Many people are not familiar with the word “Euthanasia”. When they hear or see this word, there are many questions to ask, like what does it mean, why do you do like that, for what? Euthanasia or mercy killing is a moral act done out of duty to those in suffering or an act for self-benefit under cover of morality or is it opening door to many illegal issues in the society. The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek word for "good death" and originally referred to as “intentional killing”. For example, a doctor who gave a patient with terminal cancer an overdose of muscle relaxants to end their life would be considered to have committed euthanasia. Although euthanasia has received great exposure in the professional media and many people think …show more content…
Perhaps one of the most important developments in recent years is the increasing emphasis placed on health care providers to contain costs. In such a climate, euthanasia certainly could become a means of cost containment. In the United States, thousands of people have no medical insurance; studies have shown that the poor and minorities generally are not given access to available pain control, and managed-care facilities are offering physicians cash bonuses if they don't provide care for patients. With greater and greater emphasis being placed on managed care, many doctors are at financial risk when they provide treatment for their patients. 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. In Canada, hospital stays are being shortened while, at the same time, funds have not been made available for home care for the sick and elderly. Registered nurses are being replaced with less expensive practical nurses. Patients are forced to endure long waits for many types of needed surgery. (Wesley J. Smith,
Recent profit driven health care systems are influencing doctors to lessen care in order to cut expenses. If a doctor prescribes a lethal medication to a patient it is cheaper rather than having the patient take medication for long term conditions and serious illness
However, the surmised money savings from assisted suicide is lower than what statistics predicted. Each year, roughly twenty-seven to thirty percent of Medicare’s finances goes towards helping dying Medicare
Unlike Oregon, in most legal jurisdictions of physician assisted suicide, patients must have had been diagnosed terminally ill and given a certain time of life to be eligible for the usage of the practice. Most jurisdictions set these requirements so the practice isn’t used wrongfully and only patients experiencing crucial pain would be eligible. Although how patients who are not declared terminally ill can experience more pain anguish then those whom are declared terminally ill. A 2016 study by Emily Lund found that, “people view suicide as more acceptable for those with terminal cancer or nonterminal chronic pain”. This finding proves that even patients who are not terminally ill can experience the same equivalency of pain.
For instance, the cost to treat a cancer patient at the end of life triples in cost for inpatient care.1 The pressure of increasing medical costs will tend to pressure the patient to make a decision based primarily on financial reasons.2 Thus, potentially putting low-income groups at risk for hasty medical decision making. However, a study based on data collected from Oregon and the Netherlands concluded no evidence of heightened risk in the following groups: low educational status, the poor, physically disabled, chronically ill, psychiatric illnesses, and racial and ethnic minorities.3 Among the reported reasons for choosing physician-assisted suicide, the lowest on the list were financial problems at 3%, which provides stronger evidence to legalize physician-assisted suicide and allow patients the autonomy for end of life decision
It is believed that once practicing physician-assisted suicides becomes an acceptable concept in society, the next steps will easily be taken toward unethical actions such as involuntary euthanasia. Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD, Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Medical Ethics at Georgetown University claims that our healthcare system is too obsessed with costs and principles of utility. He defies the belief that the slippery slope effect is no more than a prediction, by reminding the outlooks and inclinations of our society. Furthermore, he believes there comes a day that incompetent patients and those in coma won’t be asked for their permission to use euthanasia. The Netherlands is another example of such misuse.
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 word “euthanize” means to bring about a person’s death to relieve them from serious distress. The topic of euthanasia in medicine has evolved since intensive care was first instituted. Before the 1950’s, a simple model was used to determine when someone was dead: the individual was dead when his or her heart stopped beating. In the modern light, the answer to this question isn’t as clear. With advancements in organ transplantation and other medical technologies, the stopping of a beating heart is no longer a definite death sentence.
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.
Whereas, others disagree with the idea of euthanasia because they believe the patient should have a chance to be treated and regain their health instead of choosing the “instant death” route and it may increase the number of assisted suicides. Euthanasia has been made legal in several places around the world such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, India, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, Japan and Canada. The only U.S. states that have legalized euthanasia are Washington, Oregon, Colorado, California, Washington D.C., Vermont and Montana (“Legality of
Euthanasia itself means mercy killing and it’s the intentional ending of another’s life; either directly, which is known as active euthanasia, or by stopping medical treatment, known as inactive euthanasia. It can be voluntary, when the patient asks for it, and involuntary, when the patient isn’t able to express his request and the decision is then taken by the person’s doctor and legal representative. It is one of the biggest social, moral and ethical issues in today’s society, and for years it has caused a lot of controversies over whether it can be justified or not. Many believe that life is a “sacred gift from God” so it should be Him who decides when it’s our time to go; while many others argue that for matters that don’t concern anyone
Euthanasia can be interpreted in different ways depending on the person/point of view. Euthanasia is another word for mercy-killing, those who are in great pain and their treatments show no sign of progress can choose euthanasia as an option to die mercifully and with dignity. When a person goes through euthanasia, they consume a euthanasia solution through a vein or by drinking it. Then, they rest as the solution kills them. There have been many controversies on whether euthanasia should be legalized.
From an economic standpoint, euthanasia is a brilliant alternative. Though many see it as unethical, it may be relieving for the victims to know that once they’ve passed they’re no longer considered burdens to their families. Though harsh, keeping a terminally ill person alive for a year costs no less than $55,000, dying in a dignified way is their last resort when they know their condition is not going to improve. Many patients with incurable diseases have stated that the lengthy and expensive time and operations granted by their families are not worth the few extra months they get of spending time on Earth.
The Right to Die has been taking effect in many states and is rapidly spreading around the world. Patients who have life threatening conditions usually choose to die quickly with the help of their physicians. Many people question this right because of its inhumane authority. Euthanasia or assisted suicide are done by physicians to end the lives of their patients only in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, New Mexico and soon California that have the Right to Die so that patients don’t have to live with depression, cancer and immobility would rather die quick in peace.
The act of euthanasia, whether active or passive, is heavily obstructed in the medical field. Through medical ethics, the act of passive euthanasia is condoned by withholding treatment and thus, allowing the patient to die. Without any direct contact with the patient, the doctor is not considered as the cause of death. Thus, the medical field views passive euthanasia as of lesser and more permissible value in comparison to active euthanasia. In the statement made by the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association, they perceive this as contrary to mercy killing, as it is, the cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the patient and/or his immediate family.
Have you ever imagined one of your loved ones suffering from a painful illness? Have you ever wanted that person to die and rest in peace? This is called Euthanasia, which means the termination of a patient’s life who is suffering from excruciating pain and a terminal disease. Euthanasia came from the Greek for good (“eu”) and death (“thanatos”) “good death”(Sklansky, (2001) p.5.) There are more than four types of euthanasia such as active euthanasia, which means that death is caused directly by another person by giving the patient a poisonous injection.