Autonomy Vs Paternalism

Thirdly, from the medical morality perspective, euthanasia is assisting suicide that violates the morals and values of the medical world. Current mindset of doctors is to heal their patients. They have the goal to fight to the end for the lives of their patients. But, if euthanasia is allowed, doctors will be put in a mindset which implies to only help patients if they measure up to a certain standard. Therefore, life is so devalued that it no longer deserves to be fought for until the end. This mentality that once life hits a certain point, it is a hopeless situation and should be brought to an end immediately sets the medical world in the pathway that leads to all types of immoralities.

Furthermore, euthanasia is a disgrace to humanity. An individual person or group shouldn’t decide how, when, and if another person should die. The act of ending someone’s life just because another decided that the individual’s life gives no worth to the person or to society is unjust. That is simply the person’s opinion, and their opinion shouldn’t end a precious human life. Usually, people with disabilities who request euthanasia, do so because of how others treat them, not because of their actual disability. If we were to respect those with disabilities, that would remove hardships, not death. Another reason why euthanasia is wrong is that a person who can’t think straight or is a human vegetable, a person who does not have mental or physical abilities (O’Steen). She/he can be killed by a guardian’s request according to law, even if the patient never showed a desire to die. The Declaration of Independence states our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and euthanasia goes against that. If the right to live is reduced, all over rights are worthless (“Euthanasia Statement”).

If patients are deemed fit to undergo euthanasia, careless mistakes and corruption would not occur. That’s how medical practices should be. Paul J. van der Wal et al. concluded increased frequency of consultations and better documentation can concur better decision making. If an effective method is created to regulate and create unambiguous terms, more suffering patients will receive the ability to choose a physician-assisted suicide. In the end, the patient will have had the choice to cease their life in their own terms. Liz McCloskey in Maintaining distinctions: assisted suicide erases them, declared that euthanasia gives patients a sense of authority. In this type of occurrence, a patient should be given total authority if they have a sturdy

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.

People base euthanasia and physician assisted suicide on a moral and legal stand point. A health care physicians obligation is to provide support to their patients and to the families throughout treatment and death. Autonomous individuals should be free to decide their own fate when an important life choice concerns a private matter, and when the individual making that choice is near death and suffering without relief, then the state should not interfere unless it can prove that interference is necessary to protect vulnerable third parties (Schafer). People should have the right to request that their life be terminated through medical methods.

It’s one’s right to decide what happens to their body. Deciding one wants to end their life because they’re terminally ill and in pain should be permissible. It's no worse than a cancer patient refusing treatment, or a person being taken off life support. In fact, it might be better for people to be able to access physician assisted suicide as those suffering with chronic pain and no hope for a better future will be able to choose to die painlessly and with much more dignity. When the government refuses patient’s physician assisted suicide, people do at times decide to take matters into their own hands and attempt to end their own lives. This can go wrong and cause the patient to be in even more pain. This only includes those who are mobile enough to attempt suicide as well. The law against physician assisted suicide can also drive loved ones to end the patient’s suffering: so they no longer have to see them live in agony and misery. This causes many issues as the loved one may go to jail, or deal with psychological guilt for the rest of their lives. It seems better to allow people the ability to access physician assisted suicide as it’s no different than when one refuses treatment which is only prolonging

First, If the harmed vulnerable are in majority of the physician-assisted euthanasia, very unlikely, there is clearly something wrong here and euthanasia should never be legalized because it is causing way more harm than good. However, if the physician-assisted euthanasia is not legalized due to few cases of those vulnerable being harmed by it, we are potentially ignoring the majority of the competent patient who want it now cannot get it because it is illegal to everyone. (650c1) Secondly, legalizing physician-assisted euthanasia would reassure the right to the patient, similar to patient’s right to their own treatment. lastly, legalizing physician-assisted euthanasia allow those terminally ill patients now have second options rather than coursing through life-sustaining treatment that in most cases are painful and agonizing, it is more humane to end life quickly and peacefully. (651c1) Therefore, even if few cases of vulnerable populations being harmed by physician-assisted euthanasia, we should not ignore the fact that legalizing it would yield much higher good than

