Ethics Of Physician Assisted Suicide

Legalized euthanasia raises the potential for a profoundly dangerous situation in which doctors could find themselves far better off financially if a seriously ill or disabled person "chooses" to die rather than receive long-term care. Savings to the government may also become a consideration. This could take place if governments cut back on paying for treatment and care and replace them with the "treatment" of death. For example, immediately after the passage of Measure 16, Oregon's law permitting assisted suicide, Jean Thorne, the state's Medicaid Director, announced that physician-assisted suicide would be paid for as "comfort care" under the Oregon Health Plan which provides medical coverage for about 345,000 poor Oregonians. Within eighteen months of Measure 16's passage, the State of Oregon announced plans to cut back on health care coverage for poor state residents.

Life is never guaranteed and whether it is through an illness or an accident, we as humans are eventually going to die. Physicians Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial issues. The issue of doctor-assisted suicide has been the subject of the heated dispute in recent years. While some oppose the idea that a physician should aid in ending a life, others believe that physicians should be permitted in helping a patient to end his or her unbearable suffering when faced with a terminal illness. Furthermore, Physician-assisted suicide should be legal; it should be the patient’s right to decide when and how he or she should die.

Dear Editor, Today I am going to bring something very important to your attention. I am going to be discussing getting vaccinated and why it is so important. I feel that getting vaccinated is vital because vaccinations lower your risk of death, they are a safe way to prevent illness, and you are protecting those around you by getting them. Vaccines definitely lower your risk of death. Each year in the U.S., 50,000 adults die from a disease that could have easily been prevented if they simply got vaccinated.

The US can implement this by having greater price and quality transparency. This has been proven to work when George W. Bush enacted medicare Part D - a competitive market for drugs with government set ground rules, Medicare Part D has cost below all government projections since its inception, and in 2013 was 50% below what the congressional budget office originally estimated.(Emanual). If we could implement similar government regulated open markets for healthcare the cost of healthcare would, studies have also shown when a similar act was enacted for medical equipment, the prices dropped by 42% and studies have not shown and problems. (Emanuel) Although this would cause Health Care industries to make less profit from each sale, it would greatly lower the cost and increase the quality of healthcare for everyone. Significant evidence shows that market competition works to control health care cost like any other industry, and by pushing for an open health care market, health care costs would go down by at least 30% allowing the government and the people to pay less for health

Whether we accept it or not, it is inevitable. Some people argue that assisted suicide is the same as euthanizing someone. Euthanasia is the painless killing to end suffering from an incurable and painful disease. It is sometimes seen by law as a second degree murder, manslaughter, or homicide. This practice is illegal in most countries in the United States.

Dr. Timothy Quill and three other terminally ill patients filed a case against the Attorney General of New York State claiming violation of the Equal Protection Clauses. The New York State law allowed discontinuation of life-saving treatment for a competent person who was terminally ill, however, it imposed a ban on physician assisted suicide. The district court did not agree but the Court of Appeals reversed stating that they were moreover similar things and the ban was an unequal treatment. The Supreme Court granted a certiorari. Issue: There is a clear distinction between refusing a life-saving treatment and physician assisted suicide, does the terminally ill patients vies this distinction as an operating violation of Equal Protection Clause?

Both of these reasons can save money for the institution. Support fact: In a study done by Stanford law Professor A. Mitchell Polinsky, when prisoners were rewarded by reducing their sentence or having part of their sentence converted into parole, an early release will save money. The United States spends $80 billion per year and another approximately $30,000 per year to incarcerate someone. Having a reward system in place for good behavior benefits states because the time a person spends in prison is reduced, which will lower prison costs. When Polinsky did a study of Ohio, the average cost was anywhere from $62.00 to $149.00 a day, depending on the security of the prison.

It means that it is not right for the terminally ill people that are suffering to be alive. There is different way of saying about the moral distinction between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Most people think that it is acceptable to allow doctors to end their patient’s life by withholding the treatment but it is not accepted to kill a patient through an intended process (deliberate act). However, some doctors or medical specialist agree and accept that the doctors are free to provide death to any patients that they want without discussing the moral problem of them if they consciously killed the

Again many of the patients and democrats are scared that many people would lose the health care they receive if Planned Parenthood is defunded again not thinking about the abortion allegations. With the defunding of Planned Parenthood the government is able to save money. Steven Ertelt wrote in his article that a congressional report shows that defunding Planned Parenthood clinics for 1 year can save the federal government $235 million (Ertelt). The defunding of Planned Parenthood would be beneficial in general to the government because they are able to save millions of dollar within one year. Even though it is believed that it would cost money to defund Planned Parenthood there is a report showing how much can be saved easily by even defunding for one

He is planning to spend six trillion dollars less than what we are currently spending every single year. Right now, the U.S is spending about ten thousand dollars per person which adds up to three trillion dollars per year. In other words, he is planning to get the country out of debt with the money we aren’t using for the Medicare. When you propose all these things, it sounds phenomenal to have more Medicare coverage for less, but analysts say it’s too good to be true. According to media and Kenneth Thorpe, an Emory Universal Health-Care expert who worked in the Bill Clinton, “finds that Mrs. Sanders’ proposal would actually harm many working beneficiaries of Medicaid, the state- federal health care plan for the poor and the near poor”.