Assisted Suicide In Linda Jackson's Arguments Against Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.

People, are incensed because in Muslim beliefs one is not allowed to commit suicide, which also applies to Christianity. (Source I). Several Journalists have also stated against euthanasia because they believe that life is truthfully sanctified and that “God” created life, so one cannot choose to die. (Source A). The Hippocratic oath as well specifically reads that doctors or physicians are not sanctioned to kill patients. (Source M). Even though many people are against euthanasia the citizens still want options for the end of their own life. (Source C). If the alternatives are inadequate and regulated the agony of the patients does not go away; numerous places have already legalized euthanasia, such as the Netherlands in 2002 being the first. Similarly, Japan’s Shintoists believe that people and patients should be sanctioned to die if they request for it. (Source C). In the Netherlands, 85 percent of the doctors will and can also consider facilitating patients and people in death. (Source B). Even though the Hippocratic oath states that doctors are not to kill their patients, there are two main forms of euthanasia- passive and active. (Source C). The two central forms of euthanasia do not go against regulations because subsequently those doctors have to be in accordance with the patients and people. (Source C).

Euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, is an important and controversial topic in our society today, and (under the correct conditions) should both be considered legal and morally acceptable. In fact, throughout history euthanasia has been a debate in many countries, some areas accepting the practice, whereas others find it unacceptable. Many people and professionals continue to refer to the Hippocratic Oath, an vow stating the proper conduct for doctors, and it's famous words "Do no harm." However, when it comes down to whatever holds people back, whether it is their views on religion or oaths from many years ago, it should be considered a correct practice. In fact, in the case of Vacco v. Quill, one point raised was that "Over time, the Hippocratic Oath has been changed, and deleted. In order to "do-no-harm" one would end suffering instead of prolonging it." With the use of Supreme Court cases, and professional psychologist and medical quotations, one can see the clear reasons that this topic must be allowed. In the end, euthanasia should definitely be considered correct both legally and morally due to one's legal rights, sensible ethical values, and the multiple positive benefits upon the legalization of euthanasia.

It is argued that assisting the suicide of a patient is still killing the patient. In the Hippocratic Oath, killing the patient is going against the first promise of self-restraint that medical professions are sworn to abide by in the Hippocratic Oath. Medical professionals would technically be forswearing the Hippocratic Oath if they were to partake in the assisted suicide of the patient (Top 10 Pros and Cons). Individuals against the legalization of physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia use the quote, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” from the Hippocratic Oath (Top 10 Pros and Cons). In conclusion, some health care professionals strongly believe that it is taboo to legalize physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia since it is once again, breaking the Hippocratic

Some individuals with terminal illnesses find solace in knowing that they can exert some power over their illnesses and choose how they want to die. Just as any individual has the legal right to plan out their healthcare wishes and ensure that their end-of-life concerns are taken care of, terminally ill patients should also have the right to have the choice to want to die naturally or end their lives. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide can give the dying individual comfort in knowing that they have options. Physicians presently are allowed to relieve the dying of their pain and suffering by administering lethal doses of pain medications. Terminally ill patients should be able to access lethal doses of medicine voluntarily through their physician to allow them the choice of death. Strong morals and ethics surrounding this issue have split society on whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be legalized across the United States. Nevertheless, the diagnosis of a terminal illness can create feelings of uncertainty, fear and helplessness and therefore, physician-assisted suicide laws should be passed nationwide to be able to give those who are dying of

In places where assisted suicide is legal there is no evidence that the law is being abused, impotent populations are being targeted, or that the patients are being constrained by physicians and or their family members to choose this action. The right to die and to decide when life is no longer worth living for is essential for human freedom, autarchy, and personal sovereignty. Neither the government nor religious establishment should foist their own notions of ethics upon individuals who are not harming others. A ban on physician assistance to suicide as applied to suit terminally ill patients who wish to avoid the unendurable pain, substantially interferes with one’s protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained.

