Euthanasia Essay

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

In “Everyone Deserves to Die with Dignity”, Anita Freeman talks about the agony and struggle her sister went through after being diagnosed with stage four cancer. Freeman’s sister, Elizabeth Martin, was diagnoses with cancer and had limited time to live her on earth. Freeman took on the responsibly of Elisabeth and tried to carry out her every wish. Elizabeth’s biggest fear was dying in pain; this is when Freeman issued palliative care to come in. After multiple visits from palliative care Elizabeth knew this was not the plan for her. The medicine that was issued was not potent enough and would leave Elizabeth in excruciating pain. Freeman lived in California were PAS was not yet legalized, so they had to settle for permanent sedation. Freeman knew that permanent sedation was not what her sister wanted, but based on laws that’s all she could do. After the suffering and pain Freeman felt towards her sister’s situation she became an advocate for Compassion & Choices. Freeman writes in the New York Times that “Currently,

Humans have the obligation to provide and care for their loved ones, whether it is their child or parent. For this reason, having the ability to take away one’s own life because of health related issues should be carefully thought out by the family and affected person. As individuals grow older, the body naturally degenerates and its effects can be very painful for the person and their family members. There are many views regarding how a family and the affected person should go about the ultimate decision of taking one’s own life. John Hardwig believes that as we grow older there is a “duty to die” before one 's illnesses would cause death, in the absence of any terminal illness and sometimes when one would prefer to live. In his essay, “Is There a Duty to Die?” he explains why he thinks that there is a need to take away one’s life to benefit others. Felicia Ackerman disagrees completely in her essay, “For Now Have I My Death: The “Duty to Die” versus the Duty to Help the Ill Stay Alive.” She believes instead that there is a, “duty to aid” and the amount of aid ultimately depends on the family circumstance. Ackerman’s view is illustrated by Jerome Groopman, MD in The Anatomy of Hope where he talks about a man named George Griffin and his success in the fight of a very serious and rare stomach cancer through family support and hope. The decision to take away one’s own life may be very challenging and complex, but there is an absolute obligation for the family to be involved

Naturally, people want to protect their families, and patients who acknowledge they will eventually die try to lessen the financial struggles for their families by choosing suicide. To “immediate family” seeing a loved one “suffering” is “unbearable,” and while they would love to keep them alive, “sometimes” “the cost is” just “too much” for them to bear, (“The Right to Assisted Suicide.”) It is heartbreaking that a sick person may choose immediate death simply because of medical costs. Further, when someone is in pain, the first instinct is to help, and to comfort them; in some cases, the only way to do this is to end their life. The patient shares why they are able to trust their physician: “A doctor’s job is to relieve pain,” (“The Right to Assisted Suicide.”) When trying to help a person in a tremendous amount of pain fails, a final action to help them must be made. Finally, people always want to put up a brave front, even in the face of death; them accepting their death and choosing suicide, they are trying their best to be strong for their loved ones. While discussing a person’s right to choose death, Humphry stated, “”Every competent adult has the right to die in a manner and at a time of their own choosing,” (“Assisted Suicide.”) A patient choosing suicide is seen as

The Conflicting Ethics with the right to die Adam Kaplinsky Wilmington University What do you do if you have a patient that is in deep pain and has been given a terminal prognosis? You look into the face of this patient and see someone who is weak and unable to take care of him or herself grimacing in pain. The patient knows the prognosis, which is not good, and he or she realizes at this point that their condition will only worsen. The next step is death, but that could take a while, and in the meantime, they must put up with the pain and discomfort that they are faced with in their last stage of life. The last journey could take weeks, days, or even months but both you and the patient realize that it will not be easy.

