Euthanasia Answers the Prayers of the Dying Essay

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

People become doctors in order to save lives, so it could potentially be hard for them to agree if someone comes to them asking to be killed. The hippocratic oath was an oath that has been revised and edited for centuries in order to fit with modern medicine. Before the editing of the oath many common procedures and practices would have been unethical. While many physicians have left the old oath in the past there are some doctors and lawmakers who still hold on to the old values of the Hippocratic oath which has strict rules against abortions and other procedures also prescribing lethal doses of drugs.(www.pbs.org) Other than the oath the physician also has a personal opinion and that will play a factor in rather or not they decide to assist the patient.

According to Linda Jackson in Euthanasia, a total of 42 people in Oregon had passed away due to physician-assisted suicide. This fact proves the efficiency of euthanasia to be successful in helping to relieve the terminally ill of their excruciating pain. Additionally, suicide is in fact legal in the states within Australia, so there are a vast amount of states that do allow suicide, however, they do not allow assisted suicide, which are very similar. Many states have opposed to euthanasia due to religious issues and the argument that euthanasia goes against the doctor’s oath to swear to do their best for the patient and commit no harm (Jackson 5). In contrast, euthanasia is not the only operation that would go against what is known as the Hippocratic Oath because in the original Oath, it also had prohibited abortions, surgery, and charging teaching fees, in which, in certain situations, are all allowed today. Being so, the argument stating that doctors are going against the Oath all because of euthanasia is invalid (Jackson 31). Christian attitudes and other major religions of the world pose a problem as well due to the issue of suicide being considered as a sin.

The Romans' had a philosophy about dying that essentially meant that if you live, then you deserved to die. This philosophy has been incorporated into the “right to die”. There have been laws and court rulings that support this ideal of having the right to die. This right entitles the patient to refuse any further medical treatment that would just stymie an inevitable death. This allows the patient to experience a natural death. The supporting viewpoint on the matter of physician assisted suicide argues that the right to die, a right supported by laws and courts, also allows a patient to request a death assisted by their physician. They argue that the two, euthanasia and the right to die, are very similar. Meaning, assisted suicide should be supported as much as having a right to die.

Another argument for euthanasia is justice. Justice says that we must respect one's decisions and rights. Not letting someone who is terminally ill and suffering is not doing them justice. If there were someone I knew who was terminally ill, I would not want to see them suffer. Supporting their decision of dying with dignity would be my duty. My father would not allow me to visit my ill grandfather in the hospital. He wanted me to remember him how he was, not the sick man in the bed. We have a duty to do them justice in what they want.

However, doctors take an oath to save lives. Taking a life isn’t saving it. The Hippocratic Oath is an oath written by Hippocrates to be taken by physicians and doctors in order to stay true to their true purpose. Though the exact oath is not usually used by doctors today, most, if not all, of the oaths that are used are modeled after this one. One section of the oath states:. “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. (Richardson)” . To go against it is to go against your own moral and professional code, thus breaking the trust patients and coworkers alike may have with you. In certain situations involving large amounts of pain assisted suicide may sound like the only answer to saving a life. However, people in pain are not thinking straight, whether it be physical or mental pain, because the only thing on their mind is getting rid of said pain. Doctors should be able to understand this d should provide the best help they know of in order to save the patient with t taking their

Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the stronger argument.

While others believe PAS should not be legal due to the fact that patients are ending their life with no right state of mind, physicians are breaking the “Hippocratic Oath”. In their point of view, physicians are making PAS far more dangerous than ever. As it is stated, “The incentive to save money by denying treatment already poses a significant danger. This danger would be far greater if assisted suicide were

As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations,

   Euthanasia or assisted suicide would not only be available to people who are terminally ill. This popular misconception is what this essay seeks to correct. There is considerable confusion on this point, perhaps further complicated by statements in the media.

It has been argued that for people on life support systems and people with long standing diseases causing much pain and distress, euthanasia is a better choice. It helps in relieving them from pain and misery. In cases like terminal cancers when the patient is in much pain and when people associated with them also are put through a lot of pain and misery, it is much more practical and humane to grant the person his/her wish to end his/her own life in a relatively painless and merciful way.

I would like to begin by defining the issue of the article by Patrick Nowell-Smith. The issue of his article is legalizing euthanasia and giving people a right to decide when and how to die.

be fed orally because of blistering in the mouth and throat. Any movement of the

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and

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.