Medical ethics Issue: Is Euthanasia a mercy or a murder? A Brief Statement of Case Dr Cox charged for what? A 70-year-old patient Lillian boyes suffered a lot from harsh rheumatoid arthritis. Even pain killer seemed to fail to approach the unbearable pains what she wanted is just to die painlessly within a couple of days. She asked her doctor, Dr Cox, who is also her sincere friend to kill her. Dr Cox injected a lethal dose of potassium chloride for two reasons (1) Out of compassion for his patient (2)Because this is what she wanted him to do Dr Cox was charged of attempted murder. The judge, when directing to the jury, said: Even the prosecution case acknowledged that he [Dr Cox]... was prompted by deep distress at Lillian Boyes condition by a belief that she was tota lly beyond recall and by an intense compassion for her fearful suffering Nonetheless . if he injected her with potassium chloride for the primary purpose of killing her, or hastening her death, he is guilty of the offence charged (attempted murder). neither the express wishes of the patient nor of her loving and devoted family can affect the position This case sharply forbids people from active euthanasia. it points out that even the patient was competent and wanted to be killed; even her sincere friends and relatives believe death is in her best interest; it is still a crime to take action to help the patient to end up life The argument about whether the euthanasia is a mercy or a murder lingers on through the history of medical ethics. The crucial reason is that in reality, we can not foresee the certain long when evil is done the whole art of oratory is employed as a screen for it"often regarded as a good card to play when the opponents criticize the mercy killing However, the truth that existence is possible"overweighs their claim a nd i would like to elaborate on my thinking and defense of euthanasia Opponents hold human rights as their protective umbrella. they claim that those supporters view the world as immoral as Nazis. In other word, the confusion is that if you support euthanasia Nazi does. Above all, it is absolutely clear that almost none of supporters stand on the Nazi side. they use a disgusting and frightening title to exaggerate the issue. Furthermore, there is a clear gap between the killing by Nazism and euthanasia. Nazism's relentless massacres are out of their own concern their desire and the ir interest However euthanasia is out of the patients'concern and it shows respect to their own choice. Thus, people may ask whether there is an immediate death for the interests of the dying i certainly believe so Here are the reasons as follow The first reason lies that it is out of patients'interests to let them die a patient who has suffered from fatal disease for a long time now comes to the point that he, who still lucky enough to have a relatively good life quality may die in a day or two without life-extending machines, which may prolong his life for a few weeks So which would your choice if you were him? To die right now without much pain or to die two days later of untreatable difficulty in breathing or just extend life with medical treatments in such a poor life quality? I believe most people would have a clear answer considering the life quality. The second reason is respect. as the globe now is turning itself towards the value of individual
Medical ethics Issue: Is Euthanasia a Mercy or a Murder? A Brief Statement of Case: Dr. Cox charged for what? A 70-year-old patient，Lillian Boyes suffered a lot from harsh rheumatoid arthritis. Even painkiller seemed to fail to approach the unbearable pains. What she wanted is just to die painlessly within a couple of days. She asked her doctor, Dr. Cox, who is also her sincere friend to kill her. Dr Cox injected a lethal dose of potassium chloride for two reasons: (1) Out of compassion for his patient, (2) Because this is what she wanted him to do. Dr Cox was chargedof attempted murder. The judge, when directing to the jury, said: Even the prosecution case acknowledged that he [Dr Cox] . . . was prompted by deep distress at Lillian Boyes’ condition by a belief that she was totally beyond recall and by an intense compassion for her fearful suffering. Nonetheless . . . if he injected her with potassium chloride for the primary purpose of killing her, or hastening her death, he is guilty of the offence charged (attempted murder) . . . neither the express wishes of the patient nor of her loving and devoted family can affect the position. This case sharply forbids people from active euthanasia. It points out that even the patient was competent and wanted to be killed; even her sincere friends and relatives believe death is in her best interest; it is still a crime to take action to help the patient to end up life. Comment: The argument about whether the euthanasia is a mercy or a murder lingers on through the history of medical ethics. The crucial reason is that in reality, we can not foresee the certain outcome. The famous saying by Thucydides, “good deeds do not require long statements; but when evil is done the whole art of oratory is employed as a screen for it” often regarded as a good card to play when the opponents criticize the mercy killing. However, the truth that “existence is possible” overweighs their claim and I would like to elaborate on my thinking and defense of euthanasia. Opponents hold human rights as their protective umbrella. They claim that those supporters view the world as immoral as Nazis’. In other word, the confusion is that if you support euthanasia, you view the world as Nazi does. Above all, it is absolutely clear that almost none of the supporters stand on the Nazi side. They use a disgusting and frightening title to exaggerate the issue. Furthermore, there is a clear gap between the killing by Nazism and euthanasia. Nazism’s relentless massacres are out of