Watching the film “You Don’t Know Jack” reminded me of three things. One, how excited I used to get in High School on movie days, and secondly, the fact that Al Pacino is without a doubt one of the most versatile and talented actor to grace the face of this planet. But most importantly, my third point, which is that it usually takes only a few people to stir up debate, and Jack Kevorkian and his very small circle of acolytes, did just that, by posing one essential question. When is it okay for a physician to administer a combination of medicines which would painlessly end his patient’s life? Such practice is now defined as euthanasia or Physician assisted suicide, and has been an unavoidable source of discord during political and social debates. …show more content…
With that definition in mind, I fervently believe that it is acceptable to conduct euthanasia given a certain set of conditions are met. Life as we know it, has been idealized as one in which a person is mobile, physically and mentally healthy, economically stable and with the ability to freely interact with others. But most of Dr. Kevorkian’s patients were unable to do just that. They battled with illnesses ranging from Lou Gehrig’s to Alzheimer’s disease, conditions which permanently and drastically alter the lives of the people who suffer from them. What makes euthanasia even more acceptable is the fact that in Doctor Kevorkian’s case, the patients came to him, asking that he helps them take their own lives. There were no other motives nor incentives aside from the suffering they endured day in and day out, making their future look grim. Physicians should therefore take a more proactive stance when it comes to their patients, helping them see the options available, and supporting their wishes even if those wishes include euthanasia. Furthermore, they must advocate to whomever necessary, so as to legalize the practice of euthanasia or physician assisted suicides, so they may be conducted by trained medical professionals, in settings which may help the patient feel more at ease. We allow people to buy firearms, thus giving them the ability to …show more content…
It is my life, and while I am accountable for every aspects of it, good and bad, the law restricts me from dying through painless physician assisted suicide. This notion is completely contrary to the set of rights we are told to be in possession of since birth. Though it may seem like an unimportant matter for some, it is undoubtedly worthy of debating and public scrutiny. As Kevorkian himself mentioned many times, the law needed to be changed. Critics use the statistics from Oregon, a law which passed a “pro suicide assistance” law, but has seen very few people take advantage of said law, to emphasize and advance theological reasons as to why this is bad idea. Those statistics however, do nothing but strengthen the point I have made before. People are more focus on the “freedom” aspect of euthanasia – at least for now. They want the freedom and option to use euthanasia, though they may not necessarily partake in the activity. More importantly, the entire state of Oregon has a population below five percent, with the sixty five years and older crowd totaling less than seventeen percent, so Oregon is a very bad
The discussion of physician-assisted suicide is frequently focused around the ethical implications. The confusion commonly surfaces from the simple question, what is physician-assisted suicide? Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as a circumstance in which a medical physician provides a lethal dose of medication to a patient with a fatal illness. In this case, the patient has given consent, as well as direction, to the physician to ethically aid in their death (Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue,
Let's mention a known name in the euthanasia field, Dr. Jack Kevorkian. If this name sounds unfamiliar, then you have been one of the lucky few people to have been living in a cave for the last nine years. Dr. Kevorkian is considered to some as a patriarch, here to serve mankind. Yet others consider him to be an evil villain, a devil's advocate so to speak. Physician assisted suicide has not mentioned in the news recently. But just as you are reading this paper and I'm typing, it's happening. This hyperlink will take you to a web page that depicts in depth how many people Dr. Kevorkian has assisted in taking their lives.
Physicians face an ethical dilemma when confronting their patients who are suffering. Many have to choose between abiding by the law or ignoring the law and acting on their own beliefs by assisting in a patient’s suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian is certainly one doctor who has taken the illegal route in assisting in many of his patients suicides. In “Killer Doc,” William F. Buckley provides a brief overview of the case and informs his audience of the shocking incidents of Kevorkian’s performed euthanasia on Thomas Youk. In “Offering a Helping Hand to those Who Long to Die,” Mark Nichols compares the famous euthanasia doctors, Dr. Kevorkian and Austrailia’s Dr. Philip Nitschke.
The Dr. Kevorkian case is important for medical ethics, because it brings up the issues of physician-assisted suicide and physician-assisted death. Physician-assisted suicide is where the doctor is assisting the patient in suicide, but the patient actually performs the act. Physician-assisted death, also known as euthanasia, is when the doctor does the act to bring about the patient’s death based on the patient’s request. This brings up the limitations of beneficence. Does a doctor have the right to end a patient’s life to relieve their suffering?
