The to request from that person. This

Published by admin on

The word euthanasia is derived from the Greek word “eu” for good and “thantos” which means death and originally referred to intentional mercy killing. But the word it euthanasia has acquired a more complex meaning in modern times. Proponents of euthanasia believe that a dying patient has the right to end their suffering and leave the world in a dignified manner. Those who contest euthanasia believe that man does not have the right to end another person’s life no matter what pain they endure.Euthanasia is one of the most important public policy issues being debated today. The outcome of debate will profoundly affect family relationships, interaction between doctors and patients, and concepts of basic morality.

The word euthanasia has acquired a complex meaning in modern times. There are several types of euthanasia and one must define them in order to avoid confusion. Passive euthanasia is the process of hastening the death of a person by withdrawing some form of support and letting nature take its course. Such a act would include removing life-support equipment, stopping medical procedures, stopping food and water and allowing the person to die. Active euthanasia involves causing the death of a person through a direct action in response to request from that person. This is also called mercy killing. Physician assisted suicide is the process of a physician supplying information and or the means of committing suicide to a patient. This would include writing a prescription for a lethal dose of sleeping pills or providing the patient with carbon monoxide gas.

Euthanasia has been practiced in some form or another by many societies in our history. In ancient Greece and Rome helping others to die our putting them to death was considered permissible in some situations. In the Greek city of Sparta all newborns with severe birth defects were left to die. Voluntary euthanasia for the elderly was approved custom in several ancient societies. Although euthanasia is widely practiced in the Netherlands it remains technically illegal. In 1995 Australia’s Northern Territory approved a euthanasia bill. It went into effect in 1996 and was overturned by the Australian parliament in 1997.
One may ask, what is the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide? In euthanasia one person does something that directly kills another. For example a doctor gives a lethal injection to a patient. It assisted suicide, a person knowingly and intentionally provides the means or in some way helps a suicidal person killed himself or herself. For example, a doctor writes a prescription for poison, or someone who hooks up a face mask to a canister of carbon monoxide and then instructs the suicidal person on how to push a lever so that they will be gassed to death. For all practical purposes, any distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide has been abandoned today. However passive euthanasia is different than other types of euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is the process of hastening the death of a person by withdrawing some sort of treatment. This includes removing life-support, stopping medical procedures and medications, stopping food and water to the patient and thus allowing him to die. Or not delivering C P R or other resuscitating treatment and allowing the person whose heart has stopped to die. Perhaps the most common form of passive euthanasia is to give a patient at large doses of morphine to control pain, in spite of the likelihood of the painkiller suppressing respiration and causing death earlier that it would otherwise have. Many states in the United States and other countries engage in this type of passive euthanasia to what is known as a health-care proxy or do not resuscitate order. These procedures are usually performed on the terminally ill, suffering patients, so that natural death will occur sooner. It is also opted for persons in a persistent vegetative state, individuals with massive brain damage or in a coma from which they cannot possibly regain conscious.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

