Physician Assisted Suicide Case Study

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

In a sense, euthanasia has been one of the most controversial and debated topics to ever arise in medicine. Euthanasia is defined as the intentional, painless killing by act or omission of a dependent human being suffering from an incurable disease or irreversible coma (King, 2016). Although the practice is still illegal in many areas, it is becoming more accepted, legal, and decriminalized in many parts of the United States. In majority of cases, the termination is carried out at the person's request, but there are times when they may be too ill or not in their right mind, and it is left to close relatives to make the decision. Euthanasia directly affects autonomy, which is a patient's right to make his own decision regarding his own life (Lachman, 2010). It is also important to be able to identify the different types of euthanasia, because it is not as simple as just "terminating a life." It is much more difficult that the previous definitions leads on. It can be done in several different ways, each with their own defining characteristics, and issues can arise from every one of them. Euthanasia, also known as patient assisted suicide or "mercy killing" has many pros, cons, morality concerns, and legal issues that directly impact the future of the practice.

Euthanasia is one of the most controversial and debatable topics in recent years. In fact, according to a recent poll almost 42% of surveyed supported euthanasia and 37% opposed (Fig 1). A lot of controversy surrounding this issue stems from the fact that euthanasia has been analyzed not only from juridical perspective, whether or not it should be legal, but also from various social, philosophical, religious and personal points of view. The issue seems to be extremely relevant not only because it is related to basic principles of society regarding life and death, but also it affects every person, especially who suffers from a terminal illness. Furthermore, because of a lack of sufficient agreement among scholars in terms of an adequate definition

Second to abortion runs the moral issue of Physician assisted suicide (PAS) or euthanasia. As adults we make decisions for ourselves all day, every day. The moral issue is human freedom is overly restricted by legal, religious and irrelevant claims. How could choosing Physician Assisted Suicide be any different than any other type of legal medical decision a person has to face? Currently, US residents have the right to refuse treatment, meaning they are able to stop chemotherapy when and if they choose, even if their physician believes it will help improve their life. Along with chemotherapy, patients can refuse dialysis and other life enhancing treatment plans. Another life changing decision patients are legally able to make are life-sustaining

Euthanasia is the termination of terminally ill person’s life in order to relieve them from suffering. A person who undergoes Euthanasia usually has a terrible condition. Mostly it is carried out at patient’s request but sometimes they might be terribly ill and decision is made by family members, medics or courts. This issue is at the centre of debates for years and is surrounded by ethical and religious conditions.

The ethical conflicts that encompass euthanasia are non-debatable to be proven wrong, and incorporate the requirement for legitimate shields that avert misuse, to guarantee generally would be hypocrisy. Society acknowledges the need to "put animals down" when confronted with maturity, terminal ailment, or incapacitating wounds; without a doubt, numerous social orders have even acknowledged the need euthanize savage culprits that are regarded to be excessively incredible a danger, making it impossible to society. These are considered by numerous to be humane, as well as only paying little respect to the level of misfortune the demonstration can bring about. Medical advances have changed the substance of death; just decades back, if an individual's

Giving a person the right to personal autonomy allows them to make a choice based on their own circumstances and ethical beliefs. In cases where a patient is unable to make a decision due to the severity of his or her condition, they should not be viewed as living, but instead as dying. In other words, involuntary euthanasia is only speeding up an inevitable process, which in no regard should be compared to assisted suicide. Whether it is through personal autonomy, the choice of a trusted other, or the expert decision of a doctor, euthanasia serves a righteous and moral

Opinions of euthanasia and assisted suicide vary by country to country, and only a few nations permit euthanasia in the case of terminally ill patients (van der Heide et. al., 2007, p. 1957). The public discourse surrounding the ethical, and subsequently legal status of euthanasia is frequently heated and somewhat polarized, because the debate cuts to the very heart of notions of human rights and ethics. Unfortunately, this only tends to further obscure the issue at hand, which is in reality a fairly simple question. Namely, what is more important; the preservation of individual human life for as long as possible, potentially despite the wishes of the individual, or allowing an individual to choose the time and manner of his or her death? As will be seen, the only reasonable answer to this question is to favor individual freedom, but first, it will be necessary to counter some of the distractions and misinformation that opponents of euthanasia use to avoid confronting the essential question at hand.

Ethical dilemmas and concepts are a part of our daily lives. How we deal with these ethical concepts or dilemmas shape our character. A major ethical dilemma that will be discussed in this paper is on euthanasia. The issues involved with euthanasia and a case study will provide on an insight into this ethical concept as well as the non-Christian view and the Christian view.

The complex ethical dilemma of euthanasia that “means different things to different people” (98) and it was the genetic engineer of the problems. It can be tacked carefully and consideration in chapter five by Webb, and Lennox) and in chapter six by Christian Accornero and Rouse). These sections were put more attention and another piece was moved by Lyon. These personal narratives and facts draw attention to various ways selfish and greedy towards humanity. As a result, the use of “euthanasia is simply an economically solution that inappropriately empowers humans to end life” (100 – 101) of all God’s creations. So, on this section of the book the authors highlights of environmental and nature of creation can be used an interchangeably.

Opponents to euthanasia argue that if it is legalized voluntary euthanasia will soon give way to involuntary or coerced euthanasia. However, this can also be argued that a patient can make their choice on life or death to avoid imposing overly heavy burdens of care and support on family members or loved ones (Humber and Almeder 5). While this may or may not be a legitimate concern, it does not change the fact that a terminally ill patient is only prolonging the unavoidable by not being given the choice of euthanasia. Yet a patient requiring extensive care should also be able to decide that if they do not want the care, they have an option to pass without suffering from whatever condition they may have. This implication mainly applies to elderly patients who have already lived full lives, especially those suffering from diseases like Alzheimer’s or Huntington’s, and whose suffering would also lead to the misery of their loved ones. Any logical thinker would understand that a patient in these circumstances should be able to make the choice to be willing to die to prevent damaging the futures of their loved ones versus buying a little more time for himself or herself. As a person who watched one of my dearest family member’s struggle with Alzheimer’s, fight the pain day after day, not be able to function for daily tasks, and lose all of his dignity and will to live; I wish

Lisa Yount defines euthanasia as “ending another person’s life to relieve otherwise uncontrollable suffering” (151). Such activity is not only directly in opposition of the law in most of the states of the Union, it flies in the face of medical teachings, many philosophical schools of thought, and two major world religions. Euthanasia can also be forced onto people who lack the ability to state that they wish to be euthanized, or, more importantly in that case, that they wish to remain alive. Euthanasia has, in practice, been shown to have a corrupting influence on medicine, and is in total contrast to the natural will to survive. As such, euthanasia is an illogical and immoral practice.

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.

Before analysing the link between ethical theories and euthanasia, euthanasia and the current legal stance must first be defined and evaluated. As stated by Christian Nordqvist. (2010), euthanasia can be defined as “a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering”. Society most widely views euthanasia as the “intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from another person”.

Euthanasia, a relatively new word, but its contents as old as humanity itself. In other words, it is assisted suicide, deliverance. Death affects all of us, however, in reality, no one talks about it. In the final phase of life, people should have the right to decide if they want to die from the hands of a doctor. Euthanasia is a far quieter alternative of leaving the world than drastic suicide for incurable diseases and inhuman sufferers. The doctor should be able to comply with a reasoned request of a patient without being sued in the future. To illustrate, 86 percent of public support euthanasia for the terminally ill or on life support (“Euthanasia Statistics”). Euthanasia should be legalized through the whole world because people should be able to decide whether they want to live or die.