determining the morality of the particular situation and determining whether it is right or wrong.
Euthanasia in the more general sense is defined as death of a person before there time. Move specifically it is defined as the process of ending ones life in an attempt to avoid a pain full death. Depending on the definition used by the person in the discussion it will be viewed as good or evil.
Diane, I think you made some valid points. I agree that euthanasia is a touchy subject when it is applied to humans. Euthanasia is sticky topic to talk about. As a future health care worker, I don't want patients to be in pain and suffer through an illness but I also don't want them to die because I want people to get better. I don't think there is a right answer for when euthanasia is correct or not correct.
According to Merriam-Webster dictionary euthanasia means "the act or practice of killing hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy; also: the act or practice of allowing a hopelessly sick or injured patient to die by taking less than complete medical measures to prolong life--called also mercy killing." I also just want to say that I agree with Meghan that passive and active are two forms of euthanasia. Stated in a BBC article it states that "Euthanasia comes in several different forms, each of which brings a different set of rights and wrongs. In active euthanasia a person directly causes the patient's death. In passive euthanasia they don't directly take the patient's life, they just allow them to die." This article also gives a good example of active and passive euthanasia. For instance it shares that "Active euthanasia is when death is brought about by an act - for example when a person is killed by being given an overdoes of pain-killers. Passive euthanasia is when death is brought about by an omission- i.e. when someone lets the person die. This can be by withdrawing or withholding treatment: withdrawing treatment = for example, switching off a machine that is keeping a person alive, so that they die of their disease and withholding treatment = for example, not carrying out surgery that will extend life for a short time." Personally after reading about euthanasia and the forms active and passive euthanasia I don't really have a problem with it and the forms that come with it. However, I know there are some people out there who would disagree with me and do have problems with it; which is fine by me cause we all are going to agree and disagree since we all have our own opinions. Overall I think this specific topic is a good blog question to ask because it allows to start a kind of debate in a friendly/appropriate manner.
Euthanasia literally means "good death" in Greek. There are two forms of euthanasia, passive and active. Active euthanasia occurs when an action is performed that ends the life of a patient such as injecting a lethal dose of a medication. Passive euthanasia occurs when the normal treatment is not followed for a patient such as failing to give antibiotics to a patient who is sick with pneumonia. The narrow interpretation states that active and passive euthanasia are always morally wrong. The broad interpretation states allows for both passive and active euthanasia to be morally okay in situations where the end is painless when the patient is terminal. Both of these concepts deal with the somewhat gray area of killing and allowing to die. These definitions can be helpful for doctors in end of life situations with patients who have their own set of beliefs regarding what is morally right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteEuthanasia like Meghan said consists of passive and active euthanasia. It can be carried out by either taking actions or by not doing what is necessary to keep a person alive. It is not euthanasia if a patient dies as a result of refusing burdensome treatment. Passive euthanasia, for example, is switching off life-support machines, disconnecting feeding tubes, not giving life-extending drugs. This is where the gray area comes of what is an act and what is allowing to die. Because in a way isn't allowing to die a deliberate act? It is hotly debated. It all comes down to what the patient wants and doing what the patient wants should eliminate the doctor may feel from a patient dying.
ReplyDeleteI view euthanasia as a drug that ends pain and discomfort for the person or animal. When we or our parents take our pets to the Vet to be "put down", they are given euthanasia and as owners we do this because we do not want to see them suffer anymore. With people it is more of a touchy subject because this is an individual that we all care about deeply and do not want to leave our lives. Euthanasia for humans though has been more of a controversial subject to try and talk about because some people want natural. Meaning to let it happen when it is supposed to. While for others it is more of wanting suffering to end. Active euthanasia is knowing that the person is going to die, in a way of giving a lethal injection. Which is legal for prisoners in some states. Passive euthanasia is when a person no longer wants to take medication that will prolong their life because they know the pain will still exist. They are useful distinctions because there are people who think euthanasia is just black and white, when in reality there is a whole bunch of other shades in there.
ReplyDeleteDiane, I agree with what you said about euthanasia having a lot of gray area. There are so many different cases and circumstances, such as what type of life support someone is on, how much pain they are in, whether their family knew of their wishes beforehand or if the patient is conscious and states their wishes, and all of these and more play their own part in determining the morality of the particular situation and determining whether it is right or wrong.
DeleteEuthanasia in the more general sense is defined as death of a person before there time. Move specifically it is defined as the process of ending ones life in an attempt to avoid a pain full death. Depending on the definition used by the person in the discussion it will be viewed as good or evil.
DeleteDiane, I think you made some valid points. I agree that euthanasia is a touchy subject when it is applied to humans. Euthanasia is sticky topic to talk about. As a future health care worker, I don't want patients to be in pain and suffer through an illness but I also don't want them to die because I want people to get better. I don't think there is a right answer for when euthanasia is correct or not correct.
DeleteAccording to Merriam-Webster dictionary euthanasia means "the act or practice of killing hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy; also: the act or practice of allowing a hopelessly sick or injured patient to die by taking less than complete medical measures to prolong life--called also mercy killing." I also just want to say that I agree with Meghan that passive and active are two forms of euthanasia. Stated in a BBC article it states that "Euthanasia comes in several different forms, each of which brings a different set of rights and wrongs. In active euthanasia a person directly causes the patient's death. In passive euthanasia they don't directly take the patient's life, they just allow them to die." This article also gives a good example of active and passive euthanasia. For instance it shares that "Active euthanasia is when death is brought about by an act - for example when a person is killed by being given an overdoes of pain-killers. Passive euthanasia is when death is brought about by an omission- i.e. when someone lets the person die. This can be by withdrawing or withholding treatment: withdrawing treatment = for example, switching off a machine that is keeping a person alive, so that they die of their disease and withholding treatment = for example, not carrying out surgery that will extend life for a short time." Personally after reading about euthanasia and the forms active and passive euthanasia I don't really have a problem with it and the forms that come with it. However, I know there are some people out there who would disagree with me and do have problems with it; which is fine by me cause we all are going to agree and disagree since we all have our own opinions. Overall I think this specific topic is a good blog question to ask because it allows to start a kind of debate in a friendly/appropriate manner.
ReplyDelete