When debating who has the right to determine a person's death, it is always a controversial issue. Euthanasia is known as the practice of intentionally ending a life in hopes of freeing an individual from an incurable disease or unendurable suffering (Nordqvist). It can be done by either the request of a dying patient or by the consent of a person's legal guardian. Although our society influences the prolong treatment of medicine and care of all people, Euthanasia with special guidelines, should be added as an additional option because it allows dying patients to avoid a painful death, reduces financial burdens, and lessens family sufferance. Imagine seeing a loved one or a close friend suffer through a vicious illness both fatal and untreatable. Would it be morally acceptable to allow the person in pain to decide whether he or she wants to take away their own life? Sadly enough, in the United States, this choice does not exist, and if an act like this was performed by any doctor it would be considered a murder crime which could result in a prison sentence to up to 14 years or more (Nordqvist). Oregon and Washington D.C. are currently the only two states that allow assisted suicide, while euthanasia is illegal in every state ("Where it is legal in the U.S."). The difference between the two comes from the way they are both performed. When assisted suicide occurs the patient administers the recommended medication by the physician, however euthanasia occurs when the doctor himself directs the medication to the suffering patient, with the purpose of ending their life sooner (Diaconescu 474). In the supreme court case, People of the State of Michigan v. Jack Kevorkian, a patient named Thomas Youk was killed by his doctor throug... ... middle of paper ... ...ed in every state. Works Cited Diaconescu, Amelia Mihaela. "Euthanasia." Contemporary Readings In Law & Social Justice 4.2 (2012): 474-483. Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Dec. 2013. Humphry, Derek. "Euthanasia is Ethical" Euthanasia Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1995. Print. "Legal Precedents - Euthanasia - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. ProCon, 13 Apr. 2009. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. Nordqvist, Christian. "What Is Euthanasia (assisted Suicide)? What Is The Definition Of Assisted Suicide Or Euthanasia?" Medical News Today. MediLexicon International, 19 Mar. 2010. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. Tamkins, Theresa. "Medical Bills Prompt More than 60 Percent of U.S. Bankruptcies." CNN. Cable News Network, 5 June 2009. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. "Where It Is Legal in the U.S." Assisted Suicide. Wisconsin Right To Life, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2013.
There are many legal and ethical issues when discussing the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The legal issues are those regarding numerous court cases over the past few decades, the debate over how the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution comes into play, and the legalization vs. illegalization of this practice. The 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). PAS in the past has been upheld as illegal due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution, but in recent years this same 14th amendment is also part of the reasoning for legalizing PAS, “nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). The ethical issues surrounding this topic include a patient’s autonomy and dignity and if PAS should be legalized everywhere. This paper is an analysis of the PAS debate and explores these different issues using a specific case that went to the supreme courts called Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al.
Oregon is currently the only state that gives the terminally ill the right to decide how and when they want to die. This is known as “Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act” which lets ill, competent patients, who have less than six months to live, choose their preferred lethal dose of medication after they confer with two doctors. Since this right is present in only one state, it causes controversy. David Sarasohn in “No Last Rights” discusses Attorney General John Ashcroft’s challenge to the 1997 Supreme Court decision, which gave doctors in Oregon the right to prescribe federally controlled substances intended to euthanize. Ken MacQueen in “Choosing Suicide” reflects on various cases of euthanasia, differences in lawmaking on euthanasia between Canada and Oregon, and illegal acts of euthanasia.
“Thomas More, in describing a utopian community, envisaged such a community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of ‘torturing and lingering pain’” (Voluntary Euthanasia). Euthanasia is an act that would be used to relieve suffering patients. Before one can argue for or against the legalization of euthanasia, he must understand the difference between the different types of euthanasia: active versus passive, voluntary versus non-voluntary and involuntary, and euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. First, “active euthanasia occurs when something is done with the specific intention of ending a person‘s life, such as injecting a lethal medication,” while “passive euthanasia occurs when interventions that might prolong life are withheld, such as deciding against connecting a dying person to a life support” (Euthanasia- Euthanasia: History, Controversy, Facts). Second, voluntary euthanasia is when a competent person asks for help to end his life, while non-voluntary euthanasia is when a person is not competent to make the decision for himself, and involuntary euthanasia is when the patient is completely against euthanasia (National Right to Life). There is even a difference between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, as euthanasia describes “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals,“ while physician-assisted suicide is when a person is giving the tools needed to end his own life by a physician (Suicide, Euthanasia, and Physician-Assisted Suicide). Although involuntary euthanasia should never be viewed as permissible, all other kinds of euthanasia should be legalized with the aid of living wills, giving the sufferin...
