Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Legalization of assisted suicide
Assisted suicide, medical ethical principles
Assisted suicide, medical ethical principles
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Legalization of assisted suicide
Assisted Suicide
To sanction the taking of innocent human life is to contradict a primary purpose of law in an ordered society. A law or court decision allowing assisted suicide would demean the lives of vulnerable patients and expose them to exploitation by those who feel they are better off dead. Such a policy would corrupt the medical profession, whose ethical code calls on physicians to serve life and never to kill. The voiceless or marginalized in our society -- the poor, the frail elderly, racial minorities, millions of people who lack health insurance -- would be the first to feel pressure to die.
What about competent, terminally ill people who say they really want assisted suicide?
Suicidal wishes among the terminally ill are no less due to treatable depression than the same wishes among the able-bodied. When their pain, depression and other problems are addressed, there is generally no more talk of suicide. If we respond to a death wish in one group of people with counseling and suicide prevention, and respond to the same wish in another group by offering them lethal drugs, we have made our own tragic choice as a society that some people's lives are objectively not worth protecting.
How does cost enter into this issue?
In an era of cost control and managed care, patients with lingering illnesses may be branded an economic liability, and decisions to encourage death can be driven by cost. As Acting U.S. Solicitor General Walter Dellinger warned in urging the Supreme Court to uphold laws against assisted suicide: "The least costly treatment for any illness is lethal medication."
Why are people with disabilities worried about assisted suicide?
Many people with disabilities have long experience with prejudicial attitudes on the part of able-bodied people, including physicians, who say they would "rather be dead than disabled." Such prejudices could easily lead families, physicians and society to encourage death for people who are depressed and emotionally vulnerable as they adjust to life with a serious illness or disability. To speak here of a "free choice" for suicide is a dangerously misguided abstraction.
What is the view of the medical profession?
The American Medical Association holds that "physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer." The AMA, along with the American Nurses Association, American Psychiatric Association and dozens of other medical groups, has urged the Supreme Court to uphold laws against assisted suicide, arguing that the power to assist in taking patients' lives is "a power that most health care professionals do not want and could not control.
The patients will have the understanding that if they cannot keep fighting the option is available. ¨ There is not more profoundly personal decision, nor one which is closer to the heart of personal liberty, than the choice which a terminally ill person makes to end his or her suffering and hasten an inevitable death¨ ( Sarah Henry, 1996, p. 10). If they are ready to end it, the option is available. They know the choice they make will affect them, but it also helps to know if they cannot go on they can tell the doctor and they will end it. ¨ Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations is the first religious group to pass in favor of Euthanasia for the terminally ill¨ ( Leading Issue Timelines, 2017, p. 8¨. The terminally ill should have the right to know if they are going to be allowed to end their lives if the fighting gets hard and to unbearable. They do not want to give up just to be on the road of a slow and possibly painful death. ¨ Between physician and patient concerning a request for assisted suicide be witnessed by two adults¨ ( Yale Kamisar, 1998, p. 6). The doctor´s are not going to just inject the patient with the killing drug. The patient has to be able to say for themselves and someone else has to be present when said, when gone over and when they are injected. The family can know their family member really wants to follow through with it and they have
In March of 1998, a woman suffering with cancer became the first person known to die under the law on physician-assisted suicide in the state of Oregon when she took a lethal dose of drugs. This law does not include people who have been on a life support system, nor does it include those who have not voluntarily asked physicians to help them commit suicide. Many people worry that legalizing doctor-assisted suicide is irrational and violates the life-saving tradition of medicine, and it has been argued that the reason why some terminally ill patients yearn to commit suicide is nothing more than depression. Physician Assisted Suicide would lessen the human life or end the suffering and pain of those on the verge of dying; Physician Assisted Suicide needs to be figured out for those in dire need of it or for those fighting against it. The main purpose of this paper is to bring light on the advantages and disadvantages of physician-assisted suicide and to show what principled and moral reasoning there is behind each point.
Medea is a tragedy written by acclaimed Greek playwright Euripides.fortunately, had the opportunity to view last night's performance. Euripides cleverly uncovers the reality of Ancient Greek society, shining a light on the treatment of women and the emotions and thoughts that provoked during their time in society. As they were voiceless, Euripides acted as a voice. The scene is set during a male- dominated society, Medea the protagonist challenges the views and chooses to ignore the normality of civilisation. Treated as an outsider her passion for revenge conquers the motherly instincts she possesses, provoking a deep hatred and sparking revenge towards her once loved family.