During the 20th century, major scientific and medical advances have greatly enhance the life expectancy of the average person. There are however many diseases that cannot be cured by modern medicine. Such diseases like AIDS, terminal cancer, multiples scalrosis. These conditions remain a certain death sentence. These diseases leave the patient in a constant state of pain sometimes lasting many weeks or months. There are however other reasons why a person may feel euthanasia is appropriate. These reasons include the patient feels that the their quality of life has shrunk to zero, they feel the indignities of being cared for as if they were and infant, including being diapered and fed by nurses. Others simply want to die with the dignity before they become sick. Such an example would be a person was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and would like to end their life before serious dementia overtakes their living. These people feel that they would rather die in full mind and body rather to let themselves live a few more years in a vegetative state or with debilitating dementia that does not allow them to recognize their closest family. Proponents of euthanasia believe that the patient has the right to end their life when it is known that there will not be any recovery and death is imminent. They believe that a human being has the right to die in dignity and a painless death rather than suffer endlessly knowing full well that they will not recover.
Those are anti-euthanasia state many reasons for their position. One reason is because euthanasia is contrary to Judeo-Christian ethics. Many religious groups within Christian, Muslim, Jewish and other religions believe that God gave life and therefore only God should take away a.life. Suicide would then be considered as a rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan. They feel that we are all masters of our own lives, but that’s suicide should never be an option. Many other faith groups believe that human suffering can have a positive value for the terminally ill person and for their direct family. A Roman Catholic document mentions that some people prefer to moderate their use of painkillers, in order to accept voluntary at least a part of their sufferings and thus associate themselves in a conscious way with the sufferings of Christ at the time of crucifixition. Some Jews feel that pain and suffering in this world acts as atonement for sinss and transgressions and may benefit them in entering the world to come. The two main arguments offered by Christians and other religious groups are the following: life is a gift from God and that each individual is a gift. Thus only God can start a life and only God should be allowed to end it.Also, God does not send us any experience that we cannot handle. God supports people and suffering. To actively seek an end to one’s life would represent a lack of trust in God.
Those who are pro euthanasia offer the following arguments: each person has autonomy over their own life. If a persons quality of life is nonexistent, they should have the right to decide to commit suicide, and to seek assistance if necessary. Sometimes a terminal patients pain can cause an unbearable burden, death can represent a relief of intolerable pain.
When one discusses euthanasia we must understand that this is a legal view. By passing legislation that allows euthanasia we’re getting the right to doctors and patients to end their lives. We will be allowing euthanasia to become a procedure practiced in the hospital or hospice. In the end it will just be a matter of procedure such as a blood transfusion or operation. One must ask, by denying the legislation of euthanasia are we in fact denying a person to end their life? The answer to this is no. People do have the power to commit suicide. Suicide and attempted suicide are not criminalized. Each and every year, and the United States alone, there are more suicides than homicides. Suicide is a tragic, individual act. There are several books on the subject of suicide such as Derek Humphreys Final Exit. Organizations such as the Hemlock Society have been established to give information on patients interested in ending their own lives. Euthanasia is not about a private act. It’s about letting one-person facilitate the death of another. Euthanasia is not about giving rights to the person who dies, it is about changing law and public policy so that doctors, relatives and others can directly and intesinaly end another person’s life. This change would not give rights to the person who is killed, but to the person who does the killing. In other words, euthanasia is not about the right to die. It’s about the right to kill.
Bibliography:

Categories: Articles

Opium- extreme degree. The presence of soldiers

Published by admin on

Opium- an addictive drug originally used as a painkiller. It is obtained from the unripe seeds of the opium poppy and can be made into substances that a person can smoke causing relaxation, alleviated anxiety, and a state of euphoria. Continued use of the drug also induces deterioration to the mind and body of a person eventually causing death. The substance was therefore stated illegal in China during the late 18th Century yet consistently smuggled into the country via British merchant ships. As the Chinese placed more restrictions on trade in an effort to abolish the importation of opium, the battle against the drug raged on until war was unavoidable between England and China. It is this war that lasted from 1839-1842 which eventually led to the British reign over Hong Kong and legalization of opium trade in China as well as the opening of many trade routes along the Chinese coast. The British success of the war is unarguable, however, the extent to which they devastated China could have possibly been avoided if the Chinese emperor had received accurate information regarding his country’s failure during the first battles. If the emperor had known of his navy’s lack of success against British warships a compromise could have been met however, due to inaccurate reports to and from commissioner Lin Tse-hsu the emperor was unaware of England’s inevitable victory. With Lin in charge, Chinese success over the opium trade was going well and followed through to an extreme degree. The presence of soldiers in Canton, the main trading port between them and the British, and the threat of potential execution to any person found using or selling the drug illustrated the extent to which Lin would proceed. (So then) The opium crisis began in 1837 when Chinese officials disrupted the smuggling by burning the boats used to carry the opium ashore from the floating warehouses. It was such threats that prompted Palmerston of England to dispatch a warship to China to protect British property in 1837. Despite this, China still raged on against the narcotic and in March of 1839 convinced the head of the British trade commission at Canton, Captain Charles Elliot, to hand over more than 20,000 chests of opium. However, after the killing of a Chinese by drunken seamen and the lack of punishment put forth on them by the British, Lin suppressed all trade with England and proceeded with other measures as well. Lin ordered that delivery of all rice, tea, meat and fresh vegetables to the anchored ships at Macao to be intercepted and cut off. Freshwater springs that were known to be used by the British at various points along the coast were poisoned. Large banners were posted to warn Chinese villagers not to drink from the streams. Lin then pressured the Portuguese authorities at Macao to evict the British from their harbor, under penalty of severe trade restrictions. These drastic measures forced all of the British ships to retreat from Macao to Hong Kong by the middle of August. However, such trade limitations would not go well with England and a severe response was in order. On August 31, Commissioner Lin learned that the merchant ships anchored off Hong Kong had been joined by a twenty-eight gun British frigate. Although this news was not good, Lin, who had the use of a fleet of Chinese war junks at his disposal, was not frightened by the arrival of a single British warship. Finally the first confrontation between the two navies occurred and it was the barbarians, as thought by the Chinese, that were victorious. Although the Chinese warships returned the British fire, they did no damage to the British ships, and were forced to retreat after being badly shot up by cannonballs. The captains of the defeated Chinese junks feared that their failure would be viewed by higher authorities as a disgraceful act of cowardice. The captains therefore reported to Commissioner Lin that they had won a victory and had sunk a British ship. This incident also represents the first of inaccurate messages passed to Chinese officials providing the government with a false sense of security. The British response was not one intended for violence however. For security, a second armed vessel joined England’s entourage in an effort to deliver a sealed letter to the Chinese. However, the Chinese refused to open the message before returning it triggering another battle. The British immediately sank five of the largest Chinese war junks and severely damaged many others in an attack that lasted just under 45 minutes. Once again the Chinese suffered significant losses against superior weaponry and once more out of fear, falsified the encounter. Commissioner Lin now faced serious difficulties. If he truthfully reported his defeat to the Emperor, he was likely to be disgraced and punished. He therefore kept his report of the battle brief and vague, describing six imaginary “smashing blows” that had been inflicted on the impetuous British barbarians. This conveniently crafted statement no doubt prolonged Lin’s authoritative position in addition to providing the Chinese government with more unfounded confidence, which would soon be exploited. In the beginning of June, 1840, Lin suddenly found himself confronting a large British expeditionary force that had come from Singapore, which included steam-powered gunboats and thousands of British marines. In a report to the Emperor, Lin wrote, “English warships are now arriving at Canton. Although it is certain that they will not venture to create a disturbance here, I am certain that they will, like great rats, attempt to shelter the vile sellers of opium.” Still confident that the Chinese coast-guard could prevail in the event of trouble, Lin concluded “People say that our junks and guns are no match for the British…. But they do not know!” Commissioner Lin’s forces, however, proved to be no match for the invaders, who immediately imposed a blockade on the Canton estuary, then attacked and took control of strategically important sites along the China coast. There was no way of disguising this loss to the Emperor and Lin was justly reassigned. However, ten years later Lin was once again told to stop the trade of opium but collapsed and died during a trip to Kwangsi. The successive Imperial Commissioners who replaced Lin Tse-hs in Canton were unable to stop the opium traffic. In conflicts known as the First and Second Opium Wars, British naval and marine forces seized control of Hong Kong, ravaged the Chinese coastline and briefly occupied the capital city of Peking. In 1858 the Chinese government, bowing to British demands, reluctantly legalized the importation of opium. These wars have faced the efforts for justification and many reasons can be found. However, the underlying reasons for war rarely live up to the expenses paid. The wars waged on the Chinese people caused untold deaths and casualties. The British destroyed, plundered, looted and raped their way along the coast of China. Had the Chinese properly been notified on the trend of the war, perhaps these lives would have been spared.
Legal Issues

Categories: Articles

x

Hi!
I'm Iren!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out