Imagine, if you will, that you have just found out you have a terminal medical condition. Doesn’t matter which one, it’s terminal. Over the 6 months you have to live you experience unmeasurable amounts of pain, and when your free of your pain the medication you’re under renders you in an impaired sense of consciousness. Towards the 4th month, you begin to believe all this suffering is pointless, you are to die anyways, why not with a little dignity. You begin to consider Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). In this essay I will explain the ethical decisions and dilemmas one may face when deciding to accept the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I will also provide factual information pertaining to the subject of PAS and testimony from some that advocate for legalization of PAS. PAS is not to be taken lightly. It is the decision to end one’s life with the aid of a medical physician. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that PAS is “Suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent.” PAS is considered, by our textbook – Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. There are other forms of euthanasia such as non-voluntary, involuntary, and passive. This essay is focusing on PAS, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. PAS is commonly known as “Dying/Death with Dignity.” The most recent publicized case of PAS is the case of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where she lived. At the time California didn’t have Legislative right to allow Brittany the right to commit PAS so she was transported to Oregon where PAS is legal....
At the moment, about five states have legalized either physician assisted suicide or euthanasia. This slow turnaround is a far cry from what it used to be more than thirty years ago. At this time, only Oregon made it legal for terminally ill patients to choose assisted death if needed. "One concern has been that disadvantaged populations would be disproportionately represented among patients who chose assisted suicide. Experience in Oregon suggests this has not been the case. In the United States, socially disadvantaged groups have variably included ethnic minorities, the poor, women, and the elderly...The available evidence does not bear out widely voiced concerns that physician-assisted suicide will be requested by those who are socially disadvantaged or make their requests based on lack of access to palliative care, poor social support, or financial needs "(Ganzini par. 13). This just goes to show that people have put their concern in the wrong opinion. There is truth in that abuse would certainly be a huge concern. But, that should not mean that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be completely out of the question. Instead people should find out solutions to remedy these concerns. One suggestion is to create a list of stipulations that would keep people from taking advantage. Dave Andrusko is a proponent against
In her paper entitled "Euthanasia," Phillipa Foot notes that euthanasia should be thought of as "inducing or otherwise opting for death for the sake of the one who is to die" (MI, 8). In Moral Matters, Jan Narveson argues, successfully I think, that given moral grounds for suicide, voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable (at least, in principle). Daniel Callahan, on the other hand, in his "When Self-Determination Runs Amok," counters that the traditional pro-(active) euthanasia arguments concerning self-determination, the distinction between killing and allowing to die, and the skepticism about harmful consequences for society, are flawed. I do not think Callahan's reasoning establishes that euthanasia is indeed morally wrong and legally impossible, and I will attempt to show that.
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.
Schneider Keith, “DR. Jack Kevorkian Dies at 83; A Doctor who helped End Lives”. The New York Times. Arthur Sulzberger Jr. 3, June 2011. Online Newspaper 2014
According to West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, between 1990 and 1999, a well-known advocate for physician assisted suicide, Jack Kevorkian helped 130 patients end their lives. He began the debate on assisted suicide by assisting a man with committing suicide on national television. According to Dr. Kevorkian, “The voluntary self-elimination of individual and mortally diseased or crippled lives taken collectively can only enhance the preservation of public health and welfare” (Kevorkian). In other words, Kevor...
“Michael Manning, MD, in his 1998 book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring?, traced the history of the word euthanasia: ‘The term euthanasia.originally meant only 'good death,'but in modern society it has come to mean a death free of any anxiety and pain, often brought about through the use of medication.” It seems there has always been some confusion and questions from our society about the legal and moral questions regarding the new science of euthanasia. “Most recently, it has come to mean'mercy killing' — deliberately putting an end to someone’s life in order to spare the individual’s suffering.’” I would like to emphasize the words “to spare the individual’s suffering”.
Critics to the idea of providing dying patients with lethal doses, fear that people will use this type those and kill others, “lack of supervision over the use of lethal drugs…risk that the drugs might be used for some other purpose”(Young 45). Young explains that another debate that has been going on within this issue is the distinction between killings patients and allowing them die. What people don’t understand is that it is not considered killing a patient if it’s the option they wished for. “If a dying patient requests help with dying because… he is … in intolerable burden, he should be benefited by a physician assisting him to die”(Young 119). Patients who are suffering from diseases that have no cure should be given the option to decide the timing and manner of their own death. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for
“In 1999, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician known for openly advertising that he would perform assisted suicide despite the fact that it was illegal, was convicted of second-degree murder” (Lee). The fact of the matter is human being...
... greater pain and anguish for longer periods of time than my father did, I believe euthanasia is the only compassionate form of relief we can provide. I believe it is morally important to allow an individual to die with respect for his or her dignity, while respecting his or her autonomy. Because of these reasons, euthanasia is morally justified when administered under strict controls.
Euthanasia, according to the dictionary, means the killing of a person who is suffering from an incurable disease. Lately, it had been a huge debate over whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. Personally, I believe that euthanasia should be legalized if it is voluntary. I have three reasons for my argument.