Euthanasia is also known as mercy killing. Euthanasia can be described as the act of putting a person to death painlessly. The practice mostly happens when an individual is suffering from a disease that is incurable and so painful, a physical disorder which is damaging, by withholding the treatments and also by removing the artificial measures put in place to support life.  The practice has been supported by various groups, while others have firmly stood against the practice. For instance, some religious groups believe that practicing euthanasia would kill the value as well as the respect that society has for human life (Bekos, 2019). There have been controversies on euthanasia between religion and morality. Some people are for the idea that euthanasia is the same as murder and is unacceptable. Other people believe that euthanasia should only be practiced when someone has the capability of making sound decisions. Religious groups and other groups that are against euthanasia believe that embracing the practice would vest a lot of power to the doctors, therefore, affecting the trust of the patients (Mintz, 2019). The team believes that there is appropriate palliative care, thus reducing the need to perform euthanasia. In some cases, the patients may be pressured by the friends, the doctors, or even the family members to request for the practice what might be against the wish. Others argue that embracing the practice would demoralize the teams committed to research and develop new treatments and cures for the diseases. Additionally, euthanasia would reduce the commitment of the nurses and doctors in saving lives. People supporting euthanasia believe that people should be given the right to make decisions on how to die and when to die. They believe that practicing euthanasia will help control the situations of people and allow them to have a dignified death. Additionally, the group argues that the state should not interfere with an individual decision concerning death since it is a separate issue. Euthanasia is also seen as a way of reducing the cost of treatment. The group believes that the cost of treating diseases that have no cure could be saved by the practice, thus diverting the resources to save more people who are suffering from curable diseases. In addition to this, the act would protect the friends and the families the pain of watching their dear ones suffer for a long time (Jones, Gastmans, & MacKellar, 2017). They, therefore, argue that the same ways the community allow animals to be put to death when they are sick as a way of showing kindness the same way human beings should be prevented from suffering. Until today, the ethicality of euthanasia has not come into a clear agreement, although some states have legalized the practice.  Ethical Egoist opinion. The issue of euthanasia requires examination of the practice to determine the total benefit of the action. Ethical egoism, may result in an individual decision to die after cons.

1. Euthanasia is also known as mercy killing. Euthanasia can be
described as the act of putting a person to death painlessly. The
practice mostly happens when an individual is suffering from a
disease that is incurable and so painful, a physical disorder
which is damaging, by withholding the treatments and also by
removing the artificial measures put in place to support life.
The practice has been supported by various groups, while others
have firmly stood against the practice. For instance, some
religious groups believe that practicing euthanasia would kill
the value as well as the respect that society has for human life
(Bekos, 2019). There have been controversies on euthanasia
between religion and morality. Some people are for the idea that
euthanasia is the same as murder and is unacceptable.
Other people believe that euthanasia should only be practiced
when someone has the capability of making sound decisions.
Religious groups and other groups that are against euthanasia
believe that embracing the practice would vest a lot of power to
the doctors, therefore, affecting the trust of the patients (Mintz,
2019). The team believes that there is appropriate palliative
care, thus reducing the need to perform euthanasia. In some
cases, the patients may be pressured by the friends, the doctors,
or even the family members to request for the practice what
might be against the wish. Others argue that embracing the
practice would demoralize the teams committed to research and
develop new treatments and cures for the diseases. Additionally,
euthanasia would reduce the commitment of the nurses and
doctors in saving lives.
People supporting euthanasia believe that people should be
given the right to make decisions on how to die and when to
die. They believe that practicing euthanasia will help control

