Active euthanasia is a way of inducing death in a good or peaceful way to someone who is suffering. The term comes from the Greek expression for “good death.”
The process involves lethal substances or force. This process is usually done when there is terminal illness or no hope for any kind of recovery to prevent an individual from dying a slow or painful death. The physician prescribes the dosage and the patient must administer it to their self. Such drugs may include sodium thiopental and the muscle-paralyzing drug pancuronium which are commonly used as general anesthetic .The patient is free at any time during this process to change their mind and not go through with it.
Some examples of diseases that an individual may choose active euthanasia are end stages of cancer or Alzheimer’s Lou Gehrigs disease paralyzation in which a person cannot even swallow food and may other diseases or illnesses.
Some people call this process mercy killing there is great debate on whether active euthanasia should be allowed in the United States. The cons of active euthanasia: Active euthanasia is illegal in the United States the majority of the states here state if you participate in active euthanasia you may be charged with murder, manslaughter and other offences. The Supreme Court of the United States, in its 1997 Opinion from Vacco v. Quill, stated:”…Even as the States move to protect and promote patients dignity at the end of life, they remain opposed to physician assisted suicide.
Euthanasia has been a large issue in the courts during this century. The first doctor was charged for performing euthanasia in1935. Harold Blazer was charged for the death of his daughter. His daughter was a victim of cerebral spinal meningitis. He killed her by placing a handkerchief soaked with chloroform over her face until she died. He had taken care of her for thirty years. In his trial he was acquitted.
The first doctor to be found guilty was Joseph Hassman in 1986. He injected a lethal dose of Demerol into his mother-in-law by the request of her family. He was sentenced to two years probation, fined $10,000, and ordered to perform 400 hours of community service.
Many people disagree with the process because of the advances in medicine and pain management and hospice care There are various new pain medications that can even be injected by patients at home with products such as permanent epidural catheters The catholic religion is strongly against active euthanasiathey consider it an act of suicide The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) wrote in an article titled “A Catholic Guide to End-of-Life
Decisions: An Explanation of Church Teaching on Advance Directives, Euthanasia, and
Physician Assisted Suicide””Human life is an inviolable gift from God. Our love of God and His creation should cause us to shun any thought of violating this great gift through suicide or euthanasia” We read in Wisdom: God did not make death, nor does He rejoice in the destruction of the living.
Many people disagree with the process because of the advances in medicine and pain management and hospice care There are various new pain medications that can even be injected by patients at home with products such as permanent epidural catheters.
The cons of active euthanasia: The catholic religion is strongly against active euthanasia they consider it an act of suicide The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) wrote in an article titled “A Catholic Guide to End-of-Life Decisions: An Explanation of Church Teaching on Advance Directives, Euthanasia, and Physician Assisted Suicide””Human life is an inviolable gift from God. Our love of God and His creation should cause us to shun any thought of violating this great gift through suicide or euthanasia” We read in Wisdom: God did not make death, nor does He rejoice in the destruction of the living.
Activists often claim that laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are government mandated suffering. It is also often considered unethical or a form of murder some may argue that it is against gods will and a violation of right to life, and also considered morally wrong. Religious groups believe that this process denies one the right to life, but it also denies one the right to die naturally.
“The prohibition against killing patients… stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath, as medicines primary taboo: I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect… In forswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patients choice for death can make killing him right. For the physician, at least, human life in living bodies commands respect and reverence – by its very nature. As its respectability does not depend upon human agreement or patient consent, revocation of ones consent to live does not deprive ones living body of respectability. The deepest ethical principle restraining the physicians power is not the autonomy or freedom of the patient; neither is it his own compassion or good intention. Rather, it is the dignity and mysterious power of human life itself, and therefore, also what the Oath calls the purity and holiness of life and art to which he has sworn devotion.” While our society aspires to eradicate discrimination and the most punishing effects of poverty in employment practices, housing, education, and law enforcement, we consistently fall short of our goals. The costs of this failure with assisted suicide and euthanasia would be extreme. Nor is there any reason to believe that the practices, whatever safeguards are erected, will be unaffected by the broader social and medical context in which they will be operating. This assumption is naive and unsupportable.”
On the basis of a 2001 survey by Farber et al,6 it appears that, if physicians were given the go-ahead by their professional societies, there would be no shortage of those willing to participate in executions. Indeed, of 413 physicians surveyed, fully 19% said they would be willing.