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has been a hot topic of debate for quite some time now. Some believe it to be immoral, while others see nothing wrong with it what so ever. Regardless what anyone believes, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal for physicians and patients. Death is a personal situation in life. By government not allowing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide they are interfering and violating patient’s personal freedom and human rights! Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide have the power to save the lives of family members and other ill patients. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should become legal however, there should be strict rules and guidelines to follow and carry out by both the patient and physician. If suicide isn’t a crime why should euthanasia and assisted suicide? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal and the government should not be permitted to interfere with death.
In her paper entitled "Euthanasia," Phillipa Foot notes that euthanasia should be thought of as "inducing or otherwise opting for death for the sake of the one who is to die" (MI, 8). In Moral Matters, Jan Narveson argues, successfully I think, that given moral grounds for suicide, voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable (at least, in principle). Daniel Callahan, on the other hand, in his "When Self-Determination Runs Amok," counters that the traditional pro-(active) euthanasia arguments concerning self-determination, the distinction between killing and allowing to die, and the skepticism about harmful consequences for society, are flawed. I do not think Callahan's reasoning establishes that euthanasia is indeed morally wrong and legally impossible, and I will attempt to show that.
In current society, legalizing physician assisted suicide is a prevalent argument. In 1997, the Supreme Court recognized no federal constitutional right to physician assisted suicide (Harned 1) , which defines suicide as one receiving help from a physician by means of a lethal dosage (Pearson 1), leaving it up to state legislatures to legalize such practice if desired. Only Oregon and Washington have since legalized physician assisted suicide. People seeking assisted suicide often experience slanted judgments and are generally not mentally healthy. Legalization of this practice would enable people to fall victim to coercion by friends and family to commit suicide. Also, asking for death is unfair to a doctor’s personal dogma. Some argue that society should honor the freedom of one’s choice to take his own life with the assistance of a physician; however, given the reasoning provided, it is in society’s best interest that physician assisted suicide remain illegal. Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized because suicidal people experience distorted judgments resulting in not being mentally equipped to make such a decision, people who feel they are a burden to their family may choose death as a result, and physicians should not have to go against their personal doctrines and promises.
The approach of physician-assisted suicide respects an individual’s need for personal dignity. It does not force the terminally ill patient to linger hopelessly, and helplessly, often at great cost to their psyche. It drive’s people mad knowing they are going to die in a short period of time, suffering while they wait in a hospital bed.
All humans will die. Approximately 2,155,000 people from the United States will die in one year. In the United States, during the year of 1989, 34% of all deaths were caused by heart disease, 23% caused by cancer, 6% by strokes, and 2.2% by accidents involving motor vehicles. In that same year, 5.5% of the deaths were caused by medical negligence and suicide (Leading causes). This does not take into consideration the number of people who were killed by assisted suicide and euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is described as the intentional discontinuation, by the patient's physician, of vital treatment that could prolong the person's life. Assisted suicide occurs when a health care worker provides a patient with tools and/or medication that will help the patient kill him or herself, without the direct intervention of the care provider. Active euthanasia takes place when the doctor is responsible for the killing of the patient; for example, when the doctor administers a lethal injection (Schofield, 25). Active euthanasia is illegal in the United States. Only three states have legalized assisted suicide and only Oregon permits physician-assisted suicide. Thirty-five states, including Colorado, have statutes criminalizing assisted suicide and nine states criminalize assisted suicide through common law (Assisted suicide laws). In addition to active and passive euthanasia there are three other categories of euthanasia: voluntary, nonvoluntary, and involuntary. Voluntary, there is written or spoken consent from the patient; nonvoluntary, the patient can not voice his or her opinion because of unconsciousness or comatose; and involuntary, which goes against the wishes of the patient, and constitutes murder (Schofield, 26). Assisted suicide and euthanasia, in any form, are murder.
