Euthanasi Euthanasia And Euthanasia

Terminally illness is any disease that curtails life even for a day. Once euthanasia is socially acceptable and legalised it would widen the practice to any medical condition, not just for terminal illness, we will consider euthanasia as a treatment option. Dr Gunning states: ‘once you accept killing as a solution for a single problem, you will find tomorrow hundreds of problems for which killing can be seen as a solution.’ Dutch doctors have been killing terminally ill, to killing chronically ill, killing physical disease to killing mentally distressed, who has no physical illness, to killing newborn babies just because they have birth defects. The experience of Netherlands and Belgium in legalising, points the fact that once legalised it cannot be effectively controlled.

According to Paul J. van der Wal et al. in ¨Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and Other Medical Practices Involving the End of Life in the Netherlands, 1990–1995¨, he addresses that assisted suicide should be legal and regulated. The authors’ purpose of writing this journal article is to make reliable estimates of euthanasia; to describe patients and physicians, and to evaluate changes between 1990 and 1995. Even though assisted suicide is a growing taboo, it is being practiced more each and every day. Paul J. van der Wal et al. chose to conduct two studies to answer their hypotheses.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are two similar topics which are constantly countered with extremely weak statements, such as “the argument that if we respect the liberty of some individuals to choose assisted death we will thereby expose the ill and frail to an increased risk of abuse or exploitation” (Schafer, “the case for legalization”), which is commonly known as the “slippery slope” debate. However, several countries and select states in the United States who have legalized euthanasia have not shown any signs of “slippery slopes”. In fact, these areas have actually demonstrated that:

Worldwide controversy surrounds the physician-assisted suicide. Some countries have already adopted a policy that protects physicians who assist people into committing suicide through lethal doses of medication such as in the Dutch government. Many people believe that physician-assisted suicide should be legalized on the basis of mercy. Others oppose to such legalization; they argue that by decriminalizing euthanasia, vulnerable population (the mentally ill, those with physical disabilities, and the elderly) may be at risk of abuse (Weiss & Lonnquist, 2009).

Evidence: In the Netherlands, physician-assisted suicide was made legal, nationwide, 1981. In the following 20 years, Dutch policy went from PAS in cases of unbearable terminal illness, to legalized practices of extended euthanasia. According to Hendin in the Duquesne Law Review, once a form of “killing” was introduced and allowed in the legal, moral, and medical realms, it was impossible to prevent more lenient policy on assistance in death (Hendin 1996). This rapid evolution in policy leads to further abuses of the assistance in death, including involuntary euthanasia, which go largely unpunished, argued against, or investigated.

Because the individual circumstances regarding the judgment of patients’ conditions and the implementation of assisted suicide can vary quite profoundly, a policy solution to the regulation of these practices must be flexible and capable of reacting appropriately and adjustably in the assessment of each individual case. The way the Dutch have handled the variance of these cases may provide the United States with a practical model to follow for a future system of conduct since they have “left as much room as possible for medical professionals to apply the norms of medical ethics and the medical standard to unique situations” (Griffiths 265). Additionally, the openness of the Dutch situation concerning the practices of PAS and euthanasia has helped foster public confidence in what doctors are doing an how authorities are handling it (Griffiths 269). It would jeopardize patients’ autonomy, the handling of palliative care, the basis of medical ethics and our society’s value for life and transparency if criminalized, unregulated and secretive practices of PAS and euthanasia were to continue. Therefore, legalization and open regulation must be seriously considered as possible policy

Abstract: This paper will attempt to introduce the concept of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) to the audience. This will be provided alongside the legal, moral, and ethical perspectives of those fighting against or for the legalization of the aforementioned issues in the United States. These are highly controversial topics that have been a topic of discussion for hundreds if not thousands of years. Some countries currently have legalized euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, such as Belgium and Netherlands. And many countries do not have them legalized, with no plans to change anytime soon. However, in the United States both issues are still being discussed in great length, with many moral and ethical arguments echoing

A major problem that is facing our society today is the legalization of assisted suicide or as it is also known, euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of putting a person to death painlessly, or allowing a person to die by withholding medical treatment in cases of incurable diseases. Assisted suicide has been legalized in five out of the fifty United States and legal in over eight different countries. Euthanasia is done when a physician administers a lethal dose of pain killing medication, while assisted suicide is when the physician leaves a syringe that is filled for the patient to inject themselves when they are ready. Euthanasia has been common in the world for centuries, throughout several cultures and regions, in the twentieth century a group

