Effects of the Internet

Euthanasia is the mercy killing or pleasant death. It is administered on patients that are severely ill or impaired to end their suffering. This debate deals with the protection of human right and decisional autonomy. It puts the traditional ethos of the medical health care system in conflict with the preferences of Canadian society.

There are two types of euthanasia. Active voluntary and passive voluntary. Active euthanasia is for those that are mentally capable of requesting to die because they have no physical will to live. This is when the bringing about of death is deliberate. Passive euthanasia is for those that have no mental awareness. T he thinking part of the brain is lost and only the brain stem is keeping the vital organs alive this is providing patients with comfort and allowing death to occur. Many doctors administer end of life drug doses to help the patient as per requests of the families. Canadian law prohibits assisted killing. Of the criminal code, 14 suggests that no person can inflict death upon himself. And 241 suggests that anyone that counsels someone to suicide is guilty of an indictable defense and may have jail time.

Yet, a right to choose how to deal with your own body is recognized by the law.

When doctors give patients ending life doses they are contributing to the death. Drug dose administration is all based on intention. In palliative care drugs are used to ease pain and do hasten death. With regards to assisted suicide, the intention is to cause death. Most medical associations are against decriminalizing assisted suicide. It is morally worse to kill rather to let one die. The killing of the innocent even with patients consent is obvious in Jewish and Christian world views that shaped the law of western world. Personal autonomy though, is argued.

We are the property of god, what god giveth only god should take away.

We have obligations to oneself.

Euthanasia violates the sanctity of life- which is always wrong. It insults the dignity of human beings.

It is unnatural.

The right to life is absolute.

The requests of the terminally ill should not be taken literally.

Euthanasia is cowardice- it is a sign of giving up on someone.

Even suffering has benefits-chance for moral growth. Where there is life there is hope.

The Ten Commandments state that thou shall not kill.

There is the Drs Hippocratic oath which forbids killing a patient. The doctors' job is to save lives.

Many of the elderly may see themselves as a psychological or financial burden if given this option.

Allowing euthanasia allows those to give up too soon, faith can cure.

There exists the slippery slope and loose cannon argument.

It is felt that decriminalization of euthanasia will open the floodgates. It will increase the risk of the disabled being manipulated by others. Human life should not be depreciated by a life being taken. We must maintain a social taboo against suicide. It will threaten the lives (of elderly, handicapped, senile and chronically ill) that even advocates of assisted suicide feel should be protected. The elderly for example. Is the prejudice against the elderly or disabled that they have lives not worth living? It must be known to advocates of euthanasia that doctors are to be the enemies of death and will do anything to keep patients alive. Otherwise no one will feel safe at the hospital or at clscs.

Human nature has a disgusting will to power. It is a drive to exercise power over others. Ending a life is the ultimate of that power.

Rule of double effect

The effects would be morally wrong if caused intentionally but are permissible, if foreseen but unintended.

There are high doses of opioid administered to treat pain, even if it causes death.