One who is against Euthanasia may feel that although an individual may want to end their life due to terminal suffering, as mentioned before, even at the slightest of chances the individual may have a chance of healing and getting better with continuous treatment. There are some cases in which individual’s immune systems fight back and come back stronger and in a sense is clean of any infection. Another view is that, regardless of the process, assisted or unassisted, if the result is one’s death, the act is immoral. Last but not least, one who feels strongly against Euthanasia would argue that even Passive Euthanasia would lead to Active Euthanasia. Take the same part of the passage that I mentioned in the beginning.
Currently, there are a few resources for terminally ill patients such as palliative care and hospice care; however, patient suffering at the end of life can be reduced with PAS. Those who are terminally ill and face many aggressive forms of treatment may consider PAS an alternative option to palliative care to end their suffering. They might consider PAS as an alternative option to hospice care, because they would rather choose the conditions of their death, rather than prolonging death in another clinical setting. The drugs used for PAS would be less costly than providing end of life care. With PAS, health care costs can be reduced (Kinchoeloe, xiv).
Euthanasia means “a good death” and “dying well”. A good death means dying with peaceful, painless, lucid and loved ones gathering around. Euthanasia defined as the termination of ill people’s life aim to reduce suffering from incurable and painful disease. Euthanasia classify into two major types, included passive and active. In passive euthanasia ill people dead by withholding of common treatment, such as antibiotics.
An alternative to assisted suicide could be commercial assisted suicide (CAS). CAS is when a person who wishes to commit suicide is “treated in a businesslike fashion, for remuneration” (Kipke517). This, essentially, means that an outside person will come do the assisted suicide, however, they will also counsel and accompany the “suicidal person during the dying process” (Kipke517). They provide these services and more, so their payment isn’t just biased on if a person goes through with suicide and they are non-physicians so they have no ties to the medical career or insurance companies that would make them corrupt. If “not physicians but laypersons assist people in their suicides, no breach of medical ethos may be present and medicine cannot be corrupted” (Kipke518).
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. “When physicians take the Hippocratic Oath, they swear to not play at God in their practice of medicine” (Lariat).
Utilitarianism is a one of the ethical theory that was discussed in the first half of the class that applies to the case of Euthanasia.Utilitarianism is the moral worth of an action based on consequences (the greatest good principle). Therefore, utilitarianism can be applied to Euthanasia because it produce happiness for patients and their family by avoiding pain. However, I believe that Euthanasia should not be morally allowed. Euthanasia is an action done intentionally to end life to end the pain and sufferings from a terminal illness. It is also known assisted suicide, also morally wrong.
However, proponents of physician-assisted suicide believe it is a humane and safe way for terminally ill patients to resolve their agony. After researching both sides of the argument, it is clear that the benefits of physician-assisted suicide outweigh the disadvantages. The benefits of ending a patient’s pain and suffering, minimizing the emotional and financial effects on families, and preserving the right for patients to decide their own fate, supports the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.
I believe this is a justified way to die because it allows someone who is terminally ill to die on their own terms and not waste away –something they may not want to do in front of their family. In addition, it takes into account the other side of the slippery slope of when to draw the line in assisted deaths. Oregon, Washington and the Netherlands require proof of terminal illness, a competent human that is capable of making decisions and you must be followed by a physician that has to confirm the diagnosis along with required written requests and witnesses to sign the paperwork. These requirements are there to make certain that the person is not actually healthy, like most of Kevorkian’s clients, and completely understands what they are asking for and it also makes it so the doctors are not held accountable for assisting in the death of their patients but are allowing them the decision to make their own
The argument of ending life being a slippery slope can be dispelled to a certain degree when it comes to ethical reasoning. Proponents see assisted suicide as a risk to the elderly and uninsured who may feel compelled to request assistance to end life to avoid being a burden to family and or society (Ersek,2004, table 2). Protocol can and would be in place that would assure measures are taken to those seeking to die on their own terms can do so. This choice is done freely without consequence to themselves or by the doctors assisting by determining factors that would safeguard against abuse of the choice to end
When we see human in pain and there is no meaning of letting him/her live more, we may do something and let them die peacefully by stop supporting their body to live, and save their dignity. Letting them live for longer time means, making patients and their families suffer for a longer period of time (4), whilst, euthanasia could be the best choice for patients to let go, and for other patients who needs organs-transplant to help them maintain a normal life. To illustrate, donating organs from people who are brain-dead could save many people’s life by donating their organs to who in-need. Unfortunately, brain dead people can be confusing, especially for families who have to deal with the sudden demise of somebody they cherish on the grounds that a brain dead person on a ventilator can feel warm to the touch and can look "alive." The heart is as yet beating and the ventilator is pushing oxygen and air into the lungs making the person's midsection moves, if the breathing machines facilitate the ventilation mechanism, which means no one will wake up after having brain death(5).Donating from brain-dead people could means save thousands of lives around the world.
Delbeke discusses how some people believe assisted suicide should not just be up to physicians to perform. Some people feel that, depending on the task, even nurses, social workers and clergy could perform the suicide. A benefit of this would be less responsibility and burden on the physician, but there are more bad factors. If it starts to become acceptable to let non-physicians perform assisted suicide then more people may become involved than necessary. Delbeke provides information that she thinks assisted suicide would become institutionalized and a certain routine would come about.
The article What’s So Difficult About the Right to Die? Says that “People with "grievous and irremediable" suffering are entitled to assisted death” (Wente). The quote states that people who suffer so badly that they should be able to die instead of letting them go through the pain and slowly die. Another example would be from the same article saying that “People who request assisted dying must be no more than six months away from death” (Wente). This proves that doctors will not kill someone unless they are close to actually dieing.
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. The Hippocratic Oath states: “I will keep the sick from harm and injustice.
Doctors should have responsibility of helping the ill patients to get better physically. Physicians are the icon of peace and generous within the society since their job is to solve the physical pain of the patients. In allowing physician-assisted suicide, the duty of physicians is misread. Society and law are saying that physician’s duty is no longer helping patients, but they can also easily put an end to patient’s life. In the New York Times article “Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Unethical and Dangerous”, Ira Byock states, “people who are poor, or old and frail, or simply have long-standing disabilities, may worry that when they become acutely ill, doctors might see their lives as not worth living and compassionately act to end their supposed misery”.
I agree with the idea of assisted suicide, because if someone is suffering to the point that they can no longer care for themselves. They may feel that it is there time to go and that person should be able to make that decision. Although some believe that assisted suicide is wrong that should be left to the person that is going to die or the person