Euthanasia Vs. Protracted Intervention

While the main issue that surrounds physician-assisted suicide is pain control, for the terminally ill, proponents are still unwilling to compromise. However, if both proponents and

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.

Imagine a cancer patient on a short rode to death. The pain this patient is experiencing is unreal and unimaginable to most. The pain medicine that can be used does little to take the agony away. The doctors can put the patient in an induced coma, but what kind of living is that? It is not living. The patient does not want to go on. Is it so wrong to ask for a way out? With less than six months to live, the patient’s hope is gone. Many argue that euthanasia is not ethical, but is it really ethical to let someone live in constant, horrifying pain and agony? While in some cases having the right to die might result in patients giving up on life, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all fifty states for terminally ill patients with worsening or unbearable pain.

Francis Bacon once said, “I do not believe that any man fears to be dead, but only the stroke of death.” In other words, people are not afraid to die. Rather, they are afraid of the way in which they are going to die. Today, four centuries of medical progress later, Bacon’s words are truer than ever. Medical advances have allowed physicians to prolong the lives of their patients, or maybe it would be better to say, to prolong their deaths. People are made to live too long in ways they would not choose: dependent upon machines, lying in comas, and suffering unbearable pain. Bacon’s “stroke of death” has become the “stretch of death,” giving people all that much more to fear.

For instance, if a doctor gave an overdose of medication or gave a lethal injection this would be considered an active euthanasia. Passive Euthanasia is withholding something needed for life. Examples of this might be taking someone off of a feeding tube or life support and letting them die on their own.

Physician-assisted suicide is one of the most controversial subjects in the medical field. Whether the debate is, “Should a doctor be allowed to assist in someone’s suicide?” or, “Is it the right thing to do for a dying patient?” Seeing a loved one in pain can possibly be one of the hardest things to do. But what if they were given the option to the stop the suffering? Knowing that death may be months, weeks, or days away comes along with a lot of time at hospitals, pain, and suffering. Giving terminally ill patients an option of physician-assisted suicide allows the patient to be in charge of ending all their pain and suffering they will go through as well as passing at the comfort of their family at home and not in a hospital bed.

There has been a lot of talk over euthanasia. Some people are unaware of the difference of passive and active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. This study will inform the readers of the differences and what is better for a patient and doctor to do. I believe that physician assisted suicide is the best moral option to go through in a case of a terminal illness.

Before beginning, it is necessary that we clarify the difference between euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Most use these terms inter-changeably when debating, although closely related, they are very different. Physician assisted suicide is when a medical professional prescribes a lethal dose of medication to a patient, usually one with a terminal illness, and then the patient has the ability to go home and proceed with taking the medication to

It is understandable that some patients in extreme pressure such as those suffering from a terminal, painful illness may come to decide that they would rather die than live. However, allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer and would be difficult or impossible to control.

Thesis: When it comes to the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), some experts believe that an individual should have the option of ending their life in the event that they have been given six months to live with a terminal illness or when the quality of their life has been vastly changed. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question whether physician-assisted suicide is medically ethical, would be overly abused to the point where doctors might start killing patients without their consent. Whereas some experts are convinced that just improving palliative care would decrease the need for someone to want to end their life before it happened naturally.

The difference between active and passive euthanasia is, active euthanasia is where a physician or a medical professional gives someone a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia is where either the doctors don't do something that keeps someone alive, or they stop doing something that is keeping them alive.

Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an

The above-mentioned types of Euthanasia can be further divided into two more major parts: Active and Passive Euthanasia. The hastening of the death of a person by active procedures such as deliberately overdosing on a medicine is known as Active Euthanasia. On the other hand, Passive Euthanasia is when death to a patient is brought by an omission. It is when the treatment necessary for the continuance of life is brought to an end. For example, ventilators or life support

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

Given the definitional difference of passive and active euthanasia, in order to fully understand it I will give examples of the two. Active Euthanasia requires one to physically do something such as lethally injecting a patient or pulling the cord. On the other hand, passive euthanasia would be anything on the lines of depriving one of food, when already they had a terminal illness.The action of not giving food to the patient is not what killed them, but the terminal illness instead. Many medical professionals would look at most euthanasia cases as mercy killing, if and only if, it was to be considered active euthanasia. However, if we are