The government is saying that physicians are role models and should be viewed as people who save lives, not people who take life away. Opponents contend that physician-assisted suicide undermines doctors’ roles in society. According to American Medical Association, “Allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good” (Fuller). The community looks up to doctors, especially the sickly elders. They might be influenced to seek help in easing their suffering.
According to Karaim in 2013 “Decisions about sustaining life, allowing it to end or even hastening death are among the most difficult choices terminally ill patients and their families can face” (para 1). Patients going through this have a bountiful number of things going
The physician has to remain willing to care for and the patient has to remain willing to be cared for and that is a respect for life. PAS neglects that respect for life. Dyck then says that when the respect of life is present in the patient, they seek pain relief methods which have shown to successfully prolong life and ease pain until the illness takes the life of the patient (Dyck, 40). Killing is also a violation of an individual’s inalienable right to life, according to Dyck. He states that suicide leaves adverse effects on those that are intertwined with that individual’s life.
Constant exposure to a melancholic/sad environment, such as a patient in vegetative state, can sometimes lead to depression for the family members. Some member(s) of the family often feels a fluctuation of sad and melancholic mood. Sometimes, a death or constant suffering triggers a person’s brain in a way that it becomes long-term. Financially, payments accumulate. Families are not only troubled by the patient’s condition but also by the financial bills of the hospital.
The assisted suicide refers to euthanasia for the patient who is suffering due to an incurable illness with help from the doctors to end patients suffering by taking of lethal drugs. Colombia, Switzerland, and Germany are some of the legal assisted suicide countries. Physicians cannot be prosecuted for prescribing medications to hasten death (“Physician-Assisted Suicide,” n.d.). Some individuals argue that assisted suicide could be better to become legal to endless patients suffering. However, it is argued that euthanized help patient to comfortable from doom.
Often, the physician prescribes a lethal dosage of a drug to a patient, after the patient has been cleared of all mental disorders by a physiatrist. From there, the patient takes the prescribed dosage and dies peacefully. But the question should people be allowed to end their life with the help of a physician? Is this ethical? The Bible does not allow killing, even if it is compassionate killing.
Burzynski as a doctor solely trying to help patients that would likely die without his treatment. The movie uses convincing rhetorical strategies throughout to make its case that antineoplastons are only being denied because the FDA is victimizing a doctor. Most effective were the countless stories presented by the patients’ families begging that a father or son’s life be saved all the while dramatic music played in the background. Unfortunately, this movie provided these patients with a “false hope” because the claims were not statistically proven. Although the movie credited antineoplastons as the “most important discovery in cancer treatment – ever” (Burzynski), clinical evidence as well as dangerous results do not support this biased claim.
Euthanasia should be allowed in these cases where a person is suffering and is probable to die soon. Forcing a terminally ill person to live when they would rather die than suffer is much more immoral than euthanizing them. Right now, laws prohibit euthanasia in most states in the United States, so most people cannot be euthanized even if they want to be. However, this can be changed with enough people calling their state representatives and protesting the law.
The ideas behind this moral distinction is that in passive euthanasia the doctors are not actively killing anyone but they are just not saving the patients. Most people think that euthanasia can be justifiable, when the patients are facing incurable disease, undergoing suffer, terminally ill and requests for euthanasia as their last wishes. For instance, Somerville (2010) argued that it is important to respect the people’s right of self-determination and autonomy. In other words, people should have the right to choose their time of dying but the state have prevented and stop them from doing it.
It causes mental health to erode such as depression and anxiety. Living as subject of discrimination prevents people from having equal opportunities to better their lives and is the primary reason for higher levels of unemployment and underemployment. Worst case, it causes death and suicidal among the victims due to stress and pressure. Racism happens daily and affects so many people. How can one live with oneself for causing someone so much trouble?
An argument from those who are against assisted suicide is that assisted suicide is unethical. Heather Newton, Article Editor for The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, argues that assisted suicide is similar to euthanizing. The difference between the two acts is that in assisted suicide the medication is administered by the patient, wherein euthanizing the doctor administers the medication. Also this process can be considered a violation of the Hippocratic Oath that every doctor takes. This oath states “I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel”(Quffa, Voinea).