Introduction: For my research project, I decided to explore the controversy of whether people should have the right to die under their own terms. Euthanasia has become a heated topic, and as of today, it is illegal to end a life through medical means except in Washington DC, California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Euthanasia entails a physician administering medication to end one's life. It is illegal in most of the United States and other countries around the world, but recently supporters and activists have been taking a stand. They have been preaching that it is only moral to respect the wishes of a patient who is terminally ill or suffering to have the right to end their life. When researching my topic, I will be including all sides to the argument. Though my prior experiences and research puts me on one side of the argument. I believe that a terminally ill individual has the right to end their life if they are mentally capable of making the decision.
Research Question: Should euthanasia be federally legalized?
Purpose: The purpose of my research is to get people to realize the importance of the issue and give the information needed my readers to come to their own conclusion after all the facts have been laid out. I will strive to show why euthanasia should be legalized, including personal experiences, interviews, and scholarly articles. It would also be necessary for me to include why it is illegal and the reasons for why it is viewed so negatively.
Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.
Obviously, the proponents and opponents of legalizing euthanasia/assisted-suicide are fighting for what they believe is right. On the side of the proponents, they believe that patient’s should have the freedom to end their own life if they choose. They believe in the right-to-die and that everyone should have the ability to choose what they do with their own body. Contrasting this viewpoint, the
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide can often get confused with one another and although both are 2 different practices, they share the same end goal; a peaceful death. Today, only a few countries in the entire world have legalized the practice of euthanasia, showing just how controversial the topic has become in recent years. Should someone be able to die just because they feel like it or should valid reasons be required? And who gets to decide whether an assisted suicide is allowed or not? The answers to questions like these are never simple but to guarantee the freedoms of liberty that were given to many in the form of government constitutions, all these questions and more must be answered. Although life on Earth is a gift that was
Physician assisted suicide is “the voluntary termination of one’s own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician” (“Medical Definition of Physician-Assisted…”). Throughout the years, assisted suicide has been a slippery slope for Americans to accept, therefore, making individuals believe this practice is murder while nations across the world have been carrying this out well before the United States planted their hands on the idea. On that account, euthanasia is only legal in six different states, while it is strictly illegal in the other 44 because of the racking up reasons individuals have implanted in their brains (“State-by-State…”). Every person has a specific outlook on mercy killing, although, physician assisted suicide is a patient's given right if they are terminally ill.
Euthanasia is a subject shrouded in controversy. Euthanasia plays on many human emotions and values because the human race holds life as sacred. People in every society have rules governing the termination of their fellow humans. Sadly, there are times when people are faced with the difficult decision concerning what should be done for a loved one who is terminally ill, and no longer has hope of a good quality of life? The controversy lies within the human comprehension of right and wrong. Most humans believe it is wrong to kill unless the law justifies the action as in declared war or the death penalty. Life transpires around every individual, yet life is not perfect. Life can be grimy, unpleasant, and unfortunate. The grisly
When it comes to the topic of euthanasia, most of us will readily agree that it's a debatable topic. Where this agreement usually ends, however is on the question of if one has the right to take away the life of any individual. Whereas some are convinced that it's a mercy killing, others maintain it’s an incentive for insurance companies to save money. My own view is that any individual suffering from an incurable disease or condition should be given the ability to end their pain.
Physician-Assisted Suicide has always been a topic of great debate among individuals. Not only a contemporary issue, assisted-suicide, or euthanasia, has been practiced since the time of ancient Greeks and Romans; physicians often participated in the suicide of their patients for merciful reasons (Kopelman and De Ville 1). Euthanasia, which means “good death”, had a broader meaning than what we use it for today. According to Manning, it was “essential that death be met in a psychologically balanced state of mind, under composed circumstances, in a condition of self-control” (6). In other words, it was the manner in which one died rather than the method death was delivered that was important to the Greeks and Romans. Euthanasia did not have the negative stigma that suicide had attached to it, rather, it was advocated for by the ancients, granted that it was done for the right reasons.
In answering this question or dealing with the ethical concern, it's important to examine the benefits and problems of legalized euthanasia as well as the impact of the benefits or drawbacks on the society. The analysis provides the basis with which legislators or laymen can make the decision on whether legalizing the practice
Euthanasia is an act that results in the death of the patient in so many different ways, and different methods. The intentional termination of the life of one human being by another-mercy killing is contrary to the policy of the American medical Association. Active euthanasia or the so-called mercy killing is the act someone is taking a direct act to cause the death of another person. This means one human being may take part in the death of another of human in a deliberate fashion. Today, more and more people are considering voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia gives an individual the right to choose how they die. This is a very controversial issue and there are strong supporters from both sides issue. Advocates of voluntary euthanasia believe that a person has the right to choose how and when they die. Those that are against voluntary euthanasia believe that they should do everything they can to stay alive. The latter think people need to make use of the opportunity of the miracles of modern medicine.
Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.
A more natural way to administer, or in some ways control, death would be through passive suicide. eu“Passive euthanasia occurs when a person is allowed to die due to the deliberate withdrawal of treatment that might keep them alive” (Pg.124)and prolong their life. It is a legal way of hastening death in a calm manner. Its methods are not the same as active suicide. The main difference is that it simply consists of removing treatments that would prolong life, instead of prescribing lethal doses of medicine to kill someone. Passive euthanasia is not as controversial for the main reason that even e“ many physicians consider it good medical practice not to prolong artificially the life of a suffering person whose disease is inevitably
Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the stronger argument.
Over the years patients have become more invested in their healthcare and on the decisions that involve their bodies. People have taken more account that they have a lot more rights than they initially believed. Prior to 1960, patients were less likely to obtain and discuss health information. This was until The American Medical Association created a code of medical ethics. The code included that the patient has a right to obtain and discuss health information which related to the benefits, risks and costs of treatments. Overall this states that patients can make decisions which pertain to their health. The patient has the right to an adequate health care, confidentiality, the right to refuse treatment. Historically, nurses have played a key role in caring for patients across multiple healthcare settings. Nurses provide expert care throughout their careers. They contribute to the spiritual needs of patients and families, and which they are there to help achieve the optimal recovery to any health problems.
America’s founding fathers declared that every person had certain inalienable rights they are born with and cannot be separated from. They listed citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today's government must decide if a right to life equates to a right to death.
Most adults diagnosed with cancer undergo years of treatment in attempts to cure that cancer. However, sometimes these treatments may not work, or the cancer is found too late in a patient to be stopped, and a patient’s cancer can be determined terminal, which means that the cancer can not be cured and will lead to death. If cancer is determined terminal, end-of-life care can be administered patients to control lasting pains, including shortness of breath, nausea, and constipation. However, this treatment does not cure the cancer, and will not prevent death in a terminally ill cancer patient. In some cases, patients decide that receiving end-of-life treatment is not worth it if the treatment does not prevent death. Terminally ill cancer patients may also continue to experience unbearable suffering, despite end-of-life treatments, as it is not always effective. These factors may push some terminally ill cancer patients to request to be actively euthanized. Active euthanasia is the merciful ending of a patient’s life through a single act, such as an injection. Terminally ill cancer patients should have the right to determine if they are actively euthanized. However, only patients who consider their suffering unbearable should have the right to be euthanized.