Need help? We are here

Euthanasia is also known as mercy killing. Euthanasia can be described as the act of putting a person to death painlessly. The practice mostly happens when an individual is suffering from a disease that is incurable and so painful, a physical disorder which is damaging, by withholding the treatments and also by removing the artificial measures put in place to support life.
The practice has been supported by various groups, while others have firmly stood against the practice. For instance, some religious groups believe that practicing euthanasia would kill the value as well as the respect that society has for human life (Bekos, 2019). There have been controversies on euthanasia between religion and morality. Some people are for the idea that euthanasia is the same as murder and is unacceptable.
Other people believe that euthanasia should only be practiced when someone has the capability of making sound decisions. Religious groups and other groups that are against euthanasia believe that embracing the practice would vest a lot of power to the doctors, therefore, affecting the trust of the patients (Mintz, 2019). The team believes that there is appropriate palliative care, thus reducing the need to perform euthanasia. In some cases, the patients may be pressured by the friends, the doctors, or even the family members to request for the practice what might be against the wish. Others argue that embracing the practice would demoralize the teams committed to research and develop new treatments and cures for the diseases. Additionally, euthanasia would reduce the commitment of the nurses and doctors in saving lives.
People supporting euthanasia believe that people should be given the right to make decisions on how to die and when to die. They believe that practicing euthanasia will help control the situations of people and allow them to have a dignified death. Additionally, the group argues that the state should not interfere with an individual decision concerning death since it is a separate issue. Euthanasia is also seen as a way of reducing the cost of treatment. The group believes that the cost of treating diseases that have no cure could be saved by the practice, thus diverting the resources to save more people who are suffering from curable diseases. In addition to this, the act would protect the friends and the families the pain of watching their dear ones suffer for a long time (Jones, Gastmans, & MacKellar, 2017). They, therefore, argue that the same ways the community allow animals to be put to death when they are sick as a way of showing kindness the same way human beings should be prevented from suffering. Until today, the ethicality of euthanasia has not come into a clear agreement, although some states have legalized the practice.
Ethical Egoist opinion.
The issue of euthanasia requires examination of the practice to determine the total benefit of the action. Ethical egoism, may result in an individual decision to die after considering the personal benefits as well as self-interest, prefer to die. The patient may be going through a lot of pain, expenses, as well as improper functioning of the body, thus viewing the remaining part of his life as invalid. On the contrary, the patient may also choose to live with an option that innovation and developments will be made, which will improve his condition.
Egoism has no specific stand on the issue of euthanasia, as the justification of the act highly depends on the consent of the family. At some point, the family is unable to support euthanasia because of the inner guilt that they caused the death of their loved one. Additionally, the family members may find peace in knowing that they tried their best to save a life rather than killing (Mintz, 2019). On the other hand, the family might choose euthanasia to keep them from intense financial and emotional trauma. The best interest would, therefore, be to prevent the continuation of medical treatment. There is a collision between individual loyalty and those of society. At some point, an individual may choose to die through euthanasia, while society feels that there is much to be done to save a life. On the other hand, the organization may have the feeling that their loved one has suffered for a long time, and there is no hope for recovery, thus decide to go for euthanasia while the patient may not be for the practice.
Social contract ethnicity.
The social contract ethics believe that people are brought together as a community by the established agreements on social, political, and moral behaviors. The approach mostly explains the professionalism in the medical industry. The doctors are required to put the patients interests before they consider their interests while delivering services. In the social contract, the decision of a doctor to perform euthanasia is based on the social contract as well as ethics. In the case of a social contract, the doctor is faced with a dilemma (Mintz, 2019). Society, as well as the code of profession, believes that the doctors should be committed to saving lives and should not, at any point, take the breath away. They are obliged to preserve life regardless of the situation.
Performing euthanasia is therefore viewed as damage to the professional image. The topic of euthanasia involves a collision between the national obligations and personal obligations. This is because the physician has national requirements to support life while else there is a personal obligation while dealing with families or patients who requires euthanasia.
American Counseling Association has addressed the issue of euthanasia explicitly. In their professional code of ethics, the body believes that performing euthanasia would result in a lot of ethical questions (Finlay, 2019). American Medical Association does not advocate for euthanasia as they think that the physicians should be in the front line to support and preserve life but not to take it away. America Nursing Association also believes that the nurses should not take part in euthanasia but should instead provide compassionate and comprehensive care until life ends. The code of ethics for most medical practitioners is against the practice of euthanasia. This is conflicting as, at some point, the practitioners are required to act in the interest of their patients.
References
Bekos, I. (2019). Euthanasia and patristic tradition.
Finlay, L. (2019). Practical ethics in counselling and psychotherapy: A relational approach. SAGE Publications.
Jones, D. A., Gastmans, C., & MacKellar, C. (2017). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: Lessons from Belgium. Cambridge University Press.
Mintz, S. (2019). Beyond happiness and meaning: Transforming your life through ethical behavior. Ethics Sage LLC.
28?I}b
z
Use the topic above to do this below;
Minimum of 5 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)
Instructions
First, return to your topic chosen in the week three assignment.
Answer this question: What are the personal and/or communal ethical factors that may be involved in determining the moral position of either side in that debate?
Next, articulate and then evaluate the ethical positions using Kantian ethics (that is, the categorical imperative) relative to the long standing debate (that is your topic chosen in the week three assignment).
Finally, create a complete annotated bibliography for 5 academic scholarly sources. You will annotate each source. The sources should be relevant to your topic chosen in the week three assignment.
Include the following:
Publication details
Annotation (a detailed reading of the source)
Each annotation section should include the following:
Summarize key points and identify key terms (using quotation marks, and citing a page in parentheses).
Describe the controversies or problems raised by the articles.
State whether you agree or disagree and give reasons.
Locate one or two quotations to be used in the final research project.
Evaluate the ways in which this article is important and has helped you focus your understanding.
Use the following as a model:
APA Reference
Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58-63.

error: Content is protected !!