The main purpose of this chapter is to identify the arguments in favour and against assisted dying and to set out a framework of safeguards that would accompany any changes in legislation. This chapter will help show how the concerns regarding the legalisation of assisted dying are outweighed by the arguments in favour of a change in legislation. One of the strongest and most compelling arguments in favour of assisted dying draws on the importance of autonomy and individual liberty; in a liberal state individual freedoms must be respected, “the right to determine what shall be done with one’s own body is a fundamental right in our society” (Tiensuu,2015, p259). In the UK, people generally have the right to make their own decisions about how …show more content…
The argument of autonomy and dying in dignity is given prominence by cases such as Diane Pretty and Debbie Purdy, who both argued that “Suffering, indignity, and the loss of independence are undesirable” (Benatar, 2010, p2) and as a result a mentally cognitive individual suffering from chronic illness or terminal illness should be legally allowed to request assisted dying. This ensures that individuals are able to “arrange to die at a chosen time, in privacy and with dignity” (Benatar, 2010, p3). Diane Pretty suffered from Motor Neuron Disease and was experiencing the disintegration of her body, as a result she appealed to the court to allow her husband to help her end her life, but the request was denied (Doyal, 2001, p1079). Diane’s argument was essentially grounded on the value of autonomy and dignity, the reality of her disease meant she would likely suffer from extreme pain and die an undignified death. The rapid degeneration of her body meant that she would become dependent on those around her for the simplest of tasks. Diane expressed the desire “to have a quick death without suffering, at home surrounded by (her) family” (BBC, 2002). She criticised the European court’s ruling against her case, and believed that this ruling …show more content…
The quality of death is an issue that is increasingly being discussed in both academia and public debates (Hendry et al, 2012, p23). In the notion of quality of death, autonomy is seen as very important, as part of a good quality of death is ensuring individual wishes are honoured at the end of their life (Hendry et al, 2012, p23). Quality of death is “the right to choose and desire for autonomy with regard to the manner of death” (Hendry et al, 2012, p19-20). In the systematic review of international literature which looks at people’s attitudes towards assisted dying, a number of surveys were examined and compared (Hendry et al, 2012), and within these surveys four common themes were identified. These included concerns about poor quality of life and desire for a good quality of death (Hendry et al, 2012, p17). Assisted dying is viewed to directly contribute to good quality of death as “by respecting the person’s wishes, alleviating potential suffering and preserving dignity” individuals can ensure that they experience the best possible
In Culture of Death, Wesley J. Smith is very clear about his opinions on where the future of healthcare is headed. In my essay, I will be discussing Smiths’ statements regarding assisted suicide, euthanasia and removal of food and fluid and why he believes the government should put an end to legalizing these practices. I will also discuss the important cases of Annette Corriveau, Robert Latimer, and others. Wesley Smith is a bioethicist and human rights activist that advocates for the illegalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
One of the main objections to autonomy-based justifications of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) that Gill talks about is that many people believe it does not promote autonomy, but instead is actually taking it away (366). First, it is important to clarify what autonomy means. According to Gill, it is the ability of a person to make big decisions regarding their own life (369). Opponents of PAS argue that it takes away a person’s ability to make these big decisions and so it is intrinsically wrong for them to choose to take their own life.
To provide more light on to the issues with the probation of assisted suicide, an intervenor called Dying with Dignity (DWD) takes the stance with the trial judge and believes in the right to have assisted deaths legalized within Canada. They wish to have it apart of the health care system, but emphasizes, just like Smith, that there must be safeguards that are meticulously enforced and reviewed. They have five submissions that expresses their thoughts and position within the decisions and thoughts behind the SCC Carter case: 1) they believe that the right to life also includes the right to die with dignity. Life should be interpreted broadly and that should also include how it ends. DWD argue that by placing a ban on assisted suicide determines
The source deals in the legalised of assisted dying. It is an article documented by the Ilora Finlay, a professor at the Palliative medical centre at the University of Cardiff. This article will provide an insightful perspective on the study topic. It provides statistical support and documentation of the arguments provided and has helped the author in authenticating the validity of the material. The author has mainly drawn upon the secondary source materials in drafting the article and it could be effectively used as a reliable source of research.
