Euthanasi A Controversial Policy

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.

Euthanasia is an issue because it counteracts Thomas Aquinas theory of natural law theory. Natural law theory is a legal theory that recognises law and morality to be deeply connected, if not the same. Natural law has a set of rules that you apply to every situation. It’s a problem in natural law because One of the main concepts of natural law theory is to 'protect and preserve the innocent'. Therefore an absolute moral rule/law that you should never kill an innocent person. In Natural law theory, euthanasia is always wrong. You couldn't argue for assisted suicide, as the same principle would allow killing

It is the responsibility of those in healthcare to promote wellness, health and quality of live. Yet from early on the concept of promoting life has existed. The Hippocratic oaths states that, “I will not give poison to anybody when asked to do so.” This is a clear statement against euthanasia. The Hippocratic oath interestingly, also does not allow for the use of abortive agents, showing the concern for the sanctity of life. It does also go on to say that I will not put the knife to any patient, which could be interpreted as assisted suicide or pagan practice of cutting and blood letting. As a surgeon today I would take a more liberal stance on this later statement of this part of the oath which is often omitted from modern reading of the oath, as we now are able to cure disease by the use of the knife. Some would also argue the use of poison to treat, such as chemotherapeutic agents which are also acceptable. Pushing this to the extreme, some may say that much of this oath is no longer applicable and euthanasia also falls under a new area of enlightenment. However, most Doctors to believe that it is their job to relieve pain and suffering and cure when possible and this can be obtained without the use of euthanasia. Hospice care is readily available. Patient can establish living wills in order to make their decision known. Patients have a right to refuse treatment and this include, nutrition and hydration. Refusal of these will will result in datth in less than one week. Patient can be kep comfortable without promoting active death and

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.

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.

Physician Assisted Suicide is said to violate the Hippocratic Oath, and it’s foundation to do no harm. While it’s commonplace for people to cite the words “Do No Harm,” it is never explicitly stated. The statement, “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan…(Hippocrates),” is explicitly stated in the original oath, however. The original Hippocratic Oath also swears that a doctor will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion or use the knife,

For those that oppose Physician Assisted Suicide, their concerns are practical. An article from Newsweek points out that, when a doctor takes the Hippocratic Oath it proclaims, “I will keep the sick from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked

When you graduate medical school and obtain your doctoral degree, you are required to state the Hippocratic Oath. This oath has a sentence that states “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effort”. The Hippocratic Oath was written in Greece during B.C.E times when physicians were poorly equipped. However, times are changing in western medicine and alternate options for the terminally ill have come to rise. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) has been a controversial debate for a long time but the call to this liberalization has been increasing much more recently. The American College of Physicians is actually against it and does not support it due to ethical and moral concerns. There

The United States is a nation founded on freedoms and liberties, giving each citizen the ability to make their own life decisions. This freedom includes all aspects of one’s life, including medical care. With freedom comes responsibility, and this is true in terms of physician-assisted suicide. The ongoing struggle between those in favor and those opposed to this subject has ravaged the medical field, bringing into question what is morally and ethically right. The fact of the matter is that physician-assisted suicide is neither morally nor ethically acceptable under any circumstance. Not only is it a direct violation of a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath, but it is not constitutionally binding. Physician-assisted suicide would also lead to

The Hippocratic oath states, “first, do no harm.” Physician Assisted Suicide is in direct contrast of that, as deliberately killing a patient. Proponents of Physician Assisted Suicide state that the Hippocratic oath should be modified according to an individual patient’s needs. A physician should be able to provide a lethal drug for a suffering patient who chooses to ingest the lethal prescription. Physicians who provide assistance in death are adhering to the medical practices, to care for and met the needs and desires of a patient in all stages of the patient’s life. By allowing a terminally ill patient a lethal prescription to end ones suffering adheres to the patients needs and wants, which is to end the suffering by taking ones life. Significantly, the activities a physician undertakes in providing assistance in death are the same as those often carried out by a physician who oversees a withdrawal of treatment. The physician who prolongs their patient’s life, but who then aids in the patient’s request to die, has not violated the Hippocratic oath, and in fact has fulfilled the physician’s duty to heal. The physician is adhering to the terminally ill patients needs, by giving the patient medication to end their suffering. Therefore Physician Assisted Suicide does not violate the Hippocratic

The Hippocratic Oath was created by an ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, also known as “the Father of Medicine,” based on the principle that the doctor is to do what is best for the patient and have sole responsibility for the patient’s death (Medical Ethics). Therefore, is killing their patient what is best? No, there are alternatives to assist their patients, but allowing them to die seems like the easier path. Most patients do not have the mind of a doctor to have the knowledge of other alternatives; the only road they see is the road to death. However, they are unaware of the fact that modern day doctors have advanced technology which help provide more medications for all types of illnesses. On the other hand, many support PAS because they believe the patient should die with the dignity they still have left before their illness takes over completely, but how does suicide correlate to dignity? “Does dignity depend upon control?” (Callahan). The phrase “death with dignity” is deceptive and used to gain more supporters however, if this phrase were to be replaced by for exactly what it is, physician-assisted suicide, then the attempt to legalize the practice would lose supporters. Many supporters are oblivious of the origins of physician-assisted suicide and which group of people began the practice. When the Nazis rose to power by the public, they wrote about

The prohibition against killing patients stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the Hippocratic Oath, as medicine's primary interdict: 'I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect' In renouncing the giving of lethal drugs when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patient's choice for death can make killing him right.

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many people believe that doctors should not prescribe any medication that ends a person’s life since it is considered to be against the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath states that doctors are professionally obliged to save lives. Some consider euthanasia to be immoral and others say that it is murder. Euthanasia should

Euthanasia is one of the most complex and morally critical health care practice and policy issues that doctors and nurses must face and advocate for (Gardner). Even though doctors and nurses must follow some sort of code of ethics, following those codes can be difficult for some because their personal feelings about end-of-life care come into play making it problematic for them to truly rationalize the situation. Doctors are required to take the Hippocratic Oath, which in relation to euthanasia, states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this

Pro-life groups contend that if we allow any type of euthanasia, sooner or later, we would begin killing off not only the terminally ill, but also the handicapped, the poor, the elderly and anyone else who becomes troublesome. The view that we should not make a decision because it could lead to other less prudent decisions later is not a reasonable foundation for setting policies, unless later decisions are definite, and are absolutely wrong. I would hope that the virtue of society would lead us to know where to draw the line between going far enough and going too far. At the present time, it is not clear if where the line is drawn now is where it should be drawn. 5. Euthanasia is killing. Most people believe that there are circumstances when killing is allowed, such as self-defense. The only question is whether or not the killing is justified under the circumstances. In the case of self-defense, killing is justified. The same is true of euthanasia. 6. People who request euthanasia may be requesting it because they are depressed and they may change their minds. I believe that psychological evaluation will detect the mental condition of a patient, and depression, if it exists, can be treated. Patients can be given