their own concern, their desire and their interest. However, euthanasia is out of the patients’ concern and it shows respect to their own choice. Thus, people may ask whether there is an immediate death for the interests of the dying. I certainly believe so. Here are the reasons as follows: The first reasonlies that it is out of patients’ interests to let them die. A patient who has suffered from fatal disease for a long time now comes to the point that he, who still lucky enough to have a relatively good life quality, may die in a day or two without life-extending machines, which may prolong his life for a few weeks. So which would your choice if you were him? To die right now without much pain or to die two days later of untreatable difficulty in breathing or just extend life with medical treatments in such a poor life quality? I believe most people would have a clear answer considering the life quality. The second reason is respect. As the globe now is turning itself towards the value of individual
liberty, the number of countries allow competent adults to refuse any med ical treatment is soaring, even if such treatment is life-saving. If the doctors impose treatment against their wills they are committing the crime of violation of body integrity, as the term called" battery. Here some people may argue that it is weird to let them die with blind respect they might survive if they insist to receive medical treatments. However, it seems they just forget about the other side of the coin. Nobody could be extremely certain about what's going on in the next and what the outcome of the decision is. Our world pervades with uncertainty which if we take it as dominant factor, uncertainty may paralyze our life structure. At least, the mercy killing would not bring more pain to patients than let them alone suffering the great pain of illnes The third reason is that mercy kill ing is not wrong in principle. What makes killing wrong is not killing itself. The opponents may hold the opinion that ki lling is morally wrong and cannot tell the difference of killings out of diverse reasons. they stick to the resistance of euthanasia based on the resistance of killing i deeply admire their spontaneous sympathy on those killed. For most people it is true that they should not be killed. but the reason why killing is normally a great disaster is that dying is normally a great harm the harm of dying makes the harm of kill ing Here in these situations we face, dying is in the best interests of a patient rather than watch them ffering from an extended and aching dying i believe no one would cherish his or her life more than himself or herself. Thus, when death is a benefit not a detriment to the patient killing is not a wrong thing a crime For all the reasons I have listed here, I support the view that euthanasia, whether passive or voluntarily active is a legitimate act We have to bear in mind that it is the damage of dying that makes killing an immoral crime. Every sympathetic people appreciate flexible moral principles which are made out of concern for human. As Tony Hope said, it is perverse to seek sense of moral purity when this is gained at the expense of the suffering of others Good job. You get to know how to make your arguments convincing. What I really appreciate your writing is that you learn how to set up a target for argument and then put forward your own evidences to refute the different opinions Grade:A
liberty, the number of countries allow competent adults to refuse any medical treatment is soaring, even if such treatment is life-saving. If the doctors impose treatment against their wills, they are committing the crime of violation of body integrity, as the term called “battery”. Here some people may argue that it is weird to let them die with blind respect. They might survive if they insist to receive medical treatments. However, it seems they just forget about the other side of the coin. Nobody could be extremely certain about what’s going on in the next and what the outcome of the decision is. Our world pervades with uncertainty, which if we take it as a dominant factor, uncertainty may paralyze our life structure. At least, the mercy killing would not bring more pain to patients than let them alone suffering the great pain of illness. The third reason is that mercy killing is not wrong in principle. What makes killing wrong is not killing itself. The opponents may hold the opinion that killing is morally wrong and cannot tell the difference of killings out of diverse reasons. They stick to the resistance of euthanasia based on the resistance of killing. I deeply admire their spontaneous sympathy on those killed. For most people it is true that they should not be killed. But the reason why killing is normally a great disaster is that dying is normally a great harm. The harm of dying makes the harm of killing. Here in these situations we face, dying is in the best interests of a patient rather than watch them suffering from an extended and aching dying. I believe no one would cherish his or her life more than himself or herself. Thus, when death is a benefit not a detriment to the patient, killing is not a wrong thing, a crime. For all the reasons I have listed here, I support the view that euthanasia, whether passive or voluntarily active is a legitimate act. We have to bear in mind that it is the damage of dying that makes killing an immoral crime. Every sympathetic people appreciate flexible moral principles, which are made out of concern for human. As Tony Hope said, it is perverse to seek a sense of moral purity when this is gained at the expense of the suffering of others. Good job. You get to know how to make your arguments convincing. What I really appreciate your writing is that you learn how to set up a target for argument and then put forward your own evidences to refute the different opinions. Grade: A