McGoldrick’s case. Her case focuses on two sides of one coin: living with dignity and dying with dignity. From a principlism perspective, there is tension between respecting patient autonomy – assuming decision-making capacity – and beneficence, from a clinical standpoint (9). Treatment from a ‘best-interest’ and dignity perspective differs among the various stakeholders in the case, where the family and physician believe potentially life-sustaining options must be pursued, though the patient outwardly refuses those treatments. The ethics of Mrs. McGoldrick’s wish to die and refuse treatment hinges largely upon whether she has decision-making capacity.
The possible legalization of euthanasia can cause a great disturbance in how people view life and death and the simplicity of how they would treat it. "There are many fairly severely handicapped people for whom a simple, affectionate life is possible." (Foot, p. 94) As demonstrated, the decision of terminating a person 's life is a very fragile and difficult one, emotionally and mentally. Nevertheless, it’s a choice we can make if it is passive euthanasia being expressed.
The Right to Die 1) Introduction a) Thesis statement: Physician assisted suicide offers patients a choice of getting out of their pain and misery, presents a way to help those who are already dead mentally because of how much a disease has taken over them, proves to be a great option in many states its legal in, and puts the family at ease knowing their love one is out of pain. i) The use of physician assisted death is used in many different countries and some states. ii) Many people who chose this option are fighting a terminal illness.
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.
Patient autonomy argues that a person’s life is their own, allowing a patient to make decisions on whether to live or die. This is seen most strongly in cases where people are suffering severe pain or disability. However, to what extend is individual autonomy to be undermined? In our current model, the guidelines for determining the competency of a patient present too many holes. Therefore, allowing life and death decisions to rest on individual autonomy rejects our society’s basic attitude or respect for
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.
“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.
The fourth common Western argument in favor of euthanasia is the argument of self-determination. According to the precious Western value of autonomy, the individual must be free to decide on the things that matter much to him or her. As decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, education, etc. The decision on how and when to die is one of the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime. Therefore we have the right to die; some even claim that it is a human right, a negative right (the corresponding obligation is non-intervention in suicide attempts) and a positive law (which is suicide correlative duty of care).
A negative of assisted suicide is that not only can it affect the patient, but it can affect the people around them who do not support their plan. A family member of the patient can become depressed if their family member chooses to end their life. It can ruin relationships between the patient and the family. It can make the patient’s journey difficult if the family refuses, and it can corrupt the practice of medicine by using medicine in a harmful way to people (Anderson). Assisted Suicide can attract vulnerable patients, bullied by rogue doctors, grasping relatives, miserly insurers, or cash- strapped state (“The Right to Die”).
The Peaceful End of Life theory is paramount as the authors stated that every individual deserved to die in a peaceful manner with dignity. The theory is empirical based which is applicable to nursing practice in caring for dying patients, assessing interventions, maximizing care, promote dignity and enhancing end of life to be peaceful. According to Moore and Ruland, a good life is simply defined as getting what one wants (Alligood, 2014, p. 702). The approach of given patients what they want or their preference is a practical approach to the end of life care. This theory stands out to me because it fit into my patient’s diagnosis and I believe everyone deserves to die with dignity and peacefully.
In a few nations there is a divisive open discussion over the ethical, moral, and legitimate issues of euthanasia. The individuals who are against euthanasia may contend for the holiness of life, while defenders of euthanasia rights accentuate mitigating enduring, substantial respectability, determination toward oneself, and individual autonomy. Jurisdictions where euthanasia or supported suicide is legitimate incorporate the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Estonia, Albania, and the US states of Washington. CLASSIFICATION OF EUTHANASIA Euthanasia may be characterized consistent with if an individual