More handpicked essays just for you.
Religious and ethical issues with euthanasia
Suicide introduction research paper
Suicide introduction research paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Right to Die Barbra Huttmann’s purpose in writing her story in A Crime of Compassion is to convince people that no matter their beliefs, it is sometimes more humane to let someone die if they are suffering. This was the case with a cancer patient of hers named Mac. She communicates this directly by saying, “Until there is legislation making it a criminal act to code a patient has requested the right to die, we will all of us risk of the same face as Mac” (Huttmann 422). Huttmann wants to convince people that the right to die is necessary. She directs her article at those who would oppose this. Specifically she aims her words at religious communities. The story begins with a dark tone as she address how her audience feels about her actions. …show more content…
The author utilizes concrete diction when she describes Mac’s condition before he died. She explains how the nurses had to “suction the lung fluids that threatened to drown him, clean the feces that burned his skin like lye, poor the liquid food down the tube attached to his stomach, put pillows between his knees to ease the bone-on-bone pain,...and change his gown and linen every two hours” (Huttmann 420-421). The awfulness of this scene is depicted using concrete diction so that the reader is left with no question as to Mac’s suffering. Huttmann could have simply written that that the nurses had to “clean him up,” but by describing the entire operation, she paints a clear picture of Mac’s condition, justifing to her audience why he needed the right to …show more content…
Huttmann uses a connotation wile explaining how it was not legally allowed for her to refuse to alert a doctor when a patient stopped breathing. However she thinks about weather it could be morally allowed when she compares standing “before a judge accused of murder” to standing before “a spiritual judge” (Huttmann 421). This “spiritual judge” she is talking about is God. She attempts to relate to her audience, show them that she has a moral compass, in acknowledging the presence of a belief system in her life. This connotation helps to demonstrate to her reader why she made the best choice. According to law, she did the wrong thing, but according to religious beliefs; something her audience understands, she did the right thing. Although she may not think that personal beliefs should be a factor in giving people the right to die, she wants her audience to feel as if this right is what God would
The controversial act known as the physician aid-in-dying (PAD) challenges us to question our ethical, religious, and cultural values or beliefs. Although it is tragic and perceived as morally inappropriate, suicide is sometimes the only answer. In certain cases this act is a way to end excruciating pain and suffering. The state of Oregon passed a law known as the Death with Dignity Act in 1994. PAD is defined as “a practice in which a physician provides a competent, terminally ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient's request, which the patient intends to use to end his or their own life” (Braddock, and Tonelli). PAD also raises the question, is it a constitutionally guaranteed right for people to have the power and the medicine to take their own life? PAD, if operating under careful supervision, is an alternative to patients who may have to endure physical, mental, and financial struggles. Doctor Peter Goodwin, a physician from Portland, Oregon campaigned for the Death with Dignity Act, which he called his greatest legacy. Goodwin became a terminally ill patient towards the end of his life. Doctor Goodwin was 83 years old when he took the very medicine that he campaigned so long for. Goodwin was diagnosed with a rare brain disorder, which he had been battling for 6 years prior to PAD.
Even though Barbara’s intentions in this paper are directly stated, her claims she gives does not back her argument at all. After reading her major claim, which states that we do not have the right to die (97), I feel the complete opposite of what she thinks and I believe a person should have the right to die if there is no chance of them getting better in the future. The author’s grounds explained all of the struggles of keeping a very sick man alive, which I believe gave me some very good evidence to write my counter argument.
The second audience that May is appealing to are conservative Christians, who are distinctively pro-life. As his article was originally published in well-circulated The Christian Century magazine, addressing this audience exposes members of May's audience who are unfamiliar with euthanasia to its technicalities by debating morality. His tone is similar to that of a sermon; instead of utilizing scientific facts or statistics, May chooses to exclude a logos appeal in favor of an ethos objective. He preaches on moral values about life and death, mentioning that “the best death is not always the sudden death” (May 662). According to May, preparation...
