Brian Clark uses a number of techniques to dramatise the Euthanasia
Debate in his play, Who's Life is it Anyway
Brian Clark uses a number of techniques to dramatise the Euthanasia
Debate in his play, "Who's Life is it Anyway". Euthanasia is the means
by which a person has the freedom of choice over whether they live or
die. In the play there are two main arguments concerning this issue.
One argument saying that a patient has the right to make this decision
of life and death and on which disagrees and says the patient should
not have this choice.
Two characters in the play represent the two central arguments. First
of all there is Ken, Ken believes that he should have the right to
choose to die, it is his life, he says that his whole life before his
accident was sculpture, and now that he cannot sculpt because he is
paralysed below his neck, he will never be able to sculpt again: 'I'm
almost completely paralysed and always will be. I shall never be
discharged by the hospital.' According to Ken his life is already
over: 'Of course I want to live but as far as I am concerned, I'm dead
already…I cannot accept this condition constitutes life in any real
sense at all.' 'Any reasonable definition of life must include the
idea of it being self-supporting.' Ken only wants the dignity in
death: 'each man must make his own decision. And mine is to die
quietly with as much dignity as I can muster'. Ken also argues that he
is not asking his lawyer to make a choice over his life or death, just
to represent his views to the hospital: 'I'm not asking you to make
any decision about my life and death, merely that you represent me and
my views to the hospital.' Ken argues that the real matter to be
discussed is the ind...
... middle of paper ...
...ise the full impact of what he has been
fighting for. He will no longer be there once he has won his case. Ken
will cease to exist. This helps us to understand why some people are
anti-euthanasia, and what grave consequences it has and why euthanasia
is an extreme solution to take.
The theatre offers many possibilities of visualising and dramatising
this debate, the medical and legal jargon used in the two acts of the
play, the physical space of the stage and the lighting in combination,
the black comedy of Ken, the exits and entrances of different
characters that are used as mouthpieces of different views on the
debate. Issues are raised in the play as they could not be in prose.
There is a suspension of disbelief, a contract between the playwright
and the audience makes sure that the issues are well explored and
continue to be in a 30 year-old debate.
Diane called all of her friends to say goodbye, including Dr. Quinn, and took her life two days after they met. This is a fascinating case because it presents the distinction between a patient’s right to refuse treatment and a physician’s assistance with suicide. Legally, Diane possessed the right to refuse treatment, but she would have faced a debilitating, painful death, so the issue of treatment would be a moot point. It would be moot in the sense that Diane seemed to refuse treatment because the odds were low, even if she survived she would spend significant periods of time in the hospital and in pain, and if she didn’t survive she would spend her last days in the hospital. If Diane were to merely refuse treatment and nothing else (as the law prescribes) than she would not have been able to avoid the death which she so dearly wanted to avoid.
have to suffer any more than they have to, but they differ in the methods
Americans want to know what the report card says, in other words, what are the results of the Netherlands and Oregon experiments with assisted suicide. Let's sift through the data and relevant studies in order to arrive at a conclusion which either affirms or rejects the practice.
To sanction the taking of innocent human life is to contradict a primary purpose of law in an ordered society. A law or court decision allowing assisted suicide would demean the lives of vulnerable patients and expose them to exploitation by those who feel they are better off dead. Such a policy would corrupt the medical profession, whose ethical code calls on physicians to serve life and never to kill. The voiceless or marginalized in our society -- the poor, the frail elderly, racial minorities, millions of people who lack health insurance -- would be the first to feel pressure to die.
The term Euthanasia is derived from Greek, meaning good death. Taken in its common usage however, euthanasia refers to the termination of a person’s life, to end their suffering, usually from an incurable or terminal condition. It is for this reason that euthanasia was also coined the name “mercy killing”. Another type of euthanasia is Active Euthanasia refers to the deliberate act, usually through the intentional administration of lethal drugs, to end an incurably or terminally ill patient’s life. ("The Ethics of Euthanasia.") The earliest recorded date of euthanasia is dated back to 5th century B.C.-1st Century B.C. In ancient Greece and Rome, before the coming of Christianity, attitudes towards active euthanasia and suicide tended to be
him when he could have just died from a heart attack, which he had requested.
