Euthanasia Fensterman Analysis

Suffering is a constant companion of humans today; people experience it every day, whether it be emotional or physical, internal or external. Living with a terminal illness is also living with suffering, both because of the physical pain that is felt, and also the emotional blows the patient experiences every day. A terminally ill patient has a monumental part of their life taken from them. Few aspects of life still remain in their control, because of doctors, family members, and the illness itself. However, there is a practice that places a final decision, the right to choose the circumstances of death, with the patient. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS), or physician

The author Fenigsen points out that as humans, “We can solve many problems, but not the ultimate ones.” The author emphasizes with all the new ways of approaching life’s problems and trying to comprise for things in life that used to be unsolvable. Solving them should not be so difficult considering all the new technology we have to help. In reality, when trying to solve the decision of whether to choose how to pass away; he or she has no freedom to choose the way they can pass on. In all honesty it is violating basic human rights. In society it is considered immoral and degrading of human life when implementing the use of medical assisted suicide. It can be looked at as murder in some cases, which can cause lots of issues for families or individuals involved.

The next few themes of this article include the discussion of pain, loss of pleasure in life, and the right time to die. The carers felt responsible to prevent their loved ones from experiencing pain and suffering all of their later years of life. They stated that caring for someone they loved with dementia that was extremely unhappy with their quality of life brought up ideas of assisted suicide. They exclaimed that seeing their patient disintegrate in quality of life and in overall health that it was difficult to not consider assisted suicide. Several participants came to a conclusion that their relative was strictly waiting to die because they had suffered enough which made them want to end the pain for them.

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

If you are constantly in pain, struggling through each day, would you want to wait in hopes of getting better, or do what you can to find instant relief? Patients faced with this decision are conflicted because in most places the act of physician assisted suicide is illegal. According to the author, Andrea Nakaya, “The word euthanasia comes from the Greek word for ‘the good death,’ and it is generally understood as taking deliberate action to end a life, usually to relieve intolerable suffering” (Nakaya 6). Patients suffering from an illness do not always have the option of “the good death” because of those who find assisted suicide morally wrong. People who are against assisted suicide believe that if it is legalized, it will be abused, but

Those who are in favor of physician-assisted suicide attribute utilitarian theory to justify the act. In the context of physician-assisted suicide, the doctor takes the decision for termination of patient’s life with the intention of ending suffering and pain. It can be concluded that the physician aimed to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. An ethical theorist stated that “physician-assisted suicide is the right choice to provide relief not only to the sufferings of terminally ill patients but those family members who are also on a suffering spree and yet there is no hope for the recovery” (Snyder, 2017). Moreover, they believe that one is a proprietor of his life and enjoys a prerogative to end his life if his life becomes a burden on him. In addition, patients suffering from terminal diseases such as cancer last stage go through peak emotional and physical pain. Some of these patients request for options that end their lives with the minimal suffering as they want to escape from unbearable

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

Patients suffering from terminal illnesses, battle feeling worthless and hopeless on a daily basis. This is due to our jurisdiction forcing them to live. The number of people suffering continues to increase. Although a doctor’s position is to prolong life, euthanasia should be considered in certain cases. Because of the advances in technology euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are now an option for terminally ill patients who are going to suffer from an incurable and painful disease or are in an irreversible coma. Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalized because the public supports it, it would only be used for patients who are terminally ill, and it alleviates unnecessary suffering. The word euthanasia originates

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

Prior to viewing “Life Affirming Choices”, I had not put much thought into the topics of euthanasia, suffering, life or death. I did not realize the importance of this issue and all of the people who are faced to make a terminal decision about themselves or loved one. Countries have different stances on the issue of euthanasia. Although euthanasia is illegal in the United States, some states allow the practice of physician assisted suicide. Everyone who debates euthanasia agrees that its definition is the killing of a person for the specific reason to stop their suffering. There are two types of euthanasia, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is when euthanasia is conducted with consent of the sufferer. Involuntary euthanasia is

After that, the most important reason to choose euthanasia is that the pain and suffering on the patient. According to Fensterman (2006) provides many examples of his own life to show that the illness makes him unable to complete even “the basic needs” of his life (p. 22). He believes that this experience is long and difficult because he has to suffer the torment of cancer for a long time. Although he actively participates in the treatment, but it still does not work (Fensterman, 2006, p. 22). Then, Fensterman (2006) claims that although he would not choose euthanasia immediately, he wants to people who against euthanasia try to understand the position that patients think and consider more about their feeling (p. 22). From this point, physician-assisted

The choice of euthanasia, active or non-voluntary, should be given to a suffering patient and family because it should be their own right to end their lives. It is cruel and inhumane to keep terminally ill patients alive against their will. (Reasons for Euthanasia, 2001) This is proper because it ends the patient and family suffering from the consequences of the disease. The patient could be a burden to the family because the patient is not independent. The lack of independence and the feeling of being a burden could cause the patient to become depressed which only adds to the suffering. The way to improve the situation is by taking control of their lives by choosing euthanasia. Many hours would be put into a decision to choose euthanasia. (Pankratz, 2010) This is necessary to prevent unneeded death from happening from an incorrect diagnosis or prognosis. A terminal illness is tested several times before and after informing

Proponents feel patient's don’t have to have their family around when doing euthanasia. January,02,2015 ,Mortier (a son of a euthanasia victim) didn’t find out his mother, Godelieva De Troyer, had been euthanized until he received a phone call the next day asking him to retrieve her body from the morgue. But,Supporters feel that the victim should get their own choice to decide rather they want participate in euthanasia or not. 17% Euthanasia victims have died without the family's consentAs a result,Victims proceed in euthanasia because they didn’t want to leave their family with medical

By performing euthanasia through assisted suicide, the patient, or guardian in some cases, have complete knowledge of what is about to take place. There is no reason why a severely ill patient who is at the end of their life should have to endure such pain and suffering. Melvin Urofsky, author of “Lethal Judgments: Assisted Suicide and American Law”, describes in his essay that there are four types of pain that terminally ill patients could have to endure: Physical pain which irritates nerve endings in the body; psychological pain which relates to fear, anxiety, and depression caused by having cancer; social pain which results form the isolation from family and friends that the patient feels when his attention is always riveted; and spiritual pain which occurs when life has lost its meaning. Once the ill patient progresses to spiritual pain, that patient should be able to make his own decisions about his life or death (Robinson 2001).

Euthanasia is “killing or passing up opportunities to save someone, out of concern for that person.” Arguments for euthanasia is the prevention of the unnecessary prolonging of suffering of the patient who is diagnosed with a terminal illness, and their families, also, there is the argument of using resources, economic and human, in efforts to keep people who have incurable diseases alive. Arguments against euthanasia is that the thought of having assisted suicide could be a result of misdiagnosis from a doctor, and also, that euthanasia is the process of killing someone, which is immoral. These views can be analyzed by using two different theories of ethics, consequentialism, or utilitarianism, and deontological theories.