Euthanasi A More Humane Option For Suffering And Dying Patients

We are culturally ingrained from an early age that life is precious and each day is a gift. Life should not be squandered but preserved.  We are encouraged to live with a purpose, cherish our loved ones and live life to its fullest. But what if life becomes too physically painful to endure, often experienced by many terminally ill patients suffering an incurable disease, or a chronically ill elderly person who lacks the ability to thrive?  For forty-five day’s I watched my chronically ill mother languish away in a hospice care facility. The experience was emotionally and financially draining, and I began questioning whether a person should have the right to choose when and how to end their life. In the United States, assisted dying is a widely debated and passionate issue. Opponents argue preserving life, regardless of how much a person is suffering, is an ethical and moral responsibility, determined only by a higher power.  At the other end of the spectrum are those who support a person’s right to end their life with dignity at a time of their choosing.   Wouldn’t my mother’s suffering been greatly reduced if her doctor was legally and ethically permitted to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs to end her life quickly and painlessly? Wouldn’t the prevailing memory of my mother see her in a better light instead of helplessly watching her undignified death? To deny terminal and chronically ill people the freedom to end their

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

People who die of a prolonged illness or had a predictable steady decline due to a condition like heart disease, diabetes, or Alzheimer’s disease account for ninety percent of deaths each year (Girsh 45). Most of the people who died suffered greatly because of their disease. However, if euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide was legal, the suffering could have been severely lessened. People who oppose both options have many reasons why euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide should not be legal. The Hippocratic Oath, the fear they could be abused by the poor, Nazi-styled teachings might return, or people may feel coerced, and the right to die is not an actual right are a few examples of what the people who oppose euthanasia or physician-assisted

Imagine living with a terminal illness that causes immense pain and suffering. It’s likely that many of us have not given it much thought. It’s much easier to believe that it won’t happen to us. The reality, however, is that people are diagnosed with these terrible illnesses every day. So, what options do patients have? For many years’, members of the medical community have discussed the practice of physician assisted suicide. This would allow terminally ill patients, many of whom have cancer, to make the difficult decision to end their lives peacefully. Doctors are able to simply write their patient a prescription, designed to end a person’s life in a non-painful way. Doctors and medical personnel have struggled with this topic, exploring the various consequences and benefits that come with making assisted suicide legal. Currently, physician assisted suicide has been made legal across a handful of states in the U.S; however, many people continue to question the ethicality of this practice. There are many different arguments to explore for and against physician assisted suicide. Some believe that physician assisted suicide will lead to involuntary euthanasia, while others say patients should have the choice to live or die. While each individual conviction may seem vastly different, they do share something in common: Their concern for the well-being of others.

Obviously, the proponents and opponents of legalizing euthanasia/assisted-suicide are fighting for what they believe is right. On the side of the proponents, they believe that patient’s should have the freedom to end their own life if they choose. They believe in the right-to-die and that everyone should have the ability to choose what they do with their own body. Contrasting this viewpoint, the

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.

Opposing viewpoints argue that human euthanasia is inhumane and unethical to patients and the doctors responsible. Many doctors feel that physician assisted suicide stands against everything they stand for. Physicians feel that they have a responsibility to treat patients not murder them. This viewpoint is concerned incorrect to those whom support the Right to Die movement because a doctor's first responsibility to a patient is not only to heal but as quoted in the Hippocratic Oath is to,"First do no harm” which includes allowing an individual to suffering in longing

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

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are great evils in our society that sets a dangerous moral precedent that affects people of all ages and conditions. According to the 2017 USCCB article, “Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: From Voluntary to Involuntary”, euthanasia is defined as, “[the] direct killing of patients by doctors” and physician-assisted suicide is defined as, “providing lethal drugs so patients can take their own lives.” There is a quintessential distinction that needs to be made in order to understand the gravity of the issue at hand. “Deeply embedded in our moral and medical traditions is the distinction between allowing to die, on the one hand, and killing, on the other” (Arkes, Berke, Bradley, et al.). This moral distinction lays the foundation for the argument against the immoral practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are practices that should never be used, regardless of the condition of

End of life care is a prevailing issue in the United States that affects the terminally ill. It includes physician-assisted suicide, which is legal in five states and the practice of euthanasia which is illegal. (Barone, 2014). Delving deeper into the issue of end of life care reveals that this issue affects far more than the patient that is suffering. It raises the question of whether or not it is acceptable to reject the request of a person based solely on the socio-religious values of protecting life and ignoring the moral responsibility of ending the misery of another person even when they explicitly ask to end their suffering. Terminally ill, elderly, or disabled patients that are aware of the physical and mental deterioration caused

The legal complexities regarding death and euthanasia are currently being worked through in the courts and state legislatures. Those in favor of assisted suicide argue that it is the ultimate right of self-determination and it upholds the individual’s right to make decisions about his or her dying process. Proponents believe that long-term suffering should not have to be endured and that individuals deserve the right to death with dignity and without excessive mental, physical, and spiritual degradation (Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman, 2007).

Terminally Ill patients across the world all want a way to end what they are going through, but not all doctor’s want to help them achieve those goals. The right to die is a patient’s ability to choose their own time and means of death. A patient’s death can be caused through injections of lethal drugs or even by taking them off of their life support by the request of the patient. Some people support this law because they believe that a patient should have the right to choose whether or not they would want a “dignified death” or a death not caused by an illness. The people opposing this law take the side of the sanctity of life and upholding the integrity of the medical profession by “maintaining bans on physician-assisted suicide” (Right to Die).

The first argument for legalising euthanasia indicates to autonomy and fundamental right. Life is extremely precious and must be protected but not at any circumstances, like, a patient who is suffering from physical pain cause of terminal ill and wishing to eradicate from the endless pain. It is a fundamental right to everyone to make decision about those things are momentous to us, like, how we die (Short, 2016). Therefore, many supporters of euthanasia perceive that everyone has the right to control their body and life, and should be free to decide at what time, and in which manner they will die (Brooks,

Today, voluntary euthanasia is getting closer to being legalized in more than just one state in the United States. “‘Voluntary’ euthanasia means that the act of putting the person to death is the end result of the person’s own free will” (Bender 19). “ Voluntary euthanasia is an area worthy of our serious consideration, since it would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose death rather than continue suffering” (Bender 19). The question of whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be legalized is a major debate that has been around for years. Because the issue of whether people should have the right to choose how they want to live or die is so complex. With the advances in technology today we have made

Physician-assisted suicide could help terminally ill people maintain a practical and satisfactory ending to their life. In doing so, it would give the patients time to say goodbye to their families, friends, and loved ones. It would put an end to their pain and suffering with a quick and compassionate death. We use euthanasia to end the pain and suffering on animals, why are we incapable of showing the same compassion to human beings as well? We can empathize better with an animal whom we know will not live a quality life, an animal who cannot speak what they are feeling, but we can determine that death in such a case is the best option.