Threatening to diminish the value of life is very dangerous. Euthanasia, also called mercy killing, is the practice of doctors intentionally ending a terminally ill patient’s life in what is purportedly a gentle and dignified manner. The term originated in ancient Greek and means “easy death.” Doctors perform euthanasia by administering lethal drugs or by withholding treatment that would prolong the patient’s life. Physician-assisted suicide is also a form of euthanasia, but the difference between the two methods is that in euthanasia, doctors end the patient’s life with lethal injections, whereas, in physician-assisted suicide, patients kill themselves with a lethal amount of drugs prescribed by the doctors. Physicians practiced euthanasia
Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.
Literature and the arts are similar, they require us to tap into a deeper level of understand in what we read and see. The words are often an author’s experiences, thoughts, feeling, ideas or convictions. As readers we can sometimes connect with the author, having an emotional reaction to their works. In Ernest Hemingway’s Hills Like White Elephants, the young couple is making a life decision about going through an abortion. I too was faced this decision in my own life at a young age. The question here in these three literature pieces is when we are faced with “life and death” situations what is the morally right thing to do? There are some decisions we can make for ourselves and our own life, and then there are other decisions we are confronted with that effects another person/animal’s life.
The debate over whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for dying patients has long been a topic for discussion amongst members of the medical community. There are pros and cons for each argument, however, at the center of this debate is the consideration of patient advocacy and well-being. Although every health care profession centers their profession around providing the best ethical care for the patient, the most important value to consider are the decisions the patient makes for themselves. Currently, patients are given many safeguards such as living wills, a durable power of attorney, and the option for do not resuscitate that act as guidelines for end of life treatment. Physician-assisted suicide should also
The legalization of physician-assisted suicide has became an increasingly debatable topic in the United States today. The practice of assisted suicide pertains to a terminally ill patient who wants to end his or her life along with a physician’s acknowledgement of that patient’s desire to die. The debate on whether or not to legalize assisted suicide in every state has caused many uproars in the field of health care. Elements that factor into the controversy of this practice include ethicality, legality, and autonomy. Questions about the issue include: should the patient have the autonomy to select the system of assisted suicide, is it morally
It should be considered just as much of a crime to make a person live who does not wish to continue under their circumstances, as it is to take a life without consent. In the article, "Loss of Self" Most Important in Considering Physician- Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia" a number of people who were
Physician assisted suicide is morally and ethically wrong due to the Hippocratic oath doctors take at the beginning of their term, and unlike euthanasia, it is therefore the patient that triggers the death and not a third party. Our culture subscribes to the notion of the “absolute sanctity of life”, Western religions do not plainly forbid suicide, and assisted suicide would result in overall no harm on the society. The physician-assisted suicide controversy surrounds the idea that assisted suicide rests on the difference between dying with dignity and dying suffering. The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial. It is ethically permissible for a dying person who has chosen to escape the unbearable
People have moral and ethical values that assist them in making decisions about their healthcare on a daily basis. What if a person found out that they had a terminal illness and only had months to live? What if those few months would be filled with treatments, pain and suffering, tear filled family members, and high cost medical bills? Physician- assisted suicide remains a debated topic which causes physicians, nurses and those involved to take a look at what they value and what they are willing to do in order to carry out a patient’s wishes. Physician- assisted suicide can be thought of as helping a patient in carrying out their last days by providing the information and medication needed to end their life. The physician
The enigmatic Hamlet once said, “To be, or not to be, that is the question.” In Hamlet’s soliloquy, he ponders on the idea of suicide and whether it would be a practical solution to all his problems, in other words was it better to live or to die? A situation parallel to Hamlet is the landmark case Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, where it discusses how the Constitution protects a person’s right to die and how states can regulate it. During 1983, a woman by the name of Nancy Cruzan laid in an eternal vegetative state after being involved in an auto collision, where she sustained severe injuries and was put on life-sustaining equipment. In addition, after five years with no signs of recovery, the Cruzan family asked to terminate her from the tubes that were feeding her, but were denied by the staff, without approval of the court. Likewise, in relations to Cruzan,
The Death with Dignity Act has two arguments: those who believe we have the right to choose how and when we die, and those who believe we do not possess that right; that we should not interfere with the natural order of life. Every year, people across America are diagnosed with a terminal illness. For some people there is time: time to hope for a cure, time to fight the disease, time to pray for a miracle. For others however, there is very little or no time. For these patients, their death is rapidly approaching and for the vast majority of them, it will be a slow and agonizing experience. However, there is hope of a peaceful death for these patients that exists in a controversial law being considered by many states throughout the country. It is known as the Death with Dignity Act. This law gives terminally ill patients the option of ending their own life in a painless manner at a time and place of their choosing by
Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated. Even though assisted suicide was not discussed throughout the sixteen to eighteen hundreds, ethical philosophers investigated the roots of human morals in an attempt to create an overarching rule that would help determine if “death with dignity” is morally justified.
“Death with dignity is a human right: to retain control until the very end and, if the quality of your life is too poor, to decide to end your suffering; the dignity comes from exercising the choice.” says Jason Barber, whose wife, Kathleen Barber, died in his arms. He had one question in mind when she died. What was he going to say if someone asked him how she died? Whether she went peacefully? He decided to tell people that his wife died in peace, without any pain or suffering. But that was a lie. She suffered from torturous cancer and she died with pain and discomfort, no matter how much pain killer was given to her. What solution could be offered to the suffering woman and to her loving husband? What if I told you that there is a way in which no one would have to suffer to death? A way that helps people die with dignity and, a way that provides a peaceful, smooth death? This miraculous way is called ‘euthanasia’.