Assisted Suicide
In reaction to the law the Michigan Legislature recently passed outlawing assisted suicide, I found myself with many mixed feelings. I found myself often feeling bad for the patients Dr. Kevorkian dealt with but more often felt sorry for him that he should be responsible for so many deaths. It is a sad road to travel on when faced with a terminal disease. It includes many harsh realities and many are not prepared to deal with their illness. There are many aspects I chose to look at when preparing to write this paper. A person's self-worth is one and also the doctor's evaluation of a person's self-worth. I chose to take my own personal stand on the issue, which includes my own opinions, feelings, and thoughts on the many controversies surrounding Euthanasia. I also chose to write about the "Slippery Slope" for I find it to be a very relevant and useful tool in looking at the topic of Euthanasia. This is a very interesting subject to me for I look ahead at the next few years of many painful deaths for a family that is getting very old.
When looking at someone's self-worth…what they feel they can offer, you have to put into perspective what they are dealing with. Of course, someone who is slowly dieing of a terminal disease is going to find their self-worth at virtually nothing. They are depressed and in pain and are not capable of doing things on their own any longer. What pride is there in that? Most people find none. On a more personal level, I would find pride in waking up each day, and in waking up each day trying to find something to smile about. I could find pride in knowing that even though I am dieing…and I am in pain…that I am still able to be strong for the people who love me. I find pride and dignity in that and that makes my self-worth…something worth saving.
I have been brought up in a Catholic family. Therefore, many of my opinions on controversial issues such as this stem from my upbringing. However, I have been able to do the research and form my own opinions. And, even so, I still think assisted suicide is wrong. When one person is responsible for the stopping of another person's heart from beating, it should be considered murder. And, I equally agree that it shouldn't have taken a case where
gotten to the point where they feel as if there is no point in living.
distant cousin of euthanasia, in which a person wishes to commit suicide. feels unable to perform the act alone because of a physical disability or lack of knowledge about the most effective means. An individual who assists a suicide victim in accomplishing that goal may or may not be held responsible for. the death, depending on local laws. There is a distinct difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide. This paper targets euthanasia; pros and cons. not to be assisted in suicide. & nbsp; Thesis Argument That Euthanasia Should Be Accepted & nbsp;
1. What is the difference between a. and a. The slippery slope argument for assisted suicide is a straightforward one to see and prove. In essence, it says that if assisted suicide is allowed without any principled lines or divisions, then we must allow for assisted suicide in cases like that of “a sixteen-year-old suffering from a severe case of unrequited love.” First we must acknowledge the assumption that the Supreme Court has made, which is, there are no principled lines they can draw between the different cases of assisted suicide.
One of the greatest dangers facing chronic and terminally ill patients is the grey area regarding PAS. In the Netherlands, there are strict criteria for the practice of PAS. Despite such stringencies, the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (1992) found 28% of the PAS cases in the Netherlands did not meet the criteria. The evidence suggests some of the patient’s lives may have ended prematurely or involuntarily. This problem can be addressed via advance directives. These directives would be written by competent individuals explaining their decision to be aided in dying when they are no longer capable of making medical decisions. These interpretations are largely defined by ones morals, understanding of ethics, individual attitudes, religious and cultural values.
Dr. Braddock and Dr. Tonelli use Aristotelian rhetoric in their article titled, “Physician Aid-in-Dying: Ethical Topic in Medicine.” The authors provide examples of logos by providing statistics about physician assisted suicide. In the article you will find pathos that will offer different emotions within the topic. These authors have many ethos or many years of credentials within the medical field.
"People are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to them" (Vaticana, 550). To decide if euthanasia is wrong, one must first decide whom life belongs to. The Bible says, "In God's hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of all mankind" (Job 12:10). Life belongs to God and since God gave life to the human race, God should decide when it is time to take life. Also, the fifth commandment says, "Thou shall not kill." Assisted suicide and euthanasia disobey this commandment.
Physician -assisted suicide has been a conflict in the medical field since pre- Christian eras, and is an issue that has resurfaced in the twentieth century. People today are not aware of what the term physician assisted suicide means, and are opposed to listening to advocates’ perspectives. Individuals need to understand that problems do not go away by not choosing to face them. This paper’s perspective of assisted suicide is that it is an option to respect the dignity of patients, and only those with deathly illness are justified for this method.
In June 1990, there was a large spark of this issue of mercy killing and assisted suicide when Dr. Jack Kevorkian assisted Janet Adkins a patient in suicide. This debate later on sky rocketed in March 1991 when a doctor, Timothy Quill also came clean to his assistance in the professional suicide of Diane Trumbull. From here, a large number of public events followed regarding physici...
Should physicians be able to assist patients who are terminally ill end their lives? Physician assisted suicide is a very controversial subject. In today’s society, people who commit suicide are known as “insane,” a person who takes prescription pills is known as a “drug addict” or “criminal.” However, when a doctor honors a patient’s request for a lethal dose of medicine, (which the patient will inject themselves) to end their life in peace is considered to be a murderer. However, when a physician unplugs a terminally ill patient who is on life support at the patient’s request is just doing their job. However, a person whose quality of life is nonexistent and are faced with a terminal illness should have the right to decide to seek physicians assistance.
The legalization of assisted suicide has been a controversial topic that has created a divide within the medical community, as well as the general public, for many years. Assisted suicide occurs when a patient decides to take their own life, with help from their doctor. The doctor can end the patient’s life without causing any additional pain or suffering. While some believe that assisted suicide should be legal for patients who are suffering from a terminal and painful condition, others argue that it is unethical and going against the doctor’s oath to help and not harm their patients. As the average life expectancy age increases, people are living longer while also having to live with more serious illnesses. As a result, lives are ending with a great amount of suffering and pain, rather then dying peacefully. Since death is ultimately inevitable, I will therefore argue in favor of the proposition that assisted suicide should be legal for those capable of making a rationale end of life decision.
One of the most controversial end-of-life decisions is “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS). This method of suicide involves a physician providing a patient, at his or her own request, with a lethal dose of medication, which the patient self-administers. The ethical acceptability and the desirability of legalization of this practice both continue to cause controversy (Raus, Sterckx, Mortier 1). Vaco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg were landmark decisions on the issue of physician-assisted suicide and a supposed Constitutional right to commit suicide with another's assistance. In Washingotn v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was not unconstitutional. Justices noted that while terminally ill patients on life support have legal right to refuse all treatment, terminally ill patients who are not on life support lack this right. Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a ban on physician-assisted suicide was not unconstitutional, individual states were free to enact laws permitting physician-assisted suicide. Not long after this ruling, Oregon passed adopted the Death with Dignity Act (DWDA) permitting physician-assisted suicide under certain conditions (State of Oregon 1995). More recently, Oregon's neighbor state Washington also enacted a law allowing physician-assisted suicide – the Washington Death with Dignity Act (State of Washington 2008) (Raus, Sterckx, Mortier 2).
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
In 1997, Oregon became the only state allowing legal physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Although physician-assisted suicide has been legal in Oregon for four years, it remains highly controversial. PAS is when a doctor prescribes their patient to medication which would kill them. Patients must pass certain requirements in order to request a prescription for lethal medication. The patient must be 18 years or older, a resident of Oregon, able to make health care decisions, and diagnosed with a terminal illness that would lead to death within six months. After meeting these requirements patients are able to request a prescription for lethal medication from a licensed Oregon physician. To receive a prescription for lethal medication, the following steps must be completed:
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.
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.