His leave was revoked. During this time Ms. Barkley tells Henry she is pregnant. Henry returns to the front and leads his team to the retreat. Henry and his team takes secondary roads thinking it would be faster. The ambulances break down and the travel on foot. They run into battle police that execute commanding officers on sight. The police grab Henry but he breaks away. Henry jumps in to a lake and swims a safe way away from the front and battle police; Henry is now a criminal running away from police. Henry sneaks on to a train to go to Milan to go to Ms. Barkley. Henry refuse to tell Ms. Barkley what has happen and why he has
There are some arguments for assisted suicide and Respect for autonomy is one of them. A competent person should have the right to choose to live or die. Justice is another. Competent terminally ill patients are allowed to hasten their deaths by refusal of medication. Physician assisted suicide may be a compassionate response to unbearable sufferings. Although society has a strong interest in preserving life, that interest lessens when a person is terminally ill and has a strong desire to end life. Lastly, legalization of assisted suicide would promote open discussion. These arguments make it hard to go along with the arguments against assisted suicide.
Terminally ill patients no longer wish to have their lives artificially prolonged by expensive, painful, or debilitating treatments and would rather die quietly. The patients do not wish to prolong their life and they may not wish to commit suicide themselves or worse, are physically incapable of doing so. People have the right to their own destiny and living in the U.S we have acquired freedom. The patients Right to Self Determination Act gives the patient the power to decide how, when and why they choose to die. In "Editorial Exchange: Death with Dignity: Reopen Assisted-Suicide Debate." The Canadian Press Sep 27 2013 ProQuest. 7 June 2015” Doctor Donald Low and his terminally ill friends plea to physician assisted suicide in an online video. He states that it is their rights as cancer patients to make the decision to pass, but he is denied. Where is the equality? Patients who are on dialysis or hooked up to respirators have the choice to end their lives by ending treatment. However, patients who are not dependent on life support cannot choose when they can pass. Many patients feel that because of their illness that life is not worth living for and that life has already been taken from them due to lack of activities they can perform. Most of the terminally ill patients are bedridden with outrageous amounts of medication and they don’t want family members having to care for them
Assisted suicide brings up one of the biggest moral debates currently circulating in America. Physician assisted suicide allows a patient to be informed, including counseling about and prescribing lethal doses of drugs, and allowed to decide, with the help of a doctor, to commit suicide. There are so many questions about assisted suicide and no clear answers. Should assisted suicide be allowed only for the terminally ill, or for everyone? What does it actually mean to assist in a suicide? What will the consequences of legalizing assisted suicide be? What protection will there be to protect innocent people? Is it (morally) right or wrong? Those who are considered “pro-death”, believe that being able to choose how one dies is one’s own right.
Euripides shows his views on female power through Medea. As a writer of the marginalized in society, Medea is the prime example of minorities of the age. She is a single mother, with 2 illegitimate children, in a foreign place. Despite all these disadvantages, Medea is the cleverest character in the story. Medea is a warning to the consequences that follow when society underestimates the
In the story of Medea, the author, Euripides, addresses the topics of foreignism and female roles in the ancient Greek society. In the play, Medea, a foreign born woman, marries Jason, a Greek man, and moves to Greece to be with him after leaving her homeland with death and devastation. Then, when their marriage fails, Medea lashes out against Jason, causing her own exile and murdering her children, to which she has no love connection, and Jason’s new wife in the process. The main character, Medea, confirms many of the alleged Greek prejudices against foreigners and creates some prejudices of her own in return. Medea’s foreign roots and misconceptions, as well as her familial and societal atrocities,
The speech itself highlights women's subordinate status in ancient Greek society, especially in the public eye." When Medea points out that women, especially "foreign" women, "require some knowledge of magic and other covert arts to exert influence over their husbands in the bedroom," she argues for a kind of alternative power that women can enjoy. A power that remains invisible to men and unknown by society, yet sways each with unquestionable force. Medea also supplies a method for interpreting her own character towards the end of her speech (lines 251-257): we should read her history of exile as a metaphoric exaggeration of all women's alienation; in fact, her whole predicament, past and yet to come, can be read as an allegory of women's suffering and the heights of tragedy it may unleash if left unattended. Under this model of interpretation, Medea portrays the rebellion of women against their "wretchedness." Such a transparent social allegory may seem forced or clichéd in our own contemporary setting, but in Euripides' time it would have been revolutionary, as tragedy generally spoke to the sufferings of a generic (perhaps idealized) individual, rather than a group. It would be a mistake, however, to claim that Medea's speech elaborates a clearly progressive political message, as her concluding remarks appeal to women's natural talent for devious manipulation (line 414). While Euripides' play manifests many revolutionary political sentiments, its social criticisms remain sporadic, forming just a part of some of the many trains of thought he follows.