Envision your loved one having so much pain that they no longer want to be alive, but they have no other option than to endure the pain they are going through. Imagine yourself feeling useless and incompetent,serving no purpose in the world where everybody is mobile, feeling like a burden to those around you. Well some people did not have to envision it, which is what happened with Mac in Barbara Huttman’s essay. Mac wanted the right to die, begging to be let go until his death. He had to suffer due to the fact that he had no choice but to do so. Huttman, his hospice nurse, who had to resuscitate him 52 times, no longer wanted to see him in agony and took it upon herself to help him end his life (815-817). With the legalization of physician
Braddok III Clarence H. MD MPH .” Physician aid-in-dying: Ethical topics in medicine” n.d University of Washington school of medicinestate death with dignity act” N.p n.d University of Washington department of bioethics and humanities 2009 web 24 March 2012
whatever it takes to keep them alive. That is not moral, that is legal. But
Imagine, if you will, that you have just found out you have a terminal medical condition. Doesn’t matter which one, it’s terminal. Over the 6 months you have to live you experience unmeasurable amounts of pain, and when your free of your pain the medication you’re under renders you in an impaired sense of consciousness. Towards the 4th month, you begin to believe all this suffering is pointless, you are to die anyways, why not with a little dignity. You begin to consider Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). In this essay I will explain the ethical decisions and dilemmas one may face when deciding to accept the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I will also provide factual information pertaining to the subject of PAS and testimony from some that advocate for legalization of PAS. PAS is not to be taken lightly. It is the decision to end one’s life with the aid of a medical physician. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that PAS is “Suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent.” PAS is considered, by our textbook – Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. There are other forms of euthanasia such as non-voluntary, involuntary, and passive. This essay is focusing on PAS, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. PAS is commonly known as “Dying/Death with Dignity.” The most recent publicized case of PAS is the case of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where she lived. At the time California didn’t have Legislative right to allow Brittany the right to commit PAS so she was transported to Oregon where PAS is legal....
When the producer was growing up she would call and impersonate her mother in order to get people to listen to her. One time she had to yell at her mother’s stock broker because he didn’t send her check on time. Another example is when she got a CAT scan and the hospital lost the results and didn’t even apologize to her. But when the author spoke with them they made assure it would found and apologized.
“The most good is done by allowing people to carry out their own affairs with as little intrusion by government as possible” (Gittelman 372). Dying is a part of life and since it is your body you should have complete and full control over it. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be available for patients because they have the right to choses there “final exit”(Manning 26). Patients shouldn’t have to experience the fear of being “trapped” on life support with “no control” (Manning 27). They should be permitted the opportunity to die with a sense of pride and dignity, not shame, pain and suffrage. To make anyone live longer against their will and is simply immoral. By denying patient the option of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide the government is vi...
If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent? Why do we need to ask for consent? " He is just explaining that if we are allowed to kill someone legally through rationalization of the law, eventually we will find a way to rationalize murder too.
They argue that it is someone’s life on the line and that the outcome is something that cannot be changed once it is done. Some people look at euthanasia as murder, instead of letting someone “die with dignity.” Executive Director of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Rita Marker, makes a claim against those in favor of Euthanasia by saying “Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer” (6). In saying this, Marker alludes to the laws being being set to prevent people from dying at the hands of corrupt doctors. She’s making a case of the laws being there to protect the people suffering, which activists for euthanasia disagree
Pamela Bone was a former journalist and columnist for the Age, an Australian newspaper. She died after a long and painful battle of four years against myeloma. In her advocacy for euthanasia she ones said “I'm not afraid of being dead. I'm just afraid of what you might have to go through to get there.” Bone like many other terminal ill patients only wanted one thing before dying, she wanted euthanasia to become legal and have the right to die on her own terms. In the ongoing controversial discussion of legalizing euthanasia, terminal ill people argue that they should be entitled to decide when to die and when to get physician assistance to terminate their lives. On the other hand, opponents argue that euthanasia is unethical, barbaric and goes against the medical Hippocratic Oath.
Thus, despite the arguments against euthanasia, patients’ lives should not be deprived of well-being, comfort or dignity. “In the last stage of life, every person is entitled to a high standard of care and a stable environment in which his or her privacy is respected” (Policy Options, 2013). A lot of the time, patients with terminal illnesses are thought of as ‘better off dead’ or ‘not the person they used to be’. This is all the more the reason why euthanasia should be legalized in Canada. The government should relax current laws and allow doctors to participate in assisted suicide if need be and are willing. If people suffering with terminal illnesses want to die peacefully and not endure painful procedures or live off machines whilst also helping society out money wise, the option should be available.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
When Elizabeth Warner, stage 4 cancer patient, decides to take the pill that will end her life, are her children sitting there thinking about how she will finally be out of suffering; or wondering for the rest of their lives if miracles do happen, that would have allowed for their children to have a grandmother? Over the years, there has been much controversy as to whether or not euthanasia should be legal or not. Through evidence, it is clear that the morals behind this concept are just simply wrong. It allows for a large gap of abuse through poor influence from doctors, family members, and suffering from severe depression. Though it may appear that making this practice legal, it is preventing people from committing the illegal crime of suicide,