“No problem is solved by destroying the thing involved” (Fenigsen). Euthanasia could be defined as destroying the person with the problem in general terms. By euthanizing the person with the disease, nothing substantial is accomplished. By legalizing euthanasia, doctors are taking advantage of the power they are given to heal people. Also, patients feel pressured to make decisions they might not necessarily want to make. The medical field is focused on euthanasia as an option to actually treating the patients, so patients do not feel safe being admitted into hospitals. These are major problems that are being produced due to the use of euthanasia. Although the legalization of euthanasia in the Netherlands was meant to ease the suffering of patients, the abuse of this decision has led to inhumane and immoral decision making in the healthcare community.
A major problem of the legalization of euthanasia is that doctors are taking advantage of their power. These doctors are performing euthanasia for many reasons just to make their own lives easier. “When these doctors are brought to trial for these acts, they are rarely found guilty. Their excuse is that they are acting out of higher necessity for the hospital system, which is an accepted excuse in the courts” (Fenigsen). Involuntary euthanasia is another problem that is coming up often. According to Diane Gianelli from the American Medical News, 2,000 physicians claim to administer pain medications to kill their patients. This shows that these physicians are either incredibly unskilled at providing the appropriate dosage of pain medications, or they are purposely ending their patients lives without their consent. Euthanasia is also being used as an excuse for the doctors’ mistakes. “...
... middle of paper ...
...xt. Web. 13 March 2014.
"Background about Euthanasia in The Netherlands." Patients Rights Council. Patients Rights Council, 2013. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
Dykxhoorn, Hermina. "Euthanasia in the Netherlands." Euthanasia in the Netherlands. Christian Renewal, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2014.
Fenigsen, Richard, Dr. "A Case Against Dutch Euthanasia." Medical Education Trust. Medical Education Trust, Jan. 1989. Web. 11 Mar. 2014.
Gianelli, Diane M. “Dutch data indicate physician-assisted death on rise.” American Medical News. 13 Jan. 1997: 6+. Student Resources in Context. Web. 13 March 2014.
Today, Christianity. “Legalization of Euthanasia in the Netherlands Is Dangerous.” Euthanasia. Ed. Lisa Yount. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. Contemporary Issues Companion. Rpt. from “Death by Default.” Christianity Today (5 Feb. 2001). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 13 March 2014.
Intro: The Hippocratic Oath clearly states, “I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked [for it], nor will I suggest the way to such counsel.”Steven Miles, a professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School published an article, “The Hippocratic Oath,” expressing that doctors must uphold the standards of the Hippocratic Oath to modern relevance. Euthanasia continues as a controversial policy issue. Providing resourceful information allows us to recognize what is in the best interest for patients and doctors alike. Today, I will convince you that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal. The United States must implement a policy stopping the usage of euthanasia for the terminally ill. I will provide knowledge of
In terms of the effects that euthanization has society, there are many benefits. The most beneficial aspect of this technology is that it is comforting for family and friends to know that their loved one is no longer suffering from intolerable pain. Although euthanasia is used for all ages, parents have specifically spoken out by saying that “the best parents are the ones who let their children go” (Braw). In today’s society, instant gratification is a priority; people will go to any extent to make a loved one to get what he or she wants. The nature of today’s society is to view an immediate death as an instant resolution to life’s problems. This concept is specifically demonstrated in Belgium; euthanization acts as a way to not only put patients out of their misery but also “to maintain the right population balance” (Frederich). Scholars idealize Belgium as a model for future societies because it has proven to be successful; Euthanasia will likely be used to control the population of overpopulated
In addition to lawfulness it is unethical. Doctors should not be given Legislative power to administer death since it can cause a slippery slope. For example, euthanasia is allowed in Netherlands for twenty three years and doctors have went from killing terminally ill who asks for it, to killing chronically ill who asks for it, and to newborn babies who are born with birth defects at their parents request. Furthermore, euthanasia might become the cost effective way treat people with terminal illness. For example, the patient might request euthanasia bec...
Nolan, Jenny. "Legalized Euthanasia in the Netherlands Raises Serious Ethical Concerns." The Ethics of Euthanasia. Ed. Nancy Harris. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. 56-59. Print. Rpt. of "Dutch Legalize Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide." National Right to Life News 28 (2001): n. pag.
