Euthanasia: The Right to Die Euthanasia has become an issue of increasing attention because of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's assisted suicides. As of October 21 Kevorkian has assisted in nineteen suicides. Because of the increasing number of suicides in Michigan, Gov. Engler signed an anti-suicide law in late February that made doctor- assisted suicides a felony. During the 21-month trial period of the new law anyone assisting in a suicide can be sentenced to up to four years in prison and fined more than $2,000 (Reuters, 1993). With the passing of this law I thought that most people would be against the right-to-die, not so. In a poll cited in a 1991 issue of USA Today eighty percent of Americans think sometimes there are circumstances when a patient should be allowed to die, compared to only fifteen percent think doctors and nurses should always do everything possible to save a person's life. It also showed that eight in ten adults approve of state laws that allow medical care for the terminally ill to be removed or withheld, if that is what the patient "wishes", whereas only thirteen percent disapproved of the laws. Also seventy percent think the family should be allowed to make the decision about treatment on behalf of the patient, while another five percent think this is suitable only in some cases (Colasnto, 1991, p. 62). The results on mercy killing surprised me even more. Seventy percent think it is justified at least sometimes for a person to kill his or her spouse, if he or she is suffering terrible pain caused by a terminal illness. Even suicide is starting to be accepted. About half the public think a "moral right" to suicide exists if a person has an incurable disease or is suffering great pain with no hope of recovering(Colasnto, 1991, p. 63). About half of those with living parents think their mothers and fathers would want medical treatment stopped if they were suffering a great deal of pain in a terminal disease or if they became totally dependant on a family member, and forty percent of their parents would want medical treatment stopped if daily activities became a burden(Colasnto,1991, p. 63). With the continuous coverage of Dr. Kevorkian the views of people will continue to change. Euthanasia will continue to become more of an issue. As with any issue, each viewpoint is supported by many reasons. Those who oppose euthanasia argue that the medical profession must always be on the side of "preserving life" (Schofield, 1988, p. 24). Another reason is euthanasia will lead to the "devaluation of life" (Low, 1989, p. 37). Also they think it will force doctors and family members to "judge the value of a patient's life". Critics also say that acceptance will spread from the terminally ill to the less serious ill, the handicapped, or the mentally retarded. (Russ, 1989, p. 117) One reason that just about everyone who favors euthanasia agrees with is that a person has the right to a death with dignity. Another reason is a person should be allowed a "natural death" instead of a prolonged death with medical equipment(Battin, 1985, p. 19). Still another reason is that doctors are supposed to ease the pain of people not prolong it (Battin, 1989, p. 19). Death is one of the few things that all people have in common. This means that there is a chance for anyone to face the decision of letting someone go. Euthanasia should be legalized so people will only have to think about the difficult decision of the present and not about the consequences of the future. One of the base reasons people for euthanasia give is, a person has the right to die with dignity. People should be allowed to control their own deaths. Why should a patient be forced to live if they think their present standard of life has "degenerated to the point of meaningless", when doctors can no longer help, and perhaps the pain has become unbearable? At this point, if the person is of sound mind, they should have the choice to continue on or to peacefully die, even if they need assistance in doing so(Larue, 1988, p. 153). If the person is not able to make this decision there should be a few options, a living will, the family's choice, and the doctor's choice. A living will should be allowed to control the outcome if the person is unable to. If there is no living will the family, consulting with a qualified physician, should be allowed to decide for the patient. The one situation that is most controversial is a patient with no family or no family member qualified to make the decision. Some think the doctor should be able to make the decision for the patient. I believe that the doctor should be allowed to decide if the patient has reached the point of only getting worse and in considerable pain. In any of these situations a doctor should be at least an advisor, they are the ones with the medical knowledge, and know the present condition of the patient and the alternatives. "In any humane or humanistic view of what is good, it is morally wrong to compel hopelessly suffering or irreversible debilitated patients to stay alive when death is freely elected" (Larue, 1988, p. 151). In some cases, like terminal illness, "death is often better than dyeing", mainly due to the way that the person will die. They may have to go thorough a long period of pain and suffering. Ask yourself which you would choose, early or prolonged death (Larue, 1988, p. 153). Even if you do not think that you would end your life or another's life should personal views decide that it is not the right thing for another to do. Does any person have the right to control the choices of others? Another argument is that not all the should everything be done to preserve a life. The natural balance of life and death has been disturbed by the advances of technology. No longer does a person die when they are supposed to; life-support now prevents that. Opponents say doctors should not play God by killing patients ,but do they realize that by prolonging death the medical profession is doing exactly that? Christian Barnard, at the World