Ask anyone if they believe that life is precious and they are bound to say “yes”. However, in some situations, ending a life can be a good thing. Assisted suicide is a huge controversy that has sparked many arguments regarding a person’s rights, ethical medical practices, and legality. This debate is expected to continue for a while because a person’s life is so highly valued. Is a person’s rights more important than ethical medical practices?
Assisted suicide puts an end to a person’s extreme suffering when they have a terminal illness. Many people believe that there is medicine to relieve the pain. However, all medicine wears off and the body builds a tolerance towards it. (site article A) As well as tolerance towards medicine, there are
…show more content…
(site states article) Although many believe assisted suicide can be used to end a life in misery, there are strict guidelines governing this practice. For example, Oregon has very strict laws in order to ensure assisted suicide is a controlled, and responsible act. A patient must be “an adult who is capable of making decisions and must be diagnosed with a terminal illness” (site article b) and must be certified by a doctor saying they will most likely pass away in the next six months. (site 6 month). Therefore, someone cannot make the decision of going through with assisted suicide just for the sole reason of being depressed. Although assisted suicide is only legal in five states, it should be legal in all states and be governed by federal laws instead of individual state laws. There are some that feel that making assisted suicide a federal law could ensure that their guidelines governing the practice are consistent and enforced equally. The current prohibition of assisted suicide places an additional burden on a person having to leave their home and go to an unfamiliar place to die. The burden is financial and psychological and not all of their friends and family can be present when they die. For those who choose to be buried have to incur the expense of having to transport their body back to their hometown. Brittney Maynard, a resident of Anaheim, California was forced to move to Oregon with her husband in order to exercise her right to die due to a brain tumor. All she had was her husband and most of her family could not be there with her. Daniel Diaz, Maynard’s husband, revealed that it was “‘ridiculous that we couldn’t live out her final months comfortably in our own home.’” (site Brittany
Imagine laying in a hospital bed living everyday in extreme pain with no hope of getting better. This scenario explains what many people go through everyday, which is a living with a terminal illness. M. Lee, a science historian, and Alexander Stingl a sociologist, define terminal illness as “an illness from which the patient is not expected to recover even with treatment. As the illness progresses death is inevitable” (1). There are not many options for the terminally ill besides dying a slow and painful death, but assisted suicide could be best option for these patients. Assisted suicide is “any case in which a doctor gives a patient (usually someone with a terminal illness) the means to carry out their own suicide by using a lethal dose of medication” (Lee and Stingl 1). Some feel that assisted suicide is unnecessary because it is too great of a controversy and will only cause problems in society. However, assisted suicide should be legal in the United States as long as there are strict regulations to accompany it.
Assisted suicide is a topic that has ignited a severe debate due to the controversy that surrounds its implementation. Assisted suicide occurs when a patients expresses their intention to die and request a physician to assist them in the process. Some countries like Oregon, Canada, and Belgium have legalized the process terming it as an alternative to prolonged suffering for patients who are bound to die. Unlike euthanasia where a physician administers the process, assisted suicide requires that the patient voluntarily initiates and executes the process. Although there exists concession such a process is important to assist patients die without much suffering, there has emerged criticism on its risk of abuse and as an expression of medical
After all the criteria of carrying out assisted suicide have been met, the method applied in assisted suicide is that patients are injected a fatal dose of medication by assistors. And ideally, the patient’s physician
Who dictates how you live your life? How does one define life and when that life should end? If you become terminally ill, would you like the choice to choose how your life ends? In the United States, assisted suicide, is a highly-debated issue. On one side, there are many in support of allowing a person the right to end their life with dignity at the time of their choosing. While others believe, it is a moral right to sustain life and leave a person’s exit from this world to a higher power. The two opposing viewpoints have both compassionate reasons and disadvantages; nevertheless, a person’s human rights as an individual are the most important aspect to uphold.
Additionally, the term “euthanasia” does not mean the same thing as assisted suicide. Often people confuse these processes when they differ immensely. Despite this, they remain similar in their resulting death of a human life through the help of a physician. Euthanasia is the direct killing of a patient by a physician by means of lethal injection and it is completely controlled by the doctor. On the other hand, patients in assisted suicide have full control over the process that leads to their death. For this reason, procedures of these sorts must be eliminated as medical treatments and should not be authorized. Consequently, physician assisted suicide has been proven to lead to euthanasia in some cases. Assisted suicide should become illegal in all fifty states of the United States of America because it raises religious concern, endorses legalized murder, puts vulnerable people at risk of abuse, and
Daniel Sulmasy is a Professor of Medicine and Ethics at the University of Chicago and has a particular interest in end-of-life care. He harshly criticizes Physician-assisted suicide and claims that this violates not only ethic principles but is also bad medicine and undermines the intrinsic worth of human life. He identifies patients as being vulnerable and helpless and even implicates rising costs of health care as a possible reason for the medical community wanting to legalize assisted suicide. I am disappointed by his superficial reasoning and I will quote Dr. Sulmasy to exhibit a one-dimensional point of view that overlooks the desperate situation of a terminally ill patient wishing to end his or her life in dignity as a personal
Many people in the world are suffering from illness that cannot be cured. They live their last days in pain and suffering wondering when and why it happened to them. Instead of suffering, many people dream of suicide to take their pain away but they know no one would understand. In very few states, it is legal for people to get assistance to put them out of their pain and suffering. It is called assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is the help from a physician to end their patients’ lives with their permission. The patient must have a terminal illness with less than six months to live to qualify. Many people are against assisted suicide because they believe that it is just a cover for murder. People should be thought of as dying with dignity
Assisted suicide is a controversial topic, with surprisingly realistic and convincing arguments from each side. The opposing side of the argument inflicts moral responsibility in anyone researching the topic. The supporters of assisted suicide impose a common argument, “my body, my choice.”.