Doctors become very powerful, when they can perform euthanasia on patients. In the Netherlands, there are a reported 4,000 cases of involuntary euthanasia, since 2012. This is disheartening because it is legal in this country. There are 900 cases a year reportedly in the United
Furthermore, people feel that legalizing doctor-assisted suicide will open the floodgates and lead to a slippery slope that will ultimately devalue the worth of human life and lead to doctors pressuring the terminally ill to request assisted suicide. The evidence tells a different story however. One Dutch research article found that those most often requesting suicide were terminal cancer patients (15%) and those who had a terminally progressive neurological disorder (8%) (Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al., 2010). The same article showed that of all the patients these doctors saw, only 7% asked for doctor assisted suicide/euthanasia and around only 2.4% of the patients actually received euthanasia/doctor assisted suicide (Onwuteaka-Philipsen et al., 2010). To be clear, active euthanasia is when a doctor actively does something that will end a patient’s life, like injecting the patient with a lethal dose of poison and passive euthanasia is when the doctor withholds treatment that could potentially save a patient, such as in the case of a do not resuscitate order. Physicians, the study showed are generally very conservative in allowing PAS, as two thirds of those who requested euthanasia/PAS did not receive
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
“The doctor’s duty is to kill the pain, not the patient” (“Top 6 Reasons Physician-Assisted Suicide Should Not Be Legal”). The health department is seeking an easy way out instead of finding ways to cure the patient. A patient should be given help. That is the reason they go to a doctor, to get help. They do not go to a doctor’s office expecting to be killed. They go expecting help for a chance of survival. People fought for euthanasia to be legalized and used as a last resort and they are getting the opposite. It is cheaper for patient to undergo assisted suicide than for a treatment. A treatment that could take a long time or a short period of time. People should not be killed because it is an easier way out. It is inhumane to do that, everyone’s lives
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
Doctors prefer to never have to euthanize a patient. It is a contradiction of everything they have been taught for a doctor to euthanize someone, because a doctor’s job is to do everything in their power to keep the patient alive, not assist them in suicide. The majority of doctors who specialize in palliative care, a field focused on quality of life for patients with severe and terminal illnesses, think legalizing assisted suicide is very unnecessary. This is due to the fact that if patients do not kill themselves, they will end up dying on a ventilator in the hospital under the best possible care available, with people around them trying to keep them as comfortable as possible. Legalized euthanasia everywhere has been compared to going down a slippery slope. Officials believe that it could be done over excessively and the fear of assisted suicide numbers rising greatly is a great fear. This is why euthanasia is such a controversial subject worldwide. But, even though it is a very controversial subject, euthanasia is humane. Every doctor also has a say in whether or not they choose to euthanize a patient or not, leaving only the doctors who are willing to do this type of practice, for euthanizing patients. Medicine and drugs prescribed by a doctor for pain or suffering can not always help a person to the extent they desire, even with the help of doctors
if they do not wish to be put on life support. We choose to do this
There are two methods of carrying out euthanasia, the first one is active and the second one is passive. Active euthanasia means the physicians deliberately take actions which cause the death of the patients, for example, the injection of sedatives in excess amount. Passive euthanasia is that the doctors do not take any further therapies to keep the ill patients alive such as switching off the life supporting machines [1]. This essay argues that the legalization of the euthanasia should not be proposed nowadays. It begins by analyzing the problem that may cause in relation to the following aspects: ‘slippery slope’ argument, religious view, vulnerable people and a rebuttal against the fair distribution of medical resources. This essay concludes that the legalization of the voluntary euthanasia brings more harm than good.
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.
Euthanasia is the medical practice of ending one’s life in order to preserve their dignity and relieve extreme pain when quality of life is low. There are several methods of euthanasia of which people choose from. These methods include active, passive, voluntary, involuntary, indirect and assisted euthanasia. As of now, only a few countries have legalized euthanasia. The countries most known for the legalization of it are Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. In a recent news article titled “Why I Support Assisted Dying”, a Canadian poll revealed that 26 % of physicians would be willing to actually participate in assisted dying and that if euthanasia were legalized, more and more medical professionals would agree with it (Morris, 2013). In this specific article, there is some light shed on the issue in comparison to others which often put a negative spin on the issue. In instances where palliative care is not enough, physician assisted euthanasia is proposed by the article. Due to many of the negative stigmas attached to the matter at hand, many see euthanasia as a social problem which should not be carried out. However, there are plenty of reasons to rectify such attitudes. From a sociological perspective, a functionalist would argue that euthanasia should not be a social issue and should be legalized. Euthanasia is an alternative anyone should have the right to exercise to end one’s own suffering, maintain dignity and pride until the very end, and to free up medical funds that could be used towards saving other lives.
People believe physicians should be able to aid in this process because they have valuable knowledge on how the body works, “… knowledge that can be used to kill or to cure” (Callahan 74). This argument contradicts the moral meaning of medicine. Indeed, the word "medical" comes from the Latin word “mederi,” which means "to heal." Medicine is understood to heal, cure, or comfort people, not kill. As a matter of fact, in the International Medical Code of Ethics and the American Nurses Association’s Code of Ethics fully states that the act of euthanasia violates their role and shall not be performed. Just because of the mere fact that physicians have the knowledge and medical equipment to kill does not indicate a physician should be permitted to perform euthanasia. Dan Brock states, “… permitting physicians to perform euthanasia, it is said, would be incompatible with their fundamental moral and professional commitment as healers to care for patients and to protect life” (77). Dan Brock also raises the question, if euthanasia became a common practice that was performed by physicians, would we eventually fear or lose trust in our physicians?