Access To Health Care Essay

How does the FDA kill america? Because of artificial and toxic “foods”. Artificial/toxic foods have seemed to cause many side effects and hurt living things that eat them (this happens over time, years usually.). And since this poison is already banned and made illegal in other countries, why not us? Also, these chemicals can be compared to drugs! Even though natural foods are a little more expensive, it’s arguable (plus, the government prints their own money!).

Humans should not be forced to live against their will when they are suffering from an incurable illness that will lead to an undignified or painful death. Doctors have enough knowledge and experience to know when a person is close to the end with no hope for a cure. It should be their legal right to choose to end their life in a humane way, instead of waiting for death knowing that it’s not going to be peaceful. It’s common practice to put an animal down to end its suffering, yet that same kindness is being denied to human beings who would choose it for themselves.

The Food and Drug Administration, also known as the FDA or USFDA, is responsible for protecting and advocating public health. They are the official government agency that ensures our drug supply is safe and effective. This is achieved through the regulation and supervision of food safety, dietary supplements, veterinary products, cosmetics, vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, medical devices, prescription and pharmaceutical drugs that can be purchased over- the- counter.

Every day in the United States 1,500 people are diagnosed with a terminal illness. These people are given few options when determining if the wish to try treatment and if treatment does not work, how to deal with the end of their lives. (author unknown, “Cancer”) With this horrible future ahead of them many may wish to make amends before it’s too late, however, an increasing number of people are seeking an alternate solution. In states such as Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and soon California a relatively new, legal option is available for people with terminal illnesses. The states of Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana created a law which allows people with a terminal illness and less than six months that are mentally healthy seek professional medical help that will end their lives (Humphrey, Derek) . This topic has created heated debates across the United States with each side have clear and defined reason as to why or why not this controversial law should be processed for the whole country. The people who defend the law believe that people who are losing their lives should be able to leave this world on their own terms, and with the help of physicians they can go in a painless and mess-free way. Supporters also believe that by not wanting to the end it can help save patients, doctors, and insurance time and money that could be better spent on patients who may have options and may not be able to reach them without

The law also called “right to try” allows the physicians to prescribe a drug that has gone through the first phase of FDA’s three-phase clinical trial process. The three principles of Belmont report and Anti-paternalism imply different verdicts on the law. The first principle of Belmont report is respect for persons-the principle, which lay emphasis on two major issues: first, a person needs to be considered as autonomous agents. Second, a person with diminishing autonomy should be protected. This shows that a person who is terminally ill may not be given a right to “right to try” law, as it will go against the respect for person’s

For example an x-ray machine could be leased and the organization would a fee depending on how many x-rays they take per month or year.

Teenage pregnancy in Wales and England to see which one has the higher rates of teenage pregnancy and comparing

In an article describing the end of patient’s lives and what physician-assisted suicide would mean to patients, the writers stated that “[p]atients nearing the end of life want control over their bodies and their lives as a ‘small measure of self preservation,’ they noted” (Alexi, Block Wright). The knowledge that you hold and control your life and everything it stands for in the palm of your hands is a goal that everyone seeks in some point in their lives. For instance, many consider control over one’s death a sign of self-fulfillment and the ultimate happiness. Physician-assisted suicide would give terminally ill patients, people whose bodies are giving out on them, a chance to reach contentment and peace. Furthermore, the lethal dose that ends the patient’s life symbolizes the start of a happier era in which their troubles end with them. Also, the ability to pursue happiness as long as it is not impeding on anyone else’s life is a right that comes with citizenship in the U.S. Another article that illustrates the right to physician-assisted suicide states that “[as] medical science progresses and new methods become available for keeping people alive longer, a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment should be protected” (DiLascio, Pawlick). DiLascio and Pawlick are stating that patients should have the right to physician-assisted

A person who is dying of a terminal illness is faced with only one certainty; they will die from this disease. A doctor can say roughly the amount of time that a patient has, but they exact date and level of pain is hard to determine. Many may look to a physician for the answer on if they should/shouldn’t choose PAS, however, the only role a physician plays is giving the medical diagnosis and working with the patient to get what the patient feels is the best option. Therefore, the decision the patient makes doesn’t make the physician a moral guide, but rather a person doing their job. The last big decision people who are terminally ill have is when/how to die and it has to be their own and it has to be respected.

There is also debate as to whether or not non-participating states should make legislation to legalize this life ending option. Those who are against legalization of physician assisted death often present with the arguments that legalization will lead to abuse of the practice and consequently harsh treatments of our nation’s sickest patients. They also argue that it is an unethical practice in which mortals are “playing God” and determining where the line between life and death is. This group also establishes that physician assisted death is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors vow to “do no harm” to their patients. Additionally, they maintain the argument that all human lives have value from the time of conception until natural death and allowing physician assisted death would be a premature limitation of an individual’s life. The opposition, however, says that physician assisted death is a dignified treatment for hopeless patients whose only alternative treatment is prolonged suffering until death. Additionally, they argue that allowing doctors to participate in physician assisted death upholds the Hippocratic Oath because forcing a patient to endure undue suffering against their will is in fact doing harm. Also, a major argument states

To understand when, how and who began the Food and Drug Administration, one must trace it back to 1848 and to a man named Lewis Caleb Beck. In 1848, Beck was appointed to the Patent Office, to perform chemical analyses of agricultural products; later this function was passed on to the Department of Agriculture in 1862, which was the beginning of the Bureau of Chemistry, the predecessor of the Food and Drug Administration. In 1930, the Bureau of Chemistry changed its name to FDA, and today it serves under the Department of Health and Human Services. In 1883, Dr. Harvey W. Wiley became the chief chemist at the Bureau and he immediately increased the food adulteration studies; which was the beginning of an uphill battle for law changes in the

The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the governmental division that protects the public’s health by guaranteeing food, drugs, and medical devices are safe and effective. It assures that dietary supplements and cosmetics are well labeled, regulates tobacco, protects the users from electronic product radiation, among others.

There has been plans geared towards improvement of healthcare in the U.S to enable meet its population needs by improving the health status of Americans. Top on the list of its agenda is to provide appropriate healthcare to all people within the U.S. borders which is a goal that is achievable according to PR Newswire (2007).

Keeping healthcare affordable for all citizens is important. Every person in this country should have the basic right to health care. The article Rights to Healthcare in the United States: Inherently Unstable discuss the rights people should have for healthcare as well as how Medicare and Medicaid came about. This paper discusses some points I agreed with in the article and different ways our country can improve health care.