Hendin, H., Foley, K., & White, M. (1998). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Reflections on Oregon's First Case. Issues in Law & Medicine, 14(3), 243 - 270.
...a common answer for all terminal patients. However, even in Oregon, where physician-assisted suicide was legalized over a decade ago, the procedure accounts for only about 1 in 1,000 deaths in the state.
Is society playing the role of God or is the world so wrapped up in their lives that God no longer matters? Euthanasia has been around since the ancient Romans and Greeks and has been a highly debated subject just as it is today. In history and in arguments stated today is that “people are the created and not the Creator” (Gula 26). There are many things that society can argue about the subject of euthanasia but the main debate is that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is wrong. Society gets euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide confused because they both have to do with physicians tending to the patient’s death. Society is either for or against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. It is debated throughout history, within the church, and even within the medical profession; however euthanasia is wrong.
Morally, doctor patient relationships are where doctors fully respects the wishes of patients decisions and autonomy. But its when the patients wish to die by the doctors hands or even be giving an overdose prescription to help aid their wish, can cause an uproar in whether if proceeding in Euthanasia is morally right or wrong. But its where the physicians have to decide and honor the wishes of euthanasia even if it does goes against they’re code of ethics and seems morally wrong. Even though the only job of a physician is to make sure of the patients life and that they remain alive.
Assisted Suicide, also known as mercy killing, occurs when a physician provides the means (drugs or other agents) by which a person can take his or her own life. This assistance is one of the most debated issues today in society followed by abortion. Physicians are frequently faced with the question of whether or not assisted suicide is ethical or immoral. Although assisted suicide is currently illegal in almost all states in America, it is still often committed. Is assisted suicide ethical? Studies have found that the majority of Americans support assisted suicide. One must weigh both sides of the argument before they can decide.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
Assisted death can consist of either voluntary euthanasia or physical-assisted suicide. Voluntary suicide is when a doctor purposely administers drugs to force death upon a person, while physical-assisted suicide is when a doctor aids someone in committing suicide by presenting drugs for self administration by a family member or loved one (Tomlinson). This procedure is legal in Vermont, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico and recently passed in California. In 2014, Brittany Maynard, a young Californian woman with terminal brain cancer became an advocate for the terminally ill and took her own life under Oregon aid-in-dying law (The Brittany Maynard Fund). Maynard states, “Every terminally ill American deserves the choice to die with dignity… Freedom from prolonged pain and suffering is a most basic human right” (Firger). Having the ability to...
Currently, physician-assisted suicide or death is illegal in all states except Oregon, Vermont, Montana and Washington. Present law in other states express that suicide is not a crime, but assisting in suicide is. Supporters of legislation legalizing assisted suicide claim that the moral right to life should encompass the right to voluntary death. Opponents of assisted suicide claim that society has a moral and civic duty to preserve the lives of innocent persons. There is a slippery slope involving the legalizing assisted suicide. Concern that assisted suicide allowed on the basis of mercy or compassion, can and will lead to the urging of the death for morally unjustifiable reasons is understandable. However, legalization can serve to prevent the already existent practice of underground physician-assisted suicide if strict laws to ensure that the interests of the patients are primary are installed and enforced. When a patient asks for assistance in dying, their wishes should be respected as long as the patient is free from coercion and competent enough to give informed consent. The intent of this work is to examine the legalization of assisted suicide in Oregon and the Netherlands and to argue that assisted suicide is morally and ethically acceptable in theory despite some unintended consequences of its implementation.
“In 1999, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician known for openly advertising that he would perform assisted suicide despite the fact that it was illegal, was convicted of second-degree murder” (Lee). The fact of the matter is human being...
Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.
Euthanasia is a word whose roots can be traced back to Greece where it meant good death. It encompasses various dimensions, from active where something is introduced to cause death, to passive where treatment or supportive actions are withheld. It also varies from voluntary euthanasia where one consents to it, to involuntary where a guardian can give consent and doctor assisted in which the doctors prescribes the medication and a third party or patient administers the prescription to cause death. Wishes for premature death have significantly contributed to the long debate regarding the role of this practice in the current health care. The debate however cuts across dynamic and complex aspects like ethical, legal, health, human rights, economic, religious, social, spiritual and cultural aspects of the enlightened society (Math & Chaturvedi, p. 889). Here, this intricate issue is argued from both sides of the ongoing debate and also the plight of the caregivers and the victims.
In order to provide a framework for my thesis statement on the morality of euthanasia, it is first necessary to define what euthanasia is and the different types of euthanasia. The term Euthanasia originates from the Greek term “eu”, meaning happy or good and “thanatos”, which means death, so the literal definition of the word Euthanasia can be translated to mean “good or happy death”.