2. the situations of people and allow them to have a dignified
death. Additionally, the group argues that the state should not
interfere with an individual decision concerning death since it is
a separate issue. Euthanasia is also seen as a way of reducing
the cost of treatment. The group believes that the cost of
treating diseases that have no cure could be saved by the
practice, thus diverting the resources to save more people who
are suffering from curable diseases. In addition to this, the act
would protect the friends and the families the pain of watching
their dear ones suffer for a long time (Jones, Gastmans, &
MacKellar, 2017). They, therefore, argue that the same ways the
community allow animals to be put to death when they are sick
as a way of showing kindness the same way human beings
should be prevented from suffering. Until today, the ethicality
of euthanasia has not come into a clear agreement, although
some states have legalized the practice.
Ethical Egoist opinion.
The issue of euthanasia requires examination of the practice to
determine the total benefit of the action. Ethical egoism, may
result in an individual decision to die after considering the
personal benefits as well as self-interest, prefer to die. The
patient may be going through a lot of pain, expenses, as well as
improper functioning of the body, thus viewing the remaining
part of his life as invalid. On the contrary, the patient may also
choose to live with an option that innovation and developments
will be made, which will improve his condition.
Egoism has no specific stand on the issue of euthanasia, as the
justification of the act highly depends on the consent of the
family. At some point, the family is unable to support
euthanasia because of the inner guilt that they caused the death
of their loved one. Additionally, the family members may find
peace in knowing that they tried their best to save a life rather
than killing (Mintz, 2019). On the other hand, the family might

3. choose euthanasia to keep them from intense financial and
emotional trauma. The best interest would, therefore, be to
prevent the continuation of medical treatment. There is a
collision between individual loyalty and those of society. At
some point, an individual may choose to die through euthanasia,
while society feels that there is much to be done to save a life.
On the other hand, the organization may have the feeling that
their loved one has suffered for a long time, and there is no
hope for recovery, thus decide to go for euthanasia while the
patient may not be for the practice.
Social contract ethnicity.
The social contract ethics believe that people are brought
together as a community by the established agreements on
social, political, and moral behaviors. The approach mostly
explains the professionalism in the medical industry. The
doctors are required to put the patient's interests before they
consider their interests while delivering services. In the social
contract, the decision of a doctor to perform euthanasia is based
on the social contract as well as ethics. In the case of a social
contract, the doctor is faced with a dilemma (Mintz, 2019).
Society, as well as the code of profession, believes that the
doctors should be committed to saving lives and should not, at
any point, take the breath away. They are obliged to preserve
life regardless of the situation.
Performing euthanasia is therefore viewed as damage to the
professional image. The topic of euthanasia involves a collision
between the national obligations and personal obligations. This
is because the physician has national requirements to support
life while else there is a personal obligation while dealing with
families or patients who requires euthanasia.
American Counseling Association has addressed the issue of
euthanasia explicitly. In their professional code of ethics, the

4. body believes that performing euthanasia would result in a lot
of ethical questions (Finlay, 2019). American Medical
Association does not advocate for euthanasia as they think that
the physicians should be in the front line to support and
preserve life but not to take it away. America Nursing
Association also believes that the nurses should not take part in
euthanasia but should instead provide compassionate and
comprehensive care until life ends. The code of ethics for most
medical practitioners is against the practice of euthanasia. This
is conflicting as, at some point, the practitioners are required to
act in the interest of their patients.
References
Bekos, I. (2019).
Euthanasia and patristic tradition
.
Finlay, L. (2019).
Practical ethics in counselling and psychotherapy: A relational
approach
. SAGE Publications.
Jones, D. A., Gastmans, C., & MacKellar, C. (2017).
Euthanasia and assisted suicide: Lessons from Belgium
. Cambridge University Press.
Mintz, S. (2019).
Beyond happiness and meaning: Transforming your life through
ethical behavior
. Ethics Sage LLC.
28�I}b
Use the topic above to do this below;

5. Minimum of 5 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)
Instructions
First, return to your topic chosen in the week three assignment
.
Answer this question
: What are the personal and/or communal ethical factors that
may be involved in determining the moral position of either side
in that debate?
Next,
articulate and then evaluate the ethical positions using Kantian
ethics (that is, the categorical imperative) relative to the long
standing debate (that is your topic chosen in the week three
assignment).
Finally, create a complete annotated bibliography for 5
academic scholarly sources.
You will annotate each source. The sources should be relevant
to your topic chosen in the week three assignment.
Include the following:
Publication details
Annotation
(a detailed reading of the source)
Each annotation section should include the following:
Summarize
key points and identify key terms (using quotation marks, and
citing a page in parentheses).

6. Describe the controversies or "problems" raised by the articles.
State whether you agree or disagree and give reasons.
Locate one or two quotations to be used in the final research
project.
Evaluate the ways in which this article is important and has
helped you focus your understanding.
Use the following as a model:
APA Reference
Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse.
Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58-63.