Many people have different opinions on the debate of legalizing Euthanasia or Physician- assisted suicide. “The term assisted suicide has several different interpretations. Perhaps the most widely used and accepted is "the intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a doctor, relative, or another person". Some people will insist that something along the lines of "in order relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering" needs to be added to the meaning, “(2) The major debate on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are: the slippery slope to legalized murder, the right to die, and the Hippocratic oath and prohibition of killing. “Proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a quick, dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the right to die is protected by the same constitutional safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage, procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment.” (1) I

Furthermore, legalizing euthanasia in the United States breaches the basic principles medical doctors practice by violating the Hippocratic Oath, damaging the relationship between a doctor and his or her patient, and creating opportunities for abuse. Euthanasia’s legalization allowing physicians to perform assisted suicide defy fundamental elements a physician values. Most primitively, a doctor assisting a patient in her or her death through euthanasia violates an oath taken by all physicians before entering the medical field. This oath is known as the Hippocratic Oath and is taken to guide physicians to make ethical and caring decisions for their patients. John Safranek writes about the Oath’s essentials in his article, “Autonomy and Assisted Suicide: the Execution of Freedom.” In it, he says, “The Hippocratic Oath, professed by doctors through the

Medical ethics have played a significant role in shaping societies’ response to suffering, healing and the choice for life or death. In particular, one of the earliest attempts to construct an ethical code, the Hippocratic Oath, continues to be used as one of the main reasons given as to why doctors should not assist a patient to die. Opponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide include United State’s large nonreligious organizations such as the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, and the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization (Foley 3). One of the reasons to oppose is that euthanasia and assisted suicide violates the Hippocratic Oath; the Oath does not say that physicians must continue to treat patients

Often, controversy on the legalization of euthanasia revolves around the right to life; anti-euthanasia proponents argue that euthanasia infringes on a person’s fundamental right to live. What they fail to see is that our “life” as human beings implies death. Without death, we do not have “ human life” by its very definition. Like two sides of a coin, human life cannot occur without death. Therefore when people argue a person’s fundamental right to live, they unknowingly are agreeing that every person has the fundamental right to die. Patients should have the right to decide whether they want to prolong their pain or simply end their suffering because it is

Active Euthanasia may be a serious conversation that many Americans are unaware of. As of now it’s illegal in most states, and in other theirs’s no laws for or against it (Pawlick, Peter 2). Assisted suicide should be illegal in every state. Scientist steadily discover new facts about medicine and then create new forms of treatment to keep a critically-ill person alive longer (Pawlick, Peter 2). Terminally ill, disabled, and/or elderly patients typically feel like a burden on their families and wish to die (Pawlick, Peter 2). Furthermore, active euthanasia may give doctors too much power (Pawlick, Peter 2). Assisted suicide can be more harmful to the American public in more ways than one.

Euthanasia, the practice of medically terminating life in order to relieve pain and suffering of a patient, has been a complex and controversial topic since its conception. In ancient Greece and Rome attitudes toward active euthanasia, and suicide had tended to be tolerant. However, the rise of the Christian faith reinforced the views of the Hippocratic Oath, a swearing of ethical conduct historically taken by physicians. This shift concluded a medical consensus in opposition of euthanasia. Issues such as: government involvement, legalized murder, healthcare spending, and patient suffering are components at the core of the modern euthanasia debate.

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.

The Hippocratic Oath is one of the main reason why many medical professionals believe that euthanasia should be illegal. The Hippocratic Oath says, “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death”, stated by Ann Griswold in the article “Counterpoint: Euthanasia Should Be Banned” (Griswold). The legalization of euthanasia would give medical personnel the power to end a person’s

Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing or assisted suicide, is the act of painlessly ending life in order to alleviate pain and suffering within a patient who has little to no hope of survival. In June 1997, the U.S. Supreme court unanimously ruled that there is neither a constitutional right nor a constitutional prohibition against euthanasia, thus the legality of euthanasia varies from state to state (Emanuel 142). As a whole, euthanasia is a very controversial topic in today’s society, and I feel as though various myths must be debunked and proven false before assumptions are made on the ethical and moral values a procedure such as this can have on those who are involved. Because euthanasia is such a severe procedure it is often associated with various pros and cons just as any type of medical procedure is, as all medical procedures have precautions; the overall goal of these procedures however, is to help alleviate pain and suffering in all patients who receive the necessary procedure. As for euthanasia, terminally ill patients are often killed and are unable to speak on behalf of themselves as to whether or not they wish to proceed with the procedure; because of this, however, euthanasia is often a very controversial procedure and is usually decided upon by the immediate family or medical faculty when applicable. Overall, I feel as though euthanasia is a procedure that has very high advantages that outweigh its disadvantages, and feel as though the procedure