Euthanasia is generally misled in correlation to assisted physician suicide in which a person wants to end their suffering because of unbearable pain that they are experiencing but unable to function on doing so and no more hopes besides dying peacefully. Dees starts a complex process through a five steps articulation of the implementation of Euthanasia for the patient who is undergoing the process in which all five steps is within the patient’s rights and their dignity for their advance directive in partaking the procedure of Euthanasia. The idea of this five method is not to favor everyone and grant their wish on ending their life, but this process will be made based on the information they gathered from the patient, family or relatives, and seeking another consultation from another physician about the illness. Like the first process, initiation of sharing views, and values, whereas before they were diagnosed as terminally ill, they already made a choice of ending their life, so they will not struggle and become burdens to their loved ones. Moreover, Dees states in her article that due to this approach and scheme, patients request of ending their life must go through a deep research and analysis if there is no other solution for their illness. For future research, Dees article will be useful in determining of granting and helping on compromising patient’s request.

This is why Euthanasia is important and summarizing the research that I found on Euthanasia. Euthanasia is important because there is a lot of arguments about Euthanasia. Some people support it and some people do not support Euthanasia (Euthanasia and assisted suicide- Arguments). Euthanasia allows people to be free from physical pain. It is the hastening of death of a patient to prevent further sufferings (Euthanasia Revisited). The religious argument states God chooses when human life ends. Euthanasia also causes mental suffering because they are in physical pain or they are experiencing with terminal illness. It is a debatable issue. There are many different opinions on Euthanasia.

The question of euthanasia, also referred to as mercy killing, is among the most disputable topic on ethics in America. It refers to the intentional putting to death of a person with an incurable or painful disease intended as an act of mercy (Newhealthguide.org, 2016). Euthanasia is closely related to doctor assisted suicide. However, the two acts differ in that, euthanasia means injecting a terminally sick patient with lethal dose of a drug or withdrawing feeding tubes to let the patient die of starvation. Assisted suicide on the other hand refers to the process where a physician avails a lethal drug to the patient. The patient or his/her next of kin usually must consent to the action. By January 2016, the practice was allowed in the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Colombia and Luxembourg. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, Japan, and Albania, while in the United States; it is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Montana and California. This document will argue about why euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should not be legalized in the remaining 44 states of the U.S.

Across the world, especially in the United States, there has been an increase in debates related to the topic of assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia. Many people, specifically in America, consider euthanasia as murder and against their ideals. In contrast, many specialists and other countries, as in Netherlands, believe that the idea of assisted suicide is a gesture of mercy towards terminally ill patients.

Euthanasia, the practice of medically terminating life in order to relieve pain and suffering of a patient, has been a complex and controversial topic since its conception. In ancient Greece and Rome attitudes toward active euthanasia, and suicide had tended to be tolerant. However, the rise of the Christian faith reinforced the views of the Hippocratic Oath, a swearing of ethical conduct historically taken by physicians. This shift concluded a medical consensus in opposition of euthanasia. Issues such as: government involvement, legalized murder, healthcare spending, and patient suffering are components at the core of the modern euthanasia debate.

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.

From fresh to dying, is the humanity multiplies the development natural law. Along with medicine progress and life enhancement, the people besides pay attention to eugenics, simultaneous starts to pay attention to the euthanasia. Since this century 50 ages, regarding euthanasia, many countries’ medical arenas, educational world, and ethical groups have been arguing about the euthanasia argument for many years, although many person of ideas have certain changed along with the time. However, the traditional thought that the public opinion has huge influence on the average person. In people’s traditional ethics and morality, doctor’s inherent responsibilities are to save impending death and the wounded. However, it is difficult for many people to accept the fact that doctors help the patients to implement lethal injection. Meanwhile traditional ethics, morality and kernel, love, filial piety, righteousness, also requests the people to respect the life, to deeply love their life. Euthanasia that is to take patients finish life immediately, which conflicts with the traditional ethics and morality in representation. Therefore, to let people accept euthanasia will be difficult, especially to let his own relatives die by euthanasia, to leave quickly, probably to be more difficult.