Euthanasia, Or Assisted Dying

To fully understand the issue at hand, one must understand the various forms of euthanasia. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals…in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient is relieved of medical treatment and is allowed to die naturally. Active euthanasia occurs when either a physician or a family member actively takes the life of the patient, perhaps through lethal injection, and eliminates a natural death process. Many people commonly use the word “euthanasia” to refer to assisted suicide. Essentially, assisted suicide is a form of active euthanasia in that a person, usually a physician, aids in the suicide of a patient.

Euthanasia, as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is considered to be, “the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering” (2015).Within this can be found different methods of euthanasia including passive or indirect euthanasia which requires withholding of basic life-saving measures such as oxygen, nutrition, hydration, or resuscitation. Another form is direct euthanasia which can be caused by administered drugs, injections, or suffocation. In its entirety, euthanasia has been debated as an ethical issue through its many forms and reasoning (Methods of euthanasia, 2011).

The issues of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) are both emotional and controversial. Some argue PAS is ethically permissible for a dying person who has chosen to escape unbearable suffering at the end of life; it is the physician’s duty to alleviate the patient’s suffering and justifies aid-in-dying. These arguments rely on the respect for individual autonomy. “Individual autonomy is an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one's own person, to live one's life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one's own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces.” (STANDFORD REF)

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

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

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS), refers to self-administration of medication prescribed to a patient by their physician to end his or her life, and euthanasia, the administering of lethal drugs by a physician to end a patient’s life (Lachman, 2015) are extremely controversial topics. For several decades, supporters for the legalization of PAS and euthanasia have served as advocates for terminally ill patients who wish to have an alternative to a long, drawn out, painful death. These supporters have argued that death with dignity should be an option for these patients based on the ethical principles of autonomy and self- determination. With PAS being legal in several European countries as well as several US states, this provocative

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.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Centre for Health Development (2004) explains that the term euthanasia comes from the Greek word for “good death”. The modern definition for euthanasia, according to the WHO, is “a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of either painlessly putting to death or failing to prevent death from natural causes in cases of terminal illness or irreversible coma of another person” (WHO, 2004, p. 25). There are two types of euthanasia: active and passive. Active euthanasia involves an action that directly causes another’s death and can be voluntary or involuntary (Leming & Dickinson, 2016). Passive euthanasia involves the withholding of treatment from a terminally ill patient with the intended consequence of hastening death; this can involve refraining from nutrition, hydration, cardiopulmonary resuscitation or potentially life-saving

Abstract: Euthanasia and physician assisted-suicide are terms used to describe the process in which a doctor of a sick or disabled individual engages in an activity which directly or indirectly leads to their death. This behavior is engaged by the healthcare provider based on their humanistic desire to end suffering and pain. This is an act that defies the oath each doctor is under and should not be treated lightly, and very strict rules and guidelines should be enforced if an individual decides to take this route with his or her life.

In 2013, 122 people had prescriptions written out to them to go through euthanasia, while 71 people actually went through with it and died from the medicine (FIND CITATION). Some people decide not to use the prescription after rethinking the idea. People have been debating for a long time on whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be legal or illegal. Some say that it is morally wrong to participate in any kind of suicide, while others say it is wrong to let terminally-ill people suffer when they have absolutely no chance at beating their disease. This is a very important controversy because people need to know all of their possible options when diagnosed with a terminally-ill disease. Patients are also supposed to make the decision of their care, and they cannot make the right decision if they cannot have all of the options. Physician-assisted suicide ought to be legalized in all states and nations to allow patients to have control of their terminal illness so they can decide whether or not they want to suffer for the rest of their short life or end it in a peaceful way.

The main argument in support of Physician assisted Suicide is that every competent individual has the right to decide on the manner in which to live life. That autonomy should also be extended to persons suffering from terminal conditions and therefore should control the timing and the manner of death they wish to face (Hawkins, 2002). Every person has the option to live quality life and avert any suffering and pain and be allowed to do in a dignified manner. Thus terminally ill patient should allowed to die in dignity without the need to face any anguish and that this autonomy must not be taken away from them.

Physician assisted suicide or euthanasia should be a right granted to all citizens who are suffering from a degenerative, painful, or fatal condition that would cause them to be unable to enjoy their lives as healthy people do. The right to die with dignity is a fundamental issue that is debated in the spiritual side of everyone. Some of us may have known someone close to them who has seen or gone through an ordeal as watching someone take their last breath. No one should suffer in pain or have their dignity taken from them, when they should be celebrating the life they have left in them. Personally, after experiencing my mother and sister take their last breath, it was heart wrenching. Their lives were filled with pain medication, breathing difficulties, and last visits from old friends and relatives. Only the patient can ask, “How do I die?” They valiantly will themselves to stay, because of the love of family and friends. The end is inevitable. We all know this. When given the diagnosis of an incurable disease or debilitating news of no cure, we should have the right to die with dignity. The fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States states, "No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This clause, known as the "Due Process Clause," has been used by the Supreme Court to protect the right of individuals to make decisions about "...the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a

Some would argue that euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is a perfectly good process in life. Most people feel comfortable at the fact that it is done in a professional health care facility when the death occurs. People also having the right to choose for themselves if they want to participate in the euthanasia. Feeling like a person has to suffer the mental and physical pain is not good for the person’s health in addition to the other occurring problems. While this option can be abused, some laws are set in place so it cannot be abused. A written, witnessed request is provided as long as the patient is mentally competent. If the patient repeatedly request the death, two doctors have to agree that the death is appropriate for the patient

According to David Theo Goldberg, “Euthanasia involves terminating the life of an ailing person in order to prevent him or her further suffering” (459). The ending of one’s life should only be a last resort after having unbearable and untreatable illnesses. Euthanasia is classified into two categories which are active and passive. Goldberg also refers to active euthanasia as the ending of one’s life by administering a lethal treatment, while passive euthanasia is withdrawing treatment that may preserve life. More so, both active and passive euthanasia is classified into broader categories Voluntary, Non-Voluntary and Involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia must be requested by the patient, Involuntary are made by an indirect preference and Non-voluntary is neither requested or consented to.

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