Euthanasia
Karen Quinland became one of the most famous persons in the field of Bioethics because of the controversies over her right to die. Due to a drug overdose, she went into a coma for an extended period of time. Because of many people’s misconceptions about comatose conditions, controversies about her case arose as the public tried to rationalize the decision of allowing her to die. Because of popular culture, the average person believes that a patient in a comatose condition, or a persistent vegetative state (PVS) to be in a state of peaceful slumber. However, persons in such a condition suffer both mentally and physically.
The romantic aura to the idea of a person in coma permeates popular culture because of the movies and stories that we hear every day. Movies such as Coma staring Michael Douglas and While You Were Sleeping staring Sandra Bullock falsely portray the state of coma as peaceful and angelic, and true to most popular Hollywood endings, the person in the coma always wakes up at the end and lives “happily ever after”. Watching these movies, one would certainly see a parallel between them and the stories that are told to young children everyday. Even from childhood, fairy tales influence and mislead people by presenting a false impression of serenity to a, in reality, very serous physiological and psychological problem. For example, Snow White who ate a poisoned apple (possible drug overdose) went in to a coma, and was miraculously awakened by a prince. In sleeping beauty, the princess was again in a coma after injuring her self with a spinning machine (possible head trauma), but a young man again awakened her. Both stories portrayed the victims as beautiful even after weeks and years of unconsciousness, which in reality would be highly unlikely. What makes these stories even more unbelievable is that both victims were awakened to the kiss of a handsome young man.
These idealized versions of comas cannot be true, because such a condition is generally caused by severe brain damage as a result of a stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, or drug overdose. These conditions would cause a lack of oxygenated blood supply to the brain, killing portions of the brain. Patients will then be likely to lose much brain activity, the ability to full expand their lungs (this inability may cause infections in the lungs, and/or the ability to ingest solid food.
Another instance of how someone’s right to bodily autonomy can surpass the right to life can be understood when thinking about end of life scenarios. Marquis’s argument suggests it would be immoral for a doctor to take a comatose patient off life support, even if the patient previously arranged to be taken off life support. Following Marquis’s logic because a person in a vegetative state could theoretically wake up in the future, a doctor would be obligated to keep them on life support against their wishes. Additionally, as Marquis briefly mentions in his paper, people suffering from terminal illness must also be denied euthanasia (197). In find it troubling that Marquis seems to have arbitrarily decided that even adult human beings do not have the right to make medical decisions that would greatly lessen their suffering. Additionally, Marquis’s argument also suggests that committing suicide would not only be immoral,
Euthanasia is one of the most complicated issues in the medical field due to the debate of whether or not it is morally right. Today, the lives of many patients can be saved with the latest discoveries in medicine and technology. But we are still unable to find cures to all illnesses, and patients have to go through extremely painful treatments only to live a little bit longer. These patients struggle with physical and psychological pain. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. discusses the topic of just and unjust laws in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” which brings into question whether it is just to kill a patient who is suffering or unjust to take that person’s life even if that person is suffering. In my opinion people should have the right, with certain restrictions, to end their lives in the way they see fit if they are suffering from endless pain.
Switzerland has an unusual position on assisted suicide as it is legally condoned and can be performed by non-physicians. The involvement of a physician is usually considered a necessary safeguard in assisted suicide and euthanasia. Physicians are trusted not to misuse these practices and they are believed to know how to make sure a painless death. Besides, the law has explicitly separated the issue of whether or not assisting death should be allowed in some circumstances and, whether physicians should do it. This splitting up has not resulted in moral desensitization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
have to suffer any more than they have to, but they differ in the methods
The purpose of this essay is to inform readers clearly and coherently enoughof the terms and issues in the euthanasia debate that they can make sense of the euthanasia question. Descriptions are in relatively simple, non-technical language to facilitate learning.
Starvation, suffocation with a plastic bag, carbon monoxide and lethal doses of drugs are some way to die practiced by euthanasia. In definition, euthanasia is the option that some people choose to end his/her life when living becomes too unbearable for them. Tough Euthanasia is mostly asked by the person who wants to die; there are some cases where the person does not is even conscious of his/her death, such cases are typically seen with persons in the vegetative state. Some people do not agree with the practice of involuntary Euthanasia; they argue against this process labeling it as a crime. While opponents may think this is an action against the law because it takes away the life of someone without his/her consent, other people opt to consider
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.
