The Morality of Euthanasia - Special Academic Support

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The use of euthanasia in the healthcare field has remained a highly controversial topic and has been widely debated. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the defnition of euthanasia is the act of practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a realtively painless way for reasons of mercy (Euthanasia). Some people believe that euthanasia is morally right because it ends a persons suffering and pain that goes along with a terminal illness. Others believe that it is morally wrong and that a patient could potentially be misdiagnosed meaning a death that should not have happened. They also believe that it is unnatural and not the way people should die. There are many theories that go along with the topic of euthanasia. James Rachels points out the theory of utilarianism by Jeremy Betham in his journal, The Morality of Euthanasia. He points out that the theory is morally wrong because it goes against personal choice and that it makes humans and animals morally equal.

Rachels uses the theory of utilitarianism in his article titled The Morality of Euthanasia. The first part of the theory, developed by Jeremy Bentham, explains how morality is based on two elements: happiness and misery. If something is deemed morally wrong, it decreases happiness and increases misery. If something is deemed morally right, it increases happiness and decreases misery. Utilitarianists apply this theory to the topic of euthanasia. If a terminally ill patient wanted to increase his happiness and decrease his misery, it would be morally right to receive euthanasia according to the theory. The second part describes how good and bad are measured by how they are to produce happiness and unhappiness. The final part of the theory states how everyone is equal and that everyone’s happiness is deemed equal. This part of the theory goes along with the argument of Bentham that humans and animals are equal in regards to morality.

In regards to pain and pleasure, when pleasure is removed this can inflict pain on a person. If a person had an intimate relationship with a person with a terminal illness and they passed away, this is going to cause the person a great deal of pain. For example, if a husband was close with his wife that is going to pass away, this is going to cause a great deal of pain on the husband. The couple experienced their whole lives together and he is going to have to deal with living without her. When pain is removed this can cause pleasure for the person. For example, when a patient is in the hospital ill and they get their pain under control, this can give them pleasure.

Rachels explains terminal illness as requesting to be killed as an alternative to a slow, lingering death. The two terms of Benthams that have to do with the person considered by itself are term numbers one and two. The first term has to do with the intensity of the pleasure or pain. The second term has to do with the duration of the pain. The intensity and duration of the pain and pleasure can only be described by the person who has the terminal illness because people may not know what it feels like to have a terminal illness. The other terms have to do with the action of the pleasure of pain and the outcome. The sixth discusses that pain may be followed by pain. This term is relevant to a patient and their family. The family may see that their loved one is experiencing more pain which is going to be painful for them to see. The seventh term explains the extent of the illness and how many people are afflicted by it. When a patient has a terminal illness, it is going to most likely affect their family, friends, co-workers, and their peers greatly. People who experience terminal illness are experiencing a great amount of pain and suffering that is unimaginable to many.

According to Rachels, he does not believe that animals have a moral status like humans. Humans have more to contribute to society and they serve a purpose. When a person wants to die by a physicians-assisted suicide, it is harder to deal with becuase of the contributions they have made to their communities. When we have animals who are suffering and in great amounts of pain, we simply put them down because it would reduce misery to the animals. Animals are not able to vocalize their pain, so simply putting it down is an easier option than putting a human down that is able to vocalize how they feel about their pain.

In conclusion, James Rachels has explained that the theory of utilitarianism is morally wrong because it goes against personal choice and it makes humans and animals equal in terms of morality. For me, I have always believed in the right for a person to receive euthanasia. If I were a patient who had a terminal illness and was going through immense amounts of pain and suffering, I would want it to be over. It would be hard on my family, but in the end, I was allowed to make that decision for myself. Opponents of euthanasia believe that it is unnatural and that it can cause a patient to be misdiagnosed by a doctor. Euthanasia will always remain a constant debate between people across the world due to its prevalence in the healthcare field. This is a topic that is very sensitive to a lot of people and is a very difficult topic to talk about especially with patients with terminal illnesses. As a future nurse, I am going to have to be the patient’s advocate and accept their wishes.

Click Here To Order Now!