OPPapers.com

Euthanasia

We have all heard of Dr. Kevorkian, the physician- assisted suicide activist. So many people were in an uproar about his actions. They claimed he was playing God. That he was getting away with murder. The state of Michigan tried to create legislature to prevent Dr. Kevorkian from helping others die. Dr. Kevorkian's reason for assisting others in suicide was that he acted for others because he felt that "people have a right to decide when to end their lives" (Munson 704). A juror that sat on one of his trials said, "I don't feel it's our obligation to choose for someone else how much pain and suffering they can go through. That's between them and their God." (Munson 704). Others believe that Dr. Kevorkian was acting as an angel of mercy. Euthanasia, as defined by Munson, is the act of causing death painlessly so as to end suffering. The majority of people do not deliberate about euthanasia and the moral legitimacy that it has or does not have until they are forced to make a decision about someone they love. An issue that will arise in any euthanasia debate is: euthanasia is murder. Or is it mercy?
Recently on the news we saw the pain and suffering in the Terry Shivo case. She was in a and after so many years, her husband had moved on. He wanted to marry another woman. It has been debated that he wanted to stop the assisting machines to help keep Terry alive because she was a burden and he could not get married. He claims that she did not want to live this way. Her parents went to the courts to plead for their daughter's life; to get the power of attorney to keep her alive. They held hope for her recovery and for her life. Which side is right? After so many years of not being able to function in a world by standards set by somebody, should the parents have let go or the husband held on? Questions that should be looked at in my opinion are, did Terry have hope of recovery - was she aware, but non-responsive to what was going on around her...

Please login to view the full essay...