Euthanasia Conference, was quoted as saying, "I believe often that death is good medical treatment because it can achieve what all the medical advances and technology cannot achieve today. and that is stop the suffering of the patient" (Battin, 1987, p. 21). A differant version of the same argument is, doctors are not always responsible to do everything they can to save somebody. If a doctor's duty is to ease the pain of his patients, then why should this exclude the possibility of letting them die? If a patient has a terminal illness and is in great pain and the patient thinks they would rather die now than continue living the with the pain, the doctor should be allowed to help. What about a person who is in a vegetative state for a prolonged period of time with no hope of recovery, should the doctor do everything? Howard Caplan gives an example of this. I have on my census a man in his early 40s, left an aphasic triplegic by a motorcycle accident when he was 19. For nearly a quarter of a century, while most of us were working, raising children, reading, and otherwise going about our lives, he's been vegetating. His biographical life ended with the crash. He can only articulate - only make sounds to convey that he's hungry or wet. If he were to become acutely ill, I would prefer not to try saving him. I'd want to let pneumonia end it for him" (1987, p. 92). I believe that a doctor should do what he can up to a point. If a person is at the point where death is a blessing a doctor should not be forced to save a person if they go into cardiac arrest. Also it might be the patients decision for nothing to be done, in this case the doctor should do as instructed. Is euthanasia unethical? That is what the opposition argues. They preach that doctors too often play God on the operating tables and in the recovery rooms and doctors must always be on the side of life (Battin, 1987, p. 24). They say, "Life is to be preserved and suffering was to be alleviated", but in fact the American Medical Association said, "Physicians dedicate their lives to the alleviation of suffering, to the enhancement and prolongation of life, and the destinies of humanity". They clearly state the "alleviation of suffering" before "the enhancement and prolongation of life". So if the reduction of pain would mean letting the person pass on, why would that be wrong and unethical? They also claim euthanasia is a "breach of the laws of humanity", what about the laws of nature? These laws were established long before mankind. Humanity breached the laws of nature, long before the "laws of humanity" were broken, with advances like respirators. People are the ones upsetting the balance of nature when they try to keep persons alive who are supposed to die. The planet has survived for a long time without the laws of humanity, so what makes them right? (Schofield, 1988, p. 26) Opponents also claim that euthanasia is against God, therefore it is unethical. Yet passive euthanasia, or refraining from doing anything to keep the patient alive, has been in practice since four centuries before Christ; and in the centuries that followed neither the Christians nor the Jews significantly changed this basic idea. It was killing they were opposed to. Also in 1958 Pope Pius XII emphasized that we may 'allow the patient who is virtually already dead to pass away in peace' (Rachels, 1986, p. 43). How can anybody say mercy is against God? to me it would seem that God would want people to die in peace and without pain. If anything is against God it is trying to live longer than God had intended you to. The United States was founded because people wanted to be free. Americans have fought for freedom ever since. If euthanasia is made illegal it will take away one of the founding freedoms, the freedom of choice, the freedom for a person to choose a death with dignity and free of pain and suffering for themselves and their families. As Seneca quoted in Bolander writes, "A punishment to some, to some a gift, and to many a favor"(1984). References Battin, M. (1987). Euthanasia: the time is now. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc. Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc. Bolander, D. (1987). Instant quotation dictionary. Little Falls: Career Publishing, Inc. Caplan, H. (1987). It's time we helped patients die. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc. Colesanto, D. (1991, May). The right-to-die controversy. USA Today. pp. 62-63. Larue, G. (1988). Euthanasia. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc. Low, C. (1988). A deadly serious dilemma: evaluating the right to die. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc. McCuen, G. & Boucher, T. (1985). Terminating life. Hudson: Gary E. McCuen Publication, Inc. Michigan governor signs anti-suicide law. (1993, February 25). Ruters. Rachels, J. (1986). The end of life: euthanasia and morality. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc. Russ, S. (1988). Care of the older person: the ethical challenge of american medicine. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc. Schofield, J. (1988). Care of the older person: the ethical challenge to american medicine. In Bernards, N. (Ed). (1989). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc. Outline Thesis: Euthanasia should be legalized so, if we ever have a loved one that is suffering and death is certain, that we have the choice to ease their pain if they want. I. Introduction A. Examples showing why euthanasia is receiving national attention. B. A summary of reasons offered by those opposed to euthanasia is given. C. A summary of reasons offered by those in favor of euthanasia is given. D. Transition into my argument. II. Body A. A person has the right to die with dignity. B. Everything should not be done to prolong life if the patient does not want it. C. Doctors are not always responsible to do everything they can to save somebody. D. Refute the argument that euthanasia is unethical. III. Conclusion A. Thoughts on freedom people have. B. A quote to end with.