"Only because I knew that I could not and would not kill my patients was I able to enter most fully and intimately into caring for them as they lay dying (Doerflinger, Richard M., M.D, and Carlos F. Gomez, Ph.D). In this quote given by a physician, one sees that even from a professional’s standpoint on physician-assisted suicide, one is opposed to that act of helping someone to take his or her own life. When given the opportunity, this physician would rather help to improve the life of the patient rather than ending a life that does not need to end and that is the viewpoint that all should take on this controversial topic. Throughout this paper, one will see just how affected people are by the repercussions
Is assisted suicide an act of good or bad, an act of right or wrong? A very controversial topic in today’s talk. Assisted suicide, also known as another individual helping or aiding another individual to end his or her life. A more proper definition is: the suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease done by taking lethal drugs. This is very familiar to occur in the health field. Even though it is not legal all around the world, licensed doctors have the permission to medically end an ills patient’s life. Some states want to further enact on this movement. The Humane and Dignified Death Act, is what will allow a physician to end the life of a terminally ill patient only on the request of the patient and the patient is to have valid
If someone in your family was in coma and the doctor said it was very unlikely, almost impossible that they will come out of it and it is your choice to let them continue to let them suffer or die with no pain. Or if you were suffering and the suffering with a terminal disease and was given a choice for assisted suicide. In certain situations such as assisted suicide, euthanasia, and in George and Lennie's case killing another is justifiable.
For this assignment, I read four articles in all—two that are decidedly against what they call “assisted suicide”, and two that are decidedly supportive of what they call “death with dignity”. This has become legalized for terminally-ill patients with prognoses of surviving no longer than six months, first in Oregon in 1998, but since then Washington, California, and Vermont. It has also been legalized in Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxemburg for some years now, in these countries, patients need not even be terminally ill to be granted permission to end their lives under the guidance of a physician. While both “assisted suicide” and “death with dignity” mean the same thing, physician-assisted suicide of patients who, for whatever reason, want to end their lives, the difference in terminology underlies a stark moral conflict, inspiring each side to be blinded by their respective convictions.
Imagine your dog having been through a horrible accident. An accident that should of killed the dog but yet it didn’t. The only options for the dog are to let it suffer or put it down. Now, imagine this happening to a loved one or a family member. What if the loved one wanted their suffering to end? Assisted suicide is the intentional termination of life by a doctor at the request of the person who wishes to die. Assisted suicide should be legal because there are times when the terminally ill can be found in the hospital suffering. However, if this was to be used on sick people who have the possibilities of living, then it should not be legal. Although there are many who are terminally ill, family members and doctors cannot simply take his or her life away without thoroughly knowing the situation that the person is going through and the person’s mental condition.
The issues surrounding assisted suicide are multifaceted. One could argue the practice of assisted suicide can appear to be a sensible response to genuine human suffering. Allowing health care professionals to carry out these actions may seem appropriate, in many cases, when the decision undoubtedly promotes the patient's autonomy. From this viewpoint, the distinctions made between assisted suicide and the withholding of life-sustaining measures appears artificial and tough to sustain. In many cases, the purpose and consequences of these practices are equivalent. On the contrary, if
Once having a mere glimpse into the lives of the terminally ill or disabled, some are able to understand their plight; but usually most are not. In most cases, these people are able to take what they've been given and deal with it. However, in some cases, some simply can not tolerate their lives as they are. They feel that the only solution to their problem is to end their lives. Unfortunately, in some cases, the terminally ill or disabled are not capable of accomplishing this task by themselves, and are left trapped in a life that they do not want. In these cases, when one wishes to end his life and is terminally ill, disabled, or otherwise unable to do so independently, he should have the right to die by assisted suicide. Although most people that are terminally ill or disabled do not wish to end their lives, there are still those few who do. While examining the issue of assisted suicide, three facets of the controversy must be considered: the political, the moral, and the human or compassionate views. By supporting their decision, we support their right to choose and decide what they want to do with their bodies and their lives, we do not