Euthanasia
is a controversial subject, not only because there are many different moral dilemmas associated with it, but also in what constitutes its definition. At the extreme ends of disagreement, advocates say (which in Greek means "easy death") is a good, or merciful, death. Opponents of say it is a fancy word for murder.
Between the two extremes, there are various positions for and against . One position opposes cases of "active" , where an active, or overt, effort is made to bring about death, such as in administering a lethal injection, but accept "passive" , which is generally described as declining to initiate extraordinary or even ordinary medical treatment, as moral.
Another position ...
Want to read the rest of this paper?
Join Essayworld today to view this entire essay
and over 50,000 other term papers
|
that many issues arise in the legal and medical arenas. In law, the resolution of a particular case cannot always be applied to resolve another. In the medical realm, interpretation of medical doctrine concerning treatment of terminally-ill patients can result in entirely different applications.
In two relatively recent cases, the Supreme Court had to decide the future of patients that were considered to be in chronically persistent vegetative states. The courts had to decide whether to continue with the prevailing treatment, as advocated by the medical community, or discontinue treatment at the request of the patients' guardians. The courts considered several factors in making a determination: What are the state's interests in terms of human life? When does the patient's right to refuse treatment override the state's interest? What does the right to refuse treatment entail, and is it included in the patient's right to privacy? Do a patient's guardians have the right to refuse ...
Get instant access to over 50,000 essays.
Write better papers. Get better grades.
Already a member? Login
|
treatment to Quinlan's guardians.
These two landmark findings in Matter of Quinlan clearly raised the legal and moral hackles of the Supreme Court in Cruzan v. Harmon (1984). In this case, the Supreme Court found that the right to refuse treatment plainly did not exist, either in the context of constitutional law, or in common law. The court determined that the common-law right to refuse treatment means that the patient must be informed, and so the conditions of that right did not exist in Cruzan. Further, the Cruzan court did not find the situation of a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy as being analogous of a decision to terminate a comatose patient, as the Quinlan court ...
Succeed in your coursework without stepping into a library.
Get access to a growing library of notes, book reports,
and research papers in 2 minutes or less.
|
CITE THIS PAGE:
Euthanasia. (2008, July 12). Retrieved November 23, 2024, from http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Euthanasia/86688
"Euthanasia." Essayworld.com. Essayworld.com, 12 Jul. 2008. Web. 23 Nov. 2024. <http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Euthanasia/86688>
"Euthanasia." Essayworld.com. July 12, 2008. Accessed November 23, 2024. http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Euthanasia/86688.
"Euthanasia." Essayworld.com. July 12, 2008. Accessed November 23, 2024. http://www.essayworld.com/essays/Euthanasia/86688.
|
Save
Report