A recent poll founded by the Canadian Medical Association found that “only one in five doctors surveyed. . . said they would be willing to perform euthanasia if the practice were legalized. . . Twice as many – 42 percent – said they would refuse to do so” (Kirkey 1). Euthanasia is defined as giving a patient the right to die early with a physician’s assistance, and the legalization of this practice is being considered by lawmakers in many countries, including the United States. Accordingly, 42 percent of doctors in Canada are on the right side of this debate. Euthanasia should not be legalized because it violates society’s views that life is sacred, creates economic pressure for doctors, and for those countries that have legalized it, their laws are not specific enough to fully protect patients.
Physician Assisted Murder & nbsp ; Physician assisted suicide is illegal in all states except Oregon. Physician assisted suicide is defined by Religious Tolerance.org. A physician supplies information and/or the means of committing suicide to a person, so that they can easily terminate their own life. The decision of when and where the time of our death should occur is one that only God has the right to decide. Because no person or doctor has the right to end a life, physician assisted suicide should be illegal.
It is stated directly in the Hippocratic Oath, a promise made by every physician, “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel” (Lasagna 1). Euthanasia is the practice in which physicians administer a lethal dose of drugs, commonly pentobarbital or sodium thiopental, to a patient. Patients either request this procedure, due to a terminal illness, or their family may request it if the patient is in a coma or is in a paralyzed state. Euthanasia dates back thousands of years, but recently, its ethics have been heavily debated. Since the year 2000, many patients with severe medical conditions and activist groups have fought for the right to not only refuse treatment, but to end one’s own life in order to bring
One of the strongest arguments against euthanasia comes from Stephen Potts who states “I object to the institutionalization of euthanasia. Because the risks of such institutionalization are so grave as to outweigh the very real suffering of those who might benefit from it” (Potts, p. 587; emphasis mine). Potts’s main point of this statement is that the risks that come with legalizing euthanasia to the society as whole outweigh the suffering of an individual. Potts gives nine reasons for his argument that he calls the “Risks of Institutionalization”. I will debate two of the nine arguments Potts gives. The first argument I will debate is the “Reduced pressure to improve curative or symptomatic treatment”. In this argument Potts states “Some
Assisted suicide is a very controversial topic in American society that must be dealt with. In assisted suicide, a patient who is terminally ill requests the doctor to administer a lethal dose of medication to end his life. Assisted suicide brings up many moral and legal issues regarding the right of a patient to die with respect and the duties of a doctor. This issue is divided among people who believe that doctor assisted suicide is illegal and immoral and those who believe that suicide is a right that people have. Doctors who aid a patient to commit suicide are performing an illegal act and should be penalized to the full extent of the law.
...er continue living in an unjust and cruel world, even though they are capable of taking the easy way out. He brings the question of the afterlife for the main reason why humans don’t commit suicide.
"Whose life is it, anyway?" A Plea stated by the late Sue Rodrigues. Rogrigues, a high-profile, terminally-ill resident of British Columbia, Canada, suffered from a terminally ill disease (Robinson, 2001). She was helped to commit suicide by a physician in violation of Canadian law. Many people, like Rodrigues, want to be in control of their final days. Terminally ill patients have a terminal disease and do not want to diminish their assets by incurring large medical costs as their death approaches (Robinson, 2001). As an act of generosity, they would rather die sooner, and pass on their assets to their beneficiaries. A serious disorder or disease has adversely affected their quality of life to the point where they no longer wish to continue living (Johansen, 2000). Myself, along with many other United States citizens believe that euthanasia should be legalized within the United States for reasons concerning medical advances, the severity of pain a person is in once diagnosed with a terminal illness, and the basic fact that a person’s life is their own life and no one else’s.
...ven a choice few have: to save himself from certain death or to continue on to gain immortal glory.
An innumerable amount of individuals believe that life is a beautiful, extraordinary, and overall amazing gift. So, why would a human being choose to have this remarkable gift taken away from him or her? The answer to this question is quite simple. All over the world people are in such immense pain and suffering, that their last wish is for their lives to be taken away in a peaceful approach. The solution to a painless death is euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, commonly referred to as PAS. Active euthanasia is the process of inducing death upon a human being in a harmless, painless, and gentle way by an injection. Passive euthanasia is the removal of life-support or stopping treatments that may keep the patient alive for longer (Gale). Both forms of Euthanasia are done only with the consent of the patient who wishes to bring their life to an end. Death is the last chance of peace for many people, and euthanasia makes this possible.