INTRODUCTION It is hard to open a newspaper in the United States today without finding at least one article that has some bearing on the end-of-life debate. Perhaps Dr. Jack Kervorkian, a retired pathologist, has helped another person commit suicide, or a famous person with AIDS has written about the agony of the terminal stages of this terrible disease. Maybe the Pope has threatened to excommunicate any catholic that joins a right-to-die organization or a court has overturned another law banning physician assisted suicide. We are constantly bombarded with stories of people's end-of-life decisions and sometimes these issues may strike close to home and we must make a choice. Euthanasia, one of the words associated with the end-of-life debate, means different things to different people. The word is loaded with historical and emotional connotations. The dictionary allows for much interpretation: "The painless killing of a patient suffering from a painful and incurable disease," but stops well short of covering the always-changing practice of euthanasia. (Webster's 1995). For example, not everyone that requests euthanasia today is a "patient," or suffers from some incurable disease. Modern medicine has made it possible to keep people alive far beyond our ability to comfort them. The practice of euthanasia has long been accepted and considered merciful when applied to farm animals. The vet knows when to stop treatment and shoot the horse to prevent undue suffering and save money. Only when euthanasia is applied to humans does our certainty waiver. The issue becomes murky, and we do not know how to behave. On the farm, there is sadness at the lost of a fine animal but the farmer knows he has done the right thing. There is r... ... middle of paper ... ... doctors the order to end treatment. Since the patient's doctors have this in writing, it is usually followed. Passive, Involuntary, Direct: This is the form or procedure in which a simple "mercy killing" is done on behalf of the patient without his prior consent. Instances of this would be when an idiot is given a fatal dose, or when a man getting burned alive is shot in the head. This may be the simplest form of euthanasia but it has posed the most problems in courts. Passive, Involuntary, Indirect: This is the "letting the patient go" tactic being carried out everyday in our hospitals. Nothing is done for the patient's grave condition, other than making him comfortable. What is done is done for him rather than in response to any request by him. This tactic is very vulnerable to criminal neglect and malpractice lawsuits. (Baird / Rosenbaum 88-91)
Any discussion that pertains to the topic of euthanasia must first include a clear definition of the key terms and issues. With this in mind, it should be noted that euthanasia includes both what has been called physician-assisted "suicide" and voluntary active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide involves providing lethal medication(s) available to the patient to be used at a time of the patient’s own choosing (Boudreau, p.2, 2014). Indifferently, voluntary active euthanasia involves the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. Physician-assisted suicide is felt to be easier psychologically for the physician and patient than euthanasia because
Currently, in the United States, 12% of states including Vermont, Oregon, and California have legalized the Right to Die. This ongoing debate whether or not to assist in death with patients who have terminal illness has been and is still far from over. Before continuing, the definition of Right to Die is, “an individual who has been certified by a physician as having an illness or physical condition which can be reasonably be expected to result in death in 24 months or less after the date of the certification” (Terminally Ill Law & Legal Definition 1). With this definition, the Right to die ought to be available to any person that is determined terminally ill by a professional, upon this; with the request of Right to Die, euthanasia must be
The issue at hand is whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized for patients who are terminally ill and/or enduring prolonged suffering. In this debate, the choice of terms is central. The most common term, euthanasia, comes from the Greek words meaning "good death." Sidney Hook calls it "voluntary euthanasia," and Daniel C. Maguire calls it "death by choice," but John Leo calls it "cozy little homicides." Eileen Doyle points out the dangers of a popular term, "quality-of-life." The choice of terms may serve to conceal, or to enhance, the basic fact that euthanasia ends a human life. Different authors choose different terms, depending on which side of the issue they are defending.
With the growing debate on the legality of physician assisted suicide happening in the United States,it is important for everyone to know the position that are being advocated. Having a full sense of knowledge on the conversation taking place gives people who are interested on this topic the necessary tool to draw their own conclusion on how they should feel on this particular issue. Even if someone is not interested in this topic on a cultural level, they should in a personal sense because it might affect their family or themselves one day. In a way this issue and debate affects everyone because there might be a possibility that we acquire a terminal illness, and when this happen we are either denied the option of PAS or granted that option, depending the status of it.
There are many ethical issues that arise in the Karen Ann Quinlan case. First, there is the ethical right that each person has to receive or refuse medical treatment. But this can ethically problematic because some would see death as an intrinsic evil; therefore choosing death would be unethical. This, however, can be categorized as part of the larger issue of patient autonomy, the patient's right to live and abide by their own personal choices (Garrett 29). Recent thought has affirmed the idea of patient autonomy in medicine, now making it a central dogma of the American medical practice. In this case, patient autonomy is threatened because the patient is not able to communicate their desires for treatment. The physician cannot ask, and therefore cannot know, if the patient would want to continue treatment or withdraw treatment. In this case, the Karen was deemed incompetent...
Euthanasia is a subject that society is not just going to let pass by them without society giving their points of view. Euthanasia is just another excuse for physician’s to be able to kill another human life that could still be worth living, just as abortion is seen. As society has grown since ancient times they have come across many more debates and many more reasons why euthanasia so be allowed or not allowed. If society allows such an act of degrading of a life, we will be taking life into our hands and will be leading into a whole different world. The main question that boggles many people’s minds is that if society allows this form of killing to go on then what is society going to let happen next? Is society taking life into our own hands or is our life taking us into its hands?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines euthanasia as “the action of inducing a gentle and easy death” (Oxford English Dictionary). Many people around the world would like nothing more than to end their lives because they are suffering from painful and lethal diseases; suffering people desperately seek doctors to help them end their lives. Many people see euthanasia as murder, so euthanasia is illegal in many countries. Euthanasia is an extremely controversial issue that has many complex factors behind it including medical costs, murder and liberty rights. Should people have the rights to seek euthanasia from doctors who are well trained in dealing with euthanasia?
Doctors’ and physicians’ technical ambition is purely to treat patients that they encounter. This common knowledge contributes to the obvious position that stands against physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia. There are several forms of euthanasia being practiced today. Some forms include a more commonly used phrase “pulling the plug” for when a patient is in a vegetable state and the family or physicians have to make the choice of removing o...
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
For example, if a patient demands chemotherapy to treat an ulcer,
In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die. I plan to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of both active and passive euthanasia.
Robert Matz; Daniel P. Sudmasy; Edward D. Pallegrino. "Euthanasia: Morals and Ethics." Archives of Internal Medicine 1999: p1815 Aug. 9, 1999 .
Two patients share a hospital room. By miraculous circumstance, they are both suffering identical cases of late stage terminal cancer, and both have expressed firmly that they don’t want their lives to be artificially extended. Patient A has contracted a hospital-borne infection, and will die quickly if this infection is not treated. This being the case, the doctors decide to take no action, allowing Patient A to die from the infection. This raises the question: what does this choice imply for Patient B? Should he be allowed to choose active euthanasia to combat his suffering? I will argue that there is no moral distinction between letting Patient A die and “killing” Patient B. I will do so by looking at each patient’s circumstances individually, then applying arguments about euthanasia to their cases, and ultimately bringing them back together to consider a verdict. While some may argue that there is a difference between killing Patient B and letting Patient A die, I assert that any such claims are based in irrelevant reasoning.