Brittany Maynard was a rebel, because she fought public opinion for the right to choose her death. Brittany became a rebel the moment her vision was to expand the access to death with dignity to California and other states in the country. Her goal was to give control to all terminally ill patients at the end of their lives, a choice she was denied in her home state. Therefore, she moved to Oregon to take advantage of the Death with Dignity Act. This law gives patients the option to take life-ending medication if their dying process became unbearably painful, so they can pass away gently and peacefully at home in the arms of their love ones.
However the act did not legalise physician assisted suicide and so that practice still remained illegal. This seems ridiculous to me as why should physician assisted suicide not be allowed if normal suicide is allowed, both involve someone who wants to end their life, so it shouldn’t matter how they choose to do it. Many people may be scared to take their own life and would prefer a doctor to do it for them. This is why physician assisted suicide should be
Emma was completely aware that the procedure would only prolong life for a short period of time. Certain death awaited Emma. Her parents agreed with Emma after she discussed her decision with them. Nonetheless, Dr. Hamid wished to perform the heart transplant to extend Emma’s life. Dr. Hamid had never witnessed such a young patient decline the procedure.
Haws and Hunt conclude that relying on your religion isn’t reasonable to oppose the right to end your life when the person has suffered enough. “While I do not support assisted suicide, it is unfair to describe a 10-year illness without addressing the cost [of prolonging life], which would have bankrupted many Americans” (Haws and Hunt). They imply that trying to pay for the patient’s treatment to continue fighting their illnesses will damage them financially and emotionally to the patient and their family. Even though Kuo’s beliefs are some reasons that assisted suicide should be illegal, there will be people who will be against those types of
In Of Mice and Men George is forced into killing his only friend, Lennie. In order to save Lennie from further pain and suffering due to Lennie killing Curley’s wife, “ The hand shook violently… George shivered and looked at the gun, and then he threw it from him”(106). After George killed Lennie he
Active and Passive Euthanasia are two very different things. According to Rachels, he does not believe that. Active Euthanasia is purposefully taking an action or direct method to kill the patient. Passive Euthanasia is withholding any more treatment to the patient, therefore letting the patient die. Rachels then describes the conventional doctrine, where there is a question, killing the patient”, or “letting them die.
Their argument is that the medical practice of physician-assisted death is unethical because it violates the bioethical principle of nonmaleficence, which refers to the obligation of the physician to not cause needless harm. Physician-assisted death is not causing needless harm because the patient themselves is requesting the death-dealing medication and taking them, or not taking them, when, and if, they feel ready to die. It would be needless harm if the physician in question actively euthanatized the patient by administering the death-dealing medications without the patient’s consent. However, from a legal standpoint, physician-assisted death does not include active euthanasia, which is illegal in all fifty states; it simply requires the physician to provide the mentally competent patient with the information they asked for regarding the process and a prescription for the death dealing medication. The physician is not causing needless harm to a terminally ill patient who wishes to die mercifully on their own time instead of six months down the line in possible pain and suffering.
It is recognizable that assisted suicide goes against human nature. Physician assisted suicide is judged morally wrong because every human is inclined to continue living. In the event that a terminally ill patient cannot be cured, palliative sedation is an option. According Boudreau, “we believe that the art of healing should always remain at the core of medical practice…sedation is morally acceptable to avoid severe pain…sedation achieves a humane and compassionate period for the patient, caregivers, and family without precipitating important concerns about slippery slopes”. Healthcare facilities have to comply with the rules and regulations.
The idea of duty should also be considered. If a doctor is to do his moral duty, this would be to cure or alleviate pain, and not assist on killing, as that would disregard the doctor-patient relationship and the hippocratic oath they swore to uphold. With today’s growing technology and medical innovation, people suggest that a cure may become available at any time and miracles can happen, and euthanasia would prevent those from happening. With doctors doing everything they can to keep people alive, patients are often left living under machines controlling every organ of their body, even when they’re brain dead. That only because the family members won’t let go and keep on holding on to the little shred of hope that a miracle might
Her Original diagnostic was wrong, she later found out she only had six months to live. Doctors recommended brain radiation to avoid the pain and the likely hood it will increase her chances of death. She refused to let her family watch her die in a painful way. Maynard took the tough decision and “started researching death with dignity. It is an end-of-life option for mentally competent, terminally ill patients with a prognosis of six months or less to live” (1).