Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … active voluntary euthanasia the central ethical argument for it. He explains the two fundamental ethical values that support something like active voluntary euthanasia and how such values create a belief that this decision can be made as long as it is decided by the person intending to die.
These values are individual self-determination or autonomy and individual well-being. By self-determination as it bears on euthanasia, I mean people's interest in making important decisions about their lives according to their own values or conceptions of a good life, and in being left free to act on those decisions (Brock, 1992, p. 10).
By having the right to understand and identify what is a "good life," people then can have the option to decide if they should die without pain through assisted suicide or other forms of euthanasia, or naturally as the terminal disease progresses. By exercising self-determination, people take ownership of what happens to them and thus create a favorable argument for active voluntary euthanasia.
Brock also includes the aspect of human dignity and the allowing of someone to govern their fate as a means of allowing euthanasia because euthanasia is then supported by self-determination. Individual well-being also comes into the picture because through self-determination, one can surmise what living well means versus not...
To die suffering or to die free from pain, euthanasia gives the option to die in a way that promotes a feeling of well-being at least for those arguing in favor of active voluntary euthanasia.
2.
Many hospitals stop life support on patients they feel have no chance at recovery. This happens with coma patients, those with severe brain injuries, and so forth. Brock explains that while some may interpret this act as killing, it is not so. "The first reason is that killing is often understood, especially within medicine, as unjustified causing of death; in medicine it is thought to be done only accidentally or negligently" (Brock, 1992, p. 13). He also explains an increasing acceptance of justification for the stopping of life support because in a way, they are just allowing the person to die, rather than actively killing the person. While killings can be unjustified causes of death, some killings are justified and that is when Brock begins refuting the reasons he gave to justify the act.
He states, it is psychologically uncomfortable to think stopping life support is killing and that is perhaps why it quickly rationalized as the disease killing the person rather than the doctor. Brock then continues by adding whether is acts or omissions resulting in a person's death, some may say killing may not be ethically and morally different…
References
Brock, D. (1992). Voluntary Active Euthanasia. The Hastings Center Report,22(2), 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3562560
Young, R. (1996). Voluntary Euthanasia. Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 11 April 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/
Active Euthanasia One of the most controversial debates to concern the medical profession in recent decades is that of 'physician-assisted suicide, or active euthanasia. The very mention of the word 'euthanasia' arouses strong emotions and opinions, both in favor and in opposition. Yet, among the multitude of issues and complex arguments that surround the debate, there is one fundamental human right that must be acknowledged: the individual, and not society, has
Physician-Assisted Suicide, And Active Euthanasia In Favor of the Moral Permissibility of Active Physician-Assisted Suicide According to Mappes and DeGrazia, Brock's support for voluntary active euthanasia is largely based on two ethical values that he regards fundamental (402). The values in this case include the well-being of an individual and individual autonomy or self-determination. Self-determination according to Brock has got to do with letting individuals chart their own destiny, that is, allowing
Euthanasia is a Moral, Ethical, and Proper Social Policy When it is carried out with a competent physician in attendance and appropriate family members understand the decision and the desire of the ill person -- or there has been a written request by the infirmed person that a doctor-assisted death is what she or he desired -- euthanasia is a moral, ethical and proper policy. It offers a merciful end to
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, as what the most common definition says, is the (medical) process of killing somebody in a merciful manner and is aimed at putting an end to that person's pain and suffering. The claimed justification for euthanasia first takes the moral high ground of compassion. When a truer form of compassion is found in palliative care, the ground shifts to an appeal to human rights, especially to the
A person should always have the opportunity to die with dignity and perhaps even "discover the meaning of one's life" as pointed out by Pythia Peay. At the very least, those that hold contrasting opinions on euthanasia should be able to come to an agreement that medical treatment must never be superseded by moral treatment. Even though the science of medicine is often highly specialized, it must never go against