Humans are given the right to life which states that “nobody should be arbitrarily deprived of their life.” Imagine being given your lifespan at birth, and a person that does not personally know you or your family told you how to spend those years. This is essentially what the government is doing by withholding and criminalizing patients of the resources with which to end their lives. If people have the right to life, that right should also include the right to control their quality of life; the right to life should not entail the life that has been chosen for the individual, but rather the life that the individual choses. Over 91 percent of patients said that losing autonomy was the reason that they chose physician assisted suicide, and 71 percent said that they wanted to die with dignity. The desire to increase autonomy among terminally ill individuals is one that is shared by Dr. Timothy Quill M.D., a palliative care specialist from the University of Rochester Medical Center: “Patients with serious illness wish to have control over their own bodies, their own lives, and concern about future physical and psychosocial distress. Some view potential access to physician-assisted death as the best option to address these concerns.” If we aim to promote freedom and autonomy of oneself, why then, should we deny people the right to choose when, and on what terms, they die? Supreme Court Justice William Brennan states that: "An ignoble end steeped in decay is abhorrent. A quiet, proud death, bodily integrity intact, is a matter of extreme

I personally believe that euthanasia contradicts the Hippocratic Oath and the morals/values I’d expect healthcare personnel to have. How can you claim to want to help save or improve lives when you’re bailing out on them as soon as things get a bit tough, by some standard? When a doctor says,

There are several reasons why physician-assisted suicide is such an ongoing argument between people in this day and age. Whether they want it legalized or don’t want anything to do with it, it’s safe to assume that this topic is rather controversial in our society. In the debate titled “Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Unethical and Dangerous” written by Ira Byock at the New York Times, he states, “Legalizing assisted suicide fixes nothing. The principle that doctors must not kill patients stands. Two moral wrongs don’t make a right” (Byock, 2015). Some may agree with Byock, but others truly believe that the patient should be able to make a choice about their end-of-life treatment and no one else should be able to tell them otherwise.

Of course there have been horrible cases in which euthanasia takes place without consent but this is why it should be regulated. People may argue that if passed the law could be abused, but like any law anything can be abused. With a good system the law of euthanasia could be refined in such a way to help avoid cases like such from happening. There shall be a critical element in the regulation of physician-assisted suicide determining the line between what is considered to be euthanasia and what is considered

The right to die with dignity should be every person’s legal right in times when medical treatment does nothing but pro-long an individual’s suffering and ultimately fail to save their lives. There are many moral and ethical reasons why physician assisted suicide should be legalized however, there is also opposition to euthanasia.

Furthermore, the right to die, according to the book, Euthanasia, by Linda Jackson, is considered a basic human right. Medical professionals have claimed to have had their patients not wish to undergo the heaviness of sedation. Today, relationships between doctors and their patients have appeared to be more equal, instead of just relying on the doctor, when it comes to making decisions about the patient’s health (Jackson 30). Given these points, allowing euthanasia to terminally ill patients would give them the chance to choose to end their distress, which therefore allows the right to die and the right to decide which type of treatment the patient would receive.

When it comes to paternalism and autonomy, they are very different but both are equally important. Paternalism is more of the “doctor knows best” attitude, and thinking that they know what is best for their patient and then try to convince their patient to see and do things their way. Autonomy is more when the doctor lets their patients decide for themselves. Doctors will let them know their options and then allow them to choose. Most people do not like to decide and do not want to make a decision due to their lack of knowledge, nervousness, or whatever the case may be, they would much rather like their decision made for them. With all that being said, I personally would like a doctor that takes more of an autonomy approach. That way I would

The power that shapes people and process of Euthanasia is religion, and the violation of human rights. Many people are not for assistant suicide because they grow in church and in the biblical sense it states that if you take your own life you will go to hell. Especially hell is nowhere near pleasant and you will be condemned for life. By allowing the people and government to take away our rights to live and die, it violates our rights as humans. If we were to use one or two of the perspectives on Distributive Justice we would apply Egalitarian. Everyone including the government should be guaranteed the same rights and opportunities and access to assisted suicide. We need to redistribute the resources to others states so everyone is entitled to choose how to live their