Nobody can escape death. It is inevitable. It can arrive when one is old and fragile, content with the life they have lived, or it can jump out from around a corner when one is on their way home from celebrating their twenty-first birthday. It has no set schedule or due date for those to plan around. Years ago, when medical interventions where still fictional, death carried out its own course of action however it desired. As medicine has progressed, many life-saving treatments have been developed as well as life-ending interventions. End-of-life decisions generate many ethical issues that policymakers, medical professionals, and patients and family members have never encountered before. One such question is whether “palliative sedation” is

The terminally ill patient’s death is imminent, isn’t death a natural cause of universe, imminent for all and not limited to the terminally ill? While euthanasia might be “Mercy Killing”, it does not differentiate it from an act of murder and neither and thus not justify. Euthanasia is the intentional killing of a patient for the patient’s sake either passive by withholding or withdrawing treatment or active through direct involvement. This subject is a controversial topic debated for quite some time. Although it is legal in less than 10 countries, by taking into consideration the physician’s frequent involvement with the terminally ill. It is evident that soon this number will increase as more physicians fight to legalize euthanasia.

It should come as no surprise that, with important exceptions, the prevailing view in the judiciary, as in the medical profession, is receptive to the quality of life ethic. Judges are often dismissive of the pro-life position that all human beings possess dignity and the right to live, regardless of their age or degree of disability. When the relative or other individual designated by state law to make health care decisions for an incompetent person who has left no clear advance directive chooses to cut off food and fluids, courts are rarely willing to agree with other relatives who seek to overturn that decision. Indeed, the current battleground is over efforts by health care personnel to cut off food, fluid and life-saving treatments from patients they think have a poor quality of life AGAINST THE

It is a fact of life that we will all die someday. However, with advanced technology in medicine, more choices and decisions for dying patients have been created. Dying patients are now able to choose when and how they want to die other than just letting nature take its course. Whether one chooses to die with a Physician’s assistance, focus on comfort and recognizing preferences and reaffirming the commitment to preserve life, is all up to an individual or families and subject for discussion.

Millions of people die each year from terminal illnesses such as heart disease, respiratory infections, and several types of cancers. Doctors find it necessary to force patients to stay alive regardless of their wishes. Some patients would like to die with dignity and on their own terms. Hospitalized patients whose life will end soon, due to a terminal disease, should be able to proceed to end it if they desire. If the states would allow them the right to die, “many patients with diminishing health would be relieved of their pain and hurt” (The Benefits). No one wants to suffer or to see his loved ones suffer. The pain and suffering is unnecessary and causes a lot of stress on the doctors, patients, and the patients’ families. Terminally ill

In the world we live in today, hospitals, medical institutions, and health services all treat patients that are not only sick but also undergoing tremendous amounts of pain and suffering due to their suffering. While some patients have be cured of their diseases and sicknesses, others that are terminally ill are facing a difficult question of whether their life is worth living given the circumstances. Although this may seem rather ethical for the patient to choose, hospitals nowadays are also tasked with a taxing decision, “Is euthanasia, the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma, wrong? Is it ethical to, not only actively euthanize a patient, but also to passively, “allow Nature to take its course with [the patient]” and end the suffering of the patient.

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

It is argued that patients requesting help with hastening death come mostly from those who have not been treated or diagnosed properly (Asch). “There is a growing awareness that loss of dignity and of those attributes that we associate particularly with being human are the factors that most commonly reduce patients to a state of unrelieved misery and desperation,” (Rogatz). It would be to the doctor’s discretion and expertise to diagnose and treat the patient to the best of their ability, and the patient could seek assistance from another doctor if looking for more

Another factor has been a growing concern about the power exercised by doctors and scientists, which shows itself in concern to assert ‘patients’ rights’ and the rights of the community as a whole to be involved in decisions that affect them. This has meant greater public awareness of the value-laden nature of medical decision-making, and a critical questioning of the basis on which such decisions are made. It has become patently obvious during the past three or four decades that, to give just one example, someone has to decide whether to continue life-support for patients who will never regain consciousness. This is not a technical decision that only doctors are capable of making, but an ethical decision, on which patients and others may

Imagine yourself lying on a hospital bed totally unaware of the happenings around you. Doctors and family members come and go, mostly out of habit now, because they know there’s nothing more they can do. Many of their visits are a blur to you, with their voices and movements becoming unrecognizable. The pain you experience is nothing short of excruciating, but the hospital has exhausted all of their resources in their attempt to help you. After months of medication and efforts to assist your recovery, you’re left with nothing to show for it other than the dreadful bills. Your family is just patiently waiting for your final days.