Terminally ill patients deserve the right to have a dignified death. These patients should not be forced to suffer and be in agony their lasting days. The terminally ill should have this choice, because it is the only way to end their excruciating pain. These patients don’t have
Patients are ultimately responsible for their own health and wellbeing and should be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions. All people have the right to refuse treatment even where refusal may result in harm to themselves or in their own death and providers are legally bound to respect their decision. If patients cannot decide for themselves, but have previously decided to refuse treatment while still competent, their decision is legally binding. Where a patient's views are not known, the doctor has a responsibility to make a decision, but should consult other healthcare professionals and people close to the patient.
Imagine being in an ongoing battle where friends and others are dying. All that is heard are bullets being shot, it smells like gas is near, and hearts race as the times goes by. This is similar to what war is like. In the novel All Quiet on the Western Front, the narrator, Paul Baumer, and his friends encounter the ideals of suffering, death, pain, and despair. There is a huge change in these men; at the beginning of the novel they are enthusiastic about going into the war. After they see what war is really like, they do not feel the same way about it. During the war the men experience many feelings especially the loss of loved ones. These feelings are shown through their first experience at training camp, during the actual battles, and in the hospital.
The Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA) was implemented to allow patients to state “Do Not Resuscitate” (DNS), or to assign a surrogate decision maker in the event the individual is unable to make the decision. Closed cardiac massage was introduced in 1960 and still the health care provider operated in fear on who to actively resuscitate and they would sluggishly respond on patients who may not benefit based on extent of illness (Ball, 2009). The care providers operated in fear of litigation depending on the family’s response but was fairly relieved by introduction of the Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA).
“When I was 13, my dad started drinking more and more. Every day he would come home from work and have beer, lots of it. I didn’t think much of it at first, but then he started getting more angry and violent. He would shout at my mom and me. It was like my father had gone and been replaced with another guy” says an anonymous kid who lives with an alcoholic parent in “How my dad’s drinking problem almost destroyed my family”. The kid depicts that he is so confused, angry and upset especially when his father got fired for going to work drunk. This is one of many children’s voices who suffers having an alcoholic in their family. Most of them are depressed because alcohol has destroyed their family. This is an addiction that does
Health care professionals have a legal and moral obligation to care. They have to respect the patient’s decision even though they themselves find it difficult (Butts and Rich 2005). Decisions are not unproblematic. They have to be rationalised, as there are many dividing thoughts, which must be acknowledged.
Müller, who in the first chapter expressed his desire for the dying Kemmerich’s boots, is in reality very sympathetic to Kemmerich’s suffering, but he sees that Kemmerich no longer has any need for the boots. Because of this, he feels has more of a rightful claim to them than a hospital orderly. The men now see problems from this perspective and good boots, like Kemmerich’s, are hard to find. There was a time though when they had different beliefs. Before the war they still believed that education was the most important aspect of life. These youthful thoughts were washed away at the Front, where they came to realize that order is what matters. One of the men responsible for this was their drill sergeant, Corporal Himmelstoss, who was a short, mean man. He would force the men to do unnecessary work and torture them with pointless assignments. Paul, Tjaden, Kropp, and Westhus were especially picked on by Himmelstoss, but they were secretly defiant. The training that they received was especially harsh, but it is what has saved them in the trenches. We now see the background that has shaped the men’s ideals so far.
