599
edits
Changes
I tried to fix the definition
{{Orthodoxize}}
{{cleanup|Needs a thorough revision, including opening definition}}
'''Euthanasia''' refers to the act of intentionally ending the life of one who is when those suffering from a terminal disease who suffer from painful diseases has expressed the wish to kill themselves, perhaps with the assistance of a doctorbe assisted to die in order to avoid what is seen to be as unecessary and unbearable suffering. The term literally means "good death" (εὖ + Θάνατος). Thus it It is sometimes called ''assisted suicide'' or, very often in recent times, it has been (euphemistically) called "dying with dignity." Likewise when a doctor removes treatment, for the purpose of death this too falls under the definition of euthanasia.
==The issue==
From the position of those who favor euthanasia the practice is understood as a means of removing pain. If pain and suffering are understood as being bad then euthanasia must be good. "Pain, suffering, and evil in general, thus all reveal a certain lack of being, a certain negativity which threatens man's being-in-the-world. It forces man to consider himself, to reflect on his mode of being in this world and to contemplate the sorrow of his contingency."{{citation}} To use the modern terminology, this is referring to quality of life. Supporters of euthanasia feel that if their quality of life is infringed upon they have the right to end their life and to die as they choose.
The advances in medical technology also play plays an interesting part in the drama of euthanasia. The greater that the modern advances are becoming the greater opportunity there is to prolong life. "Not long ago, when the point of death was reached, there was usually nothing that could be done about it. Now, due to the marvels of medicine, all kinds of things can help keep people 'alive' long after what used to be the final crisis. For example there is a cardiac 'pacemaker' a machine that can restart a heart that a stopped beating."{{citation}} This brings the issue to the forefront of whether or not is right to prolong a life simply by medical advancements.
The opposition that is put forth to this argument is as follows; should not we allow a person to die when it is their time and not to prolong their life extensively? Subsequently, is a physician murdering in the strictest sense if he was to withhold the treatment? "The religious person's concern that ending one's life is playing God may seem to be predicated on the indefensible assumption that respecting the natural ordering of events is respecting the divine ordering of events. According to this view, letting nature have its way is interpreted as letting God have his way."{{citation}} This is rather difficult as one can see. From the definition of the church's teaching it is murder. The doctor had a method of treatment available and did not administer it instead allows the patient to die. Life is extremely important and we must exhaust every possible alternative in order to prolong an individual's life.
"His wife, Patricia, remembered that her husband had told her ten years before... 'I don't ever want to be on a life-support system. No way do I want to live like that; that is not living.' Although he did not talk specifically about whether a feeding tube should be removed, Brophy's brothers, sisters, and adult children confirmed that he would not have wished to be kept alive by a tube."{{citation}}
His wife continued to argue in favor of the feeding tube being removed, which caused the case to be brought to court. The state had felt that her husband was not terminally ill and that and Mr. Brophy had a chance at surviving. It was on September 11, 1986, that the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled in her favor. However, the ruling had complications to it and Paul Brophy needed to be transferred to another facility. Eight days after being transferred, he died. This particular case brings an important question to the discussion does the removal of the feeding tube constitute a refusal of medical treatment? The ruling authorities in many states would answer this question as a yes. Despite all that has been done, there needs to be further clarification on euthanasia on a legal level.
==Conclusion==