“It’s Over, Debbie” an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, written by an anonymous person, sparks a heated debate concerning the nature of euthanasia. The article is written from the perspective of gynecology resident’s. After analyzing the patient’s condition, he gives her a twenty milligram dose of morphine sulfate. This amount of dose is not concerned lethal; however, given the patient’s underweight body and medical condition was enough to kill her. The problem arises in determining whether this was active or passive euthanasia. Due to the ambiguous wording of the article, the answer can vary from reader to reader. For example, the anonymous author describes how the nurse gave the resident hurried details,
... in terms of living or dying. By this logic, people in vegetative states should also have rights analogous to that of an infant at least. Many people practice or research medicine for the altruistic reasons and derive pleasure and a purpose in life by restoring the injured and sick to proper health. If a potential treatment can be developed by doctors and researchers to restore people in vegetative states to normal cognitive levels, it would be considered wrong to allow such a person to die because, like an infant, there exists the chance for them to develop an ability to function as long as research is continued to find a way to reverse such a condition.
I am writing to you today with both the interests of the public, and my own interests, on the topic of Euthanasia becoming legalized in British Columbia. In a 2013 poll conducted by Life Canada the findings were that in British Columbia 63% of Canadians believed that Assisted Suicide be brought into place, and 55% believed that Euthanasia should take action, although some hesitated because of the numbers of non-consensual Euthanasia deaths in Belgium. Having Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide legalized would not only be able to help the terminally ill and physically disabled decide how they wish for their life to end, but the legalization would also save a lot of time, money, and resources in hospitals and palliative care facilities. Although some laws such as section 241 of the Criminal Code would need to be reviewed, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide could potentially end some people’s suffering, and save money and resources for the province.
Merriam-Webster defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” As a globally issues, euthanasia is always in controversial. Swanton,D argued that euthanasia protects the rights of individuals and the freedom of religious expression. Additionally, Sydeny,D outlines europe’s increasing acceptance of euthanasia which may mean that euthanasia is a preferable choice for people. Conversely, Fagerlin, A PhD from University of Michigan Medical School and Carl E. Schneider, JD from University of Michigan Law School suggest the great distortion of living wills if euthanasia is allowed. What is
Physician-assisted suicide is “the voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life.” (medterms.com) Surveys have shown physician-assisted suicide to be gaining more and more support amongst doctors and “up to half of adults believe it should be legal in cases of terminal illnesses.” (Vaugn, Page 597) In a 2000 large survey, Oncologists revealed 22.5% supported the use of physician-assisted suicide for a terminally ill patient with unremitting pain, 6.6% favored active euthanasia in these circumstances, 56.2% had received requests from patients for physician assisted suicide, 38.2% for active euthanasia, 10.8% had performed physician-assisted suicide and 3.7% active euthanasia. (Vaughn, Page 598) Not only have physician-assisted suicide begun gaining more support amongst physicians but also in the public. In a 2007 survey conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs, results have shown that 48% of the public believe it should be legal or doctors to help terminally ill patients end their own life by giving them a prescription of fatal drugs while 44% believe it should be illegal. (Vaughn, Page 603) In the 2007 Gallup Poll, results show 56% of the public believes when a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain, doctors should be allowed to assist the patient to commit suicide if the patients requests it and 38% believe it should not be allowed and 49% of the public believes that physician-assisted suicide is morally acceptable while 44% beli...
In an effort to provide the standard of care for such a patient the treating physicians placed Ms. Quinlan on mechanical ventilation preserving her basic life function. Ms. Quinlan’s condition persisted in a vegetative state for an extended period of time creating the ethical dilemma of quality of life, the right to choose, the right to privacy, and the end of life decision. The Quilan family believed they had their daughter’s best interests and her own personal wishes with regard to end of life treatment. The case became complicated with regard to Karen’s long-term care from the perspective of the attending physicians, the medical community, the legal community local/state/federal case law and the catholic hospital tenants. The attending physicians believed their obligation was to preserve life but feared legal action both criminal and malpractice if they instituted end of life procedures. There was prior case law to provide guidance for legal resolution of this case. The catholic hospital in New Jersey, St. Clare’s, and Vatican stated this was going down a slippery slope to legalization of euthanasia. The case continued for 11 years and 2 months with gaining national attention. The resolution was obtained following Karen’s father being granted guardianship and ultimately made decisions on Karen’s behalf regarding future medical
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Defining Death: A Report on the Medical, Legal and Ethical Issues in the Determination of Death. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.