...term effects from her father. Although she is now successful, she will never be able to forget her resentful past. The girl from the article was traumatized from what happened and will never be the same again. Alcoholism is an ongoing problem that needs to be ended in families because starvation, abuse, and mental problems will be forever alive in children suffering from parents who are alcoholics. If alcohol was not present in either family then both fathers would have been able to satisfy all of the family's needs because of all the great qualities that they possessed when not drinking alcohol. Alcoholism is an ongoing problem that needs to be ended so that families can escape unfortunate situations and not become even worse. If this problem can be lessened then less families and children will be distressed each year.
For many years now there have been people who center their lives on giving medical attention to sick patients in need of their care. There have also been many doctors who spend their lives developing techniques to help keep people alive as long as possible, even when the person quite possibly should have died a natural death a long time ago. Does this make what the doctor is doing wrong? Doesn’t the patient deserve a chance to live the longest and fullest life they possibly can?
In conclusion, both forms of journalism shine in different situations. The old media in events where factual information is more important than a presentation of opinions and the new media in situations of crisis when vividness of first person account and a sense of belonging is needed. Essentially, these two forms of media complement each other, where one is weak the other is strong. So, we would do best to draw on the strengths instead of fight the "press" in order to be well informed citizens of the world.
Mental state of mind is the first thing that is damaged when alcohol controls a life. Obsession for the substance can take control of a person’s thoughts and emotions and changes an individual’s personality completely. It makes them constantly think about alcohol and ways to obtain it. When a person is under the influence of alcohol it makes them do foolish things that they would not have done in their normal state of mind. It can also lead to serious depression. Alcohol may seem like a good time but the fact of the matter is it’s an extremely serious depressant. Being in a state of depression caused by alcohol could lead to severe anger issues and suicide. A study performed by Michael Windle shows that there is a noticeable link between drinking and suicidal thoughts among youth. Windle states that, “Depressed teens are more likely than other teens to report suicidal thoughts and attempts and to say they had told others about their suicide plans (Ham).
Choosing to live with or without pain is not a choice someone should have to make, but dying with pain is something no one should have to endure. According to studies at the end of life, pain is a symptom that most dying patients experience. Fear of pain at the end of life is more distressing to a patient than the cause and/or death itself. Human suffering can be increased by pain, so pain control is a necessity at the end of life and according to studies, many patients with severe pain either received inadequate pain control or did not receive analgesics at all due to their decreased level of consciousness (Steindal et al, 2011). So why is it illegal for a dying patient that is still sound of mind to ask for help to end their own suffering
How many times have you heard about the consequences of alcoholism? Have you taken them into account? Alcoholism is one of the major problems in society. The effects of this disease are really serious. Many people get used to drink alcohol, and they can easily abuse, that is the problem. The purpose of this essay is to discuss the physical, psychological, and economic effects of alcoholism.
Sponsorships are useful as a supplement to regular advertising; however, they are especially valuable as an advertising substitute in situations where advertising may be banned or limited. Sports sponsorship provides opportunities to reach audiences in four distinct ways: (1)during the prepromotion advertising and publicity for the event, (2)at the event site during the event itself, (3)during the live or delayed broadcast of the event, and (4)during postevent news reporting of the event’s results. Each time the sporting event is mentioned or shown in the media, there is an opportunity for the event sponsor to gain exposure, (Krapp, 50). Alcohol and Tobacco companies take great advantage of this. They sponsor sporting events or pay to have their advertisements in certain sports arenas and stadiums for just this reason. Multiple chances to have their brand or corporate name shown on television or by the people attending the sporting event. Yet by having these advertisements in the arenas or stadiums, the alcohol or tobacco company does not have to put up warnings with their advertisement like they have to do on their products and advertisements in publications. Significant brand exposure may be gained through event publicity, prepromotion, on-site signage, and telecast of the event, but unlike conventional advertising, there is no requirement for including health warnings or moderation messages, (Locke, 224).
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because