Today we struggle with the medical ethics on issues of life and death in a culture that denies the terminally and the infirm the right to maintain control over when to end their lives. They come to realize that at some level we are all dependent on others. From infancy to death, the cradle to the grave we rely on a number of people. One such person is our physician. In today’s society a physician is expected to be dedicated to the restoration of health, and the mending of the broken body. What happens when the body is past mending? Is euthanasia the answer? What do I believe?
Through discussions with my uncle, David Hollett M.D., and first hand observation of the suffering of loved ones close to death, I have come to the conclusion that when the body is past mending, the current practice by physicians is to medicate and provide a pain management program through strong narcotics. This often causes patients in their last days, months, and even years, to fail to recognize loved ones, hallucinate, suffer from confusion, and even cause, in the most severe cases to be unconscious.
There are two types of euthanasia active and passive. Active euthanasia, which is the injecting of a lethal drug, which ends the life, is opposed by many people, and illegal in most countries. This method requires one person killing another. This is also known as physician assisted suicide. Fewer people oppose passive euthanasia, which is the w...
As a result, life-sustaining procedures such as ventilators, feeding tubes, and treatments for infectious and terminal diseases are developing. While these life-sustaining methods have positively influenced modern medicine, they also inadvertently cause terminal patients extensive pain and suffering. Previous to the development of life-sustaining procedures, many people died in the care of their own home, however, today the majority of Americans take their last breath lying in a hospital bed. As the advancement of modern medicine continues, physicians and patients are going to encounter life-altering trials and tribulations. Arguably, the most controversial debate in modern medicine is the discussion of the ethical choice for physician-assisted suicide.
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue, including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns of both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this, and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
killing and letting die. Some argue that letting die, which is the action considered to take
There are two types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive or voluntary euthanasia refers to withholding life saving treatments or medical technology to prolong life. For example, a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment. They also have the right to refuse resuscitation if they are in need to be placed on life support. Active or involuntary euthanasia refers to providing the means for someone to take their life or assisting with taking their life (“Euthanasia” Discovering).
Gawande’s book is very pertinent to the present day and has by many accounts sparked a national discussion on end-of-life care and how we treat our elderly. With elderly people accounting for a greater proportion of the American populace and as people start living even longer than they do now, end-of-life care will become and remain a major issue faced by doctors, patients, their families, and the healthcare system. Additionally, with our greater focus on improving patient outcomes while getting the most value for our healthcare dollars, end-of-life care is a major area that healthcare systems and hospitals will focus on, as it accounts for a large portion of their budget. As a response to the need to take care of our aging population, hospice care and palliative medicine are some of the newer specialties in the medical field that have been increasing in popularity and more research needs to be focused in these areas to better understand how to improve patient outcomes.
In the medical field, there has always been the question raised, “What is ethical?” There is a growing conflict between two important principles: autonomy and death being considered a medical treatment. Physician assisted suicide is defined as help from a medical professional,
In current society, legalizing physician assisted suicide is a prevalent argument. In 1997, the Supreme Court recognized no federal constitutional right to physician assisted suicide (Harned 1) , which defines suicide as one receiving help from a physician by means of a lethal dosage (Pearson 1), leaving it up to state legislatures to legalize such practice if desired. Only Oregon and Washington have since legalized physician assisted suicide. People seeking assisted suicide often experience slanted judgments and are generally not mentally healthy. Legalization of this practice would enable people to fall victim to coercion by friends and family to commit suicide. Also, asking for death is unfair to a doctor’s personal dogma. Some argue that society should honor the freedom of one’s choice to take his own life with the assistance of a physician; however, given the reasoning provided, it is in society’s best interest that physician assisted suicide remain illegal. Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized because suicidal people experience distorted judgments resulting in not being mentally equipped to make such a decision, people who feel they are a burden to their family may choose death as a result, and physicians should not have to go against their personal doctrines and promises.
Physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option, if requested, for terminally ill patients. For decades the question has been asked and a clear answer has yet to surface. It was formed out of a profound commitment to the idea that personal end-of-life decisions should be made solely between a patient and a physician. Can someone's life be put into an answer? Shouldn't someone's decision in life be just that; their decision? When someone has suffered from a car accident, or battled long enough from cancer, shouldn't the option be available? Assisted suicide shouldn't be seen as cheating death, but as a way to pay homage to the life once lived. As far as including the mentally challenged in this equation, I am against it. The mentally challenged, although less likely to grasp information, still has the physical awareness to grow. It can be subdued with medicine and psychotherapy. From personal experience I am a witness of being around mentally challenged adults who love life regardless of their conditions. Most don't have the ability to express a request such as life or death. Living life is a daily task just like it is for healthy citizens. Most if not all mentally challenged people aren't in any pain throughout their entire life. For this they shouldn't be targeted for assisted suicide. Death is an occurrence in life, whether it's unexpected or expected, it can't be cheated nor can it be avoided. The terminally ill should have the option to end their suffering with dignity.
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
Wal-Mart as we know it today evolved from Sam Walton’s goals for great value and great customer service. Mr. Walton’s competitors thought his idea that a successful business could be built around offering lower prices and great service would never work. Mr. Walton also credited the rapid growth of Wal-Mart not just to the low costs that attracted his customers, but also to his associates. He relied on them to give customers the great shopping experience that would keep them coming back. Sam shared his vision for the company with associates in a way that was nearly unheard of in the industry. He made them partners in the success of the company, and firmly believed that this partnership was what made Walmart great.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
Euthanasia had become a big debate in our society and the world. Many people ask, what is Euthanasia? “Euthanasia is a deliberate intervention or omission with the express intention of hastening or ending and individual’s life, to relieve intractable pain or suffering” (Sanders & Chaloner, 2007, p. 41). Thus the meaning of euthanasia is having the right to die if you are terminally ill, suffering and/or suffering a great amount of pain. Many people do not agree with the use of euthanasia, but if humans can put down animals why cannot we use euthanasia on humans? Back in ancient Greek and Roman times, the word euthanasia meant “good death”. Also it was allowed because many people did not live to long ages. When the times began to change so did people’s views on euthanasia, due to the new religion of Judeo-Christian Belief. Because life and death were giving to us by God, euthanasia goes against his wishes. If they practice in the act of euthanasia because of their beliefs they would be committing a sin and end up going to hell. (Yip,2009,p.1)
The term euthanasia refers to euthanasia, a word comes from the Greek game possible and be translated with "good death." There are two different types of euthanasia. Positive and negative. Countries which allow euthanasia is the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland, and the State of Oregon in the United States.
We as health care professionals need to work side by side with the families to provide the best care and decisions that are right by our patients. We have to be mindful of the cause and effect our course of treatment depicts for our patients. No individual wants to live in pain or misery, we all want to be healthy and happy and are willing to go great lengths to achieve this goal. Death is the final stage of life, but as we live and get older we start to prepare for death as to not fear death but accept it. Health care professionals may benefit from the opportunity to acknowledge, normalize and integrate death and dying into the continuum of life, both for themselves as well as their patients. (Sinclair, 2011) With advancements in technology and medicine we are living longer and fuller lives, and given time quality of life will only continue to improve.
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