Imagine your whole body paralyzed, frozen in time forever. Imagine your breath, artificially created by ventilators. Imagine being told that in ten days, your heart will be beating through a machine. Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is a medical practice that can relieve an individual of their unwanted suffering and pain through either patient or physician induced suicide. The article, “Euthanasia: the perceptions of nurses in India” states that one of the main reasons that euthanasia is such a controversial topic is because it contests people’s value systems (Poreddi et al). Value systems are the basis of the decisions that people make, and when these values are challenged, controversial topics such as euthanasia and PAS arise. When a patient’s value system is tested based on the fact that he/she has a debilitating disease, then that system should not have to be tested again based on the denial of euthanasia or PAS. An individual should have the right to die if they deem it necessary for their own personal reasons (whether that reason may be to not be a burden to their loved ones, or escape the suffering that they’re experiencing). If a patient meets certain requirements that deem the practice of euthanasia or PAS ethically and morally acceptable; then it should not be considered illegal. One requirement that should meet in order to deem the practice of euthanasia or PAS ethically acceptable is that the patient should give their consent for the practice to take place. If the patient’s consent is given, then the violation of human rights is not affected. Suresh Bada Math and Santosh K. Chaturvedi mention in their article that it is important to realize that every patient has the right to die with dignity (Math a... ... middle of paper ... ...eld, Andrew M. Siegel, and Rael D. Strous. "Attitudes Towards Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide: A Comparison Between Psychiatrists And Other Physicians." Bioethics 27.7 (2013): 402-08. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Feb. 2014. Math, Suresh Bada, and Santosh K. Chaturvedi. "Euthanasia: Right to Live vs Right to Die." Indian J Med Res (2012): 899-902. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Feb. 2014. Poreddi, Vijayalakshmi, Reddemma Konduru, and Suresh Bada Math. "Euthanasia: The Perceptions of Nurses in India." International Journal of Palliative Nursing (n.d.): n. pag. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Feb. 2014. Tamayo-Velazquez, M.-I., P. Simon-Lorda, and M. Cruz-Piqueras. "Euthanasia and Physician-assisted Suicide: Knowledge, Attitudes and Experiences of Nurses in Andalusia (Spain)." Nursing Ethics 19.5 (2012): 677-91. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Feb. 2014.
In short, euthanasia asks questions that cannot be answered from the perspective of medicine alone. The inappropriateness between assisting voluntary death and the professional ethos of physicians may mean that physicians should not assist death, except it does not necessarily settle the argument of whether anyone ever should. Acceptance for palliative care seems to be growing, but support of assisted suicide is growing also, because end of life issues are kept in the public eye. Additional empirical analysis of this situation is important. Furthermore, this debate could continue to yield insights into the issues around suffering at the end of life.
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
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns on both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
There exists two possible solutions to the ethical dilemma of a terminally ill patient’s right to die: they are the legalization of physician assisted suicide and the banning of it. This paper will explore whether the legalization of PAS should be the recommended course of action or whether there are sufficient negative issues surrounding it to make the banning of it, the correct ethical choice.
The nursing profession is formed upon the Hippocratic practice of "do no harm" and an ethic of moral opposition to ending another human’s life. The Code of Ethics for nurses prohibits intentionally terminating any human life. Nurses are compelled to provide ease of suffering, comfort and ideally a death that is coherent with the values and wishes of the dying patient, however; it is essential that nurses uphold the ethical obligations of the profession and not partake in assisted suicide. (King, 2003)
Regarding the views of physicians on euthanasia and assisted suicide, it is difficult to get a true picture of physicians views from articles in newspapers or from journal review articles. Since euthanasia and assisted suicide are new and a challenge to established values, a report about a single physician practicing assisted suicide is more likely to get published than a report that members of a large physicians' organization reaffirms traditional values. Physicians that practice euthanasia and assisted suicide have been more outspoken and vociferous since many consider themselves as pioneers. Whereas many physicians who continue to practice with traditional ethics, see no need to advertise this fact. Even if one reads consensus statements from medical ethics groups one may get a biased idea of the mainstream views of physicians. These statements are usually written by a small group of physicians, many of whom are active in ethics groups because they want to see change. Several articles have been published that poll doctors' views on euthanasia and assisted suicide, and these are likely to get closer to the real views of doctors. In a survey of doctors on management of the persistent vegetative state, 35% of doctors would never withdraw feeding or nutrition and 28% would always treat an acute infection or other life-threatening condition (1).
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?
perspective on euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36(5), 306. Retrieved March 15, 2011, from Research Library.
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
[4] P. Allmark, "Euthanasia, dying well and the slippery slope," J. Adv. Nurs., vol. 18, pp. 1178-1182, 1993.
Euthanasia has been an ongoing debate for many years. Everyone has an opinion on why euthanasia should or should not be allowed but, it is as simple as having the choice to die with dignity. If a patient wishes to end his or her life before a disease takes away their quality of life, then the patient should have the option of euthanasia. Although, American society considers euthanasia to be morally wrong euthanasia should be considered respecting a loved one’s wishes. To understand euthanasia, it is important to know the rights humans have at the end of life, that there are acts of passive euthanasia already in practice, and the beneficial aspects.
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.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their lifetime. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are suffering from euthanasia.
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.
Focus on the Family Issue Analysts. “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.” Focus on the Family. 2008. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'.