Euthanasia, also referred to as physician assisted suicide, is an option for those that are in pain and want to end their suffering. It is not easy to argue that an individual should not be able to make their own choice on if they want to end any type of suffering they are enduring. Some might argue that however ill a person may be, they are entitled to every hour granted to them. While this stance in particular is defendable in it’s own right, despite this belief, everyone who is able to make this type of decision is in control of their body and should be granted the option to end any type of unbearable pain. How can one who is not dying make the decision for the individual who is?
Many people hear assisted suicide and they think that it is criminal or unjust. Many people, more than we realize, have to battle with terminal illness. Every day, they go through pain and suffering. They shouldn’t have to go through this because of the opinions of other people. Assisted suicide or acts like it can help them.
Dying with dignity acts across the country go against many peoples’ religious views and also can be seen as going against a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath. “It makes sense for anyone to want to end their life free of pain and on the terms they choose but morally, ‘death with dignity’ conflicts with biblical standards and anti-suicide stances” (Lariat). The bible goes against suicide and anti-suicide acts are against death with dignity because it is seen as a way to try to escape the world. Assisted suicide would also change the practice of medicine.
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
All of these patients will most likely have to endure unnecessary pain and suffer a horrible end. Most of them do not want to go down the spiralling road of needless pain and have to face what these diseases will do in their last months or years. Why should doctors and Americans who have not been through these events be the ones to stop them if they do not want to go through all that trauma of these diseases or even injuries? They shouldn’t. That is why assisted suicide needs to be made legal in all of the United States.
The Utilitarian belief is that every person suffers and when they do suffer they should be able to make the decision to live or to have someone kill them. When no one else is harmed and it is the decision of the person in pain then it is acceptable. If a Utilitarian read the article they would view the euthanasia program as nauseating. A utilitarian is only supporting of euthanasia when it helps end the agony of living anymore as determined or requested by the person in affliction. However, the victims of the euthanasia program had no say in whether they wanted to live or die, they just were killed.
It’s immoral to be in favor of the death penalty. People who support it believe that by executing criminals well prevent them from murdering again, and they feel they deserve to feel the feeling of cruelty as they did to others. Citizens of the United States are fond to similar privileges and assurances. As Americans, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People believe that if a murder takes this rights from a person, why should they still be connected to society?
The death penalty should be put in place for the sole purpose of punishment for people such as Hitler for he was responsible for the killing of many men,women, and children. He is also the one who started a historically horrific atrocity, the Holocaust. If the criminals that commit severe crimes are penalized for their actions, other people that are thinking of committing similar crimes will think twice due to the consequences they might suffer. Violence is only justified in such cases since the death penalty is a requisite for those who cause major damage to society or have major capacity to harm innocent
The main factor that has driven this debate is that both are considered assisted dying and are an act to take the decision to intentionally end the life of a human being. It has generated moral, ethical (including patient, family and doctors), religious and legal dilemmas since many people see Euthanasia as a suicide masked as a mercy or compassionate death. The main difference is that euthanasia is considered a mercy kill or death because the physician administer a lethal medicine. However, in the case of PAS, the physician provides the dose or prescription for the self-administration by the patient. Notwithstanding, both generate dilemmas because are considered murder and suicide and against God or divine creation.
Do you assent that people who encounter some fatal diseases and do not want to endure pain can have voluntary euthanasia? Voluntary euthanasia, the practice of a hopelessly ailing and suffering person asking for terminating the life in a relatively rapid and painless manner, has been the most controversial moot point that spawns numerous discussions in the recent few decades. I propose that voluntary euthanasia should be legalized so that anyone who struggles for the desperate disease can have the right of practicing voluntary euthanasia. Every individual has liberty and is an autonomous person with the right to self-sufficiency and independence.
1,672). A huge theme that society has seen in regards to euthanasia is the physician’s role. Physicians have been seen as murderers for assisting the death of their patients and they have been referred to as mercy-killers. However, many people tend to disregard the fact that even the physician, who is usually the one being blamed, can actually be the victim as well. According to the American Medical Association’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, it was stated that “although life-prolonging medical treatment may be withheld, the physician should not intentionally cause death” (as cited in Dickinson, Clark, Winslow & Marples, 2005, p. 44).
Physician-assisted suicide is very controversial. Some people believe in death with dignity and that we shouldn’t have to suffer from terminal diseases if we don’t want to. Others believe that the act of assisting someone to their death is playing God. Many people also think that the practice of physician-assisted suicide corrupts the practice of medicine and the doctor-patient relationship.
Concerning the cases with Wagner and Bauer, insurance companies will stray away from doing any acts that seem unethical when pertaining to “life or death” medication due to the backlash that Bauer’s and Wagner’s insurance company after their case went public. Additionally, no insurance company wants to be painted badly in the news; they are selling you protection from whatever may occur in the future. They cannot sell themselves as a credible company if they subtly urge you to choose the cheapest route, which can also mean the deadly route. Besides insurance companies being one of the main issues concerning physician-assisted suicide, the hospital itself can prove to be an issue. Since so many deaths occur due to medical errors, one has to wonder how many terminally-ill patients were misdiagnosed.