Overdose On Euthanasia Controversy

Instead of turning to death as an option, patients should realize that there are other ways to

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.

Pressing for families and their loved ones, an act to be decided for somebody suffering from pain – physician-assisted suicide is a touchy subject for many. In cases where the intolerable suffering can be judged by the patient, physicians should extend their hands to initiate euthanasia through ethical means. I would say that it can be justified when terminal illnesses restrict the patient in a hospital bed with only the plug binding themselves to their bodies. I would say that it can be justified when the hastened death of somebody would benefit others, when the burden of a human, so sick, carries onto others. It is a fact that a life support program for somebody without the will to live can cost thousands of dollars, in contrast to the smaller

One of the major debates regarding doctor assisted dying is the challenge of finding adequate safeguards against the abuse of this right. Safeguards are critical to ensure that the decision to die is made only by people who can understand such a decision and who have made this decision of their own free will. The government is responsible for protecting vulnerable people who may be influenced by others to choose death. Much before and even after the case of Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 BCSC 866, there are numerous deliberations about the risks and benefits that surround doctor assisted

1) Patients have the right to make their own informed decisions about if and how they die. When a chronically ill patient decides life is no longer worth living because of the insurmountable pain they are in, who are we to tell them differently? There are cases where attempts to cure are doing more harm than good, not only mentally and physically to the patient, but emotionally to his family and loved ones as well.

Euthanasia, the practice of doctor-assisted suicide was recently legalized in several territories. Yet in light of this legalization, the idea of euthanasia is widely rejected. And this is for good reason. In places where this practice is legal, hundreds have been murdered, and thousands have been refused or purposely uninformed of alternative care that would eliminate the need for euthanasia.

In the essence of a patient suffering from an incapacitating physical disorder in which they are in a permanent vegetative or minimally conscious state, a doctor or nurse must make the tough decision between life and death for their terminally ill patient. In some cases, a doctor may order a large dose of morphine for a patient to ease off their pain despite the possibility of it killing them. In fact, according to the law, “as long as the doctor hasn’t demonstrated the intent to kill, euthanasia aka mercy killing, is not illegal” (O’Connor 2). Although Euthanasia is a legal practice for many doctors and nurses, it’s still poorly understood by many members of the public. Some people even go as far to argue that life is precious and that Euthanasia is a

Can you imagine that you are lying in bed and feeling extreme pain, caused by disease, and you cannot do anything to stop it? No one would like to find themselves in such circumstances. Unfortunately, not every person spends the last days or weeks of life in a peaceful manner. Instead, there is a possibility of “uncontrolled physical agony and emotional distress” (Bruce and Boston 1). One of the ways of preventing suffering at the end of life is mercy killing, or euthanasia. There are two types of euthanasia – voluntary and involuntary. Involuntary, or passive euthanasia, occurs when a person is not able to give permission for his or her death, e.g. if the person is in a comatose condition; voluntary euthanasia is performed with a help of

An eight-year old boy walked in to his grandmother’s room to find her not breathing. He instinctively called 911, not knowing what his grandmother’s or mother’s wishes were. That should have been the end to his grandmother’s suffering, but it was not. In this instance, doctors insisted on keeping his grandmother on life support, despite his mother’s request and his grandmother was incapable of articulating her wishes. She didn’t want her mother on life support. Today in modern “democratic” medicine, physicians are suppose to serve and advise, and only in extreme situations of incapacities, emergencies, lack of available health care proxies, or patient’s waivers of decision making should they decide for a patient. Euthanasia should be the

The patient voluntarily wanted to end his life because he was suffering from Lou Gehrigs’s disease (Siu, 2008). Since then, the controversy over active euthanasia has remained an ethical dilemma for healthcare providers, patients and their family members in America and the rest of the world. The general public’s belief is that, health-care providers have professional obligations to save the lives of their patients regardless of their health status. The majority of the public feels that, healthcare workers’ involvement in the euthanasia practice is a betrayal of the “do no harm” oath. When a healthcare worker is involved in either active or passive euthanasia, it can be viewed as a disregard to this value. However, the proponents for euthanasia claim that a physician turning down a suffering patient’s request to end their life is also a violation to the “do no harm” oath (Siu, 2008). The right to die falls under patient’s autonomy and the basic question is whether individuals should be allowed to end their lives if they choose to do so (Sanders & Chaloner 2007). Those in the healthcare sector grapple with this notion on a daily bases because they have to practice under the codes of ethics guidelines. Nurses and doctors should be cautious in their practice as they balance the patient’s autonomy and their professional ethics and guidelines. Sanders & Chaloner (2007) pointed out that nurses and doctors know that a patient's autonomy

“Active euthanasia defines the practice where death is caused by direct administration of a lethal substance” (Sayers, 2005). Dr. Jack Kevorkian is a physician well known for his cases of physician assisted suicide. “In his writings and statements, Kevorkian advocates a society that allows euthanasia for the dying, the disabled, the mentally ill, infants with birth defects and comatose adults; and he sanctions experiments prior to their death and organ harvesting.” (Betzold, 1997). Many other physicians and also nurses have performed euthanasia causing public alarm that some cases are actually murder. In one such case a physician and his nurse, Dr. James Gallant decided to take a Ms. Clarietta Day life into his own hands: “Day collapsed on the phone while calling 911 in the early morning of March 22. She was taken to the hospital and diagnosed with a subarachnoid hemorrhage (burst blood vessel in the brain), a condition that is invariably fatal. Sometime before she died, Day had filled out an advance directive, which included instructions from August 1995, in which she wrote that should she become unconscious, she wished to be kept alive for at least forty-eight hours. However, following the diagnosis, Day received painkillers every five to ten minutes for a four-hour period, even though there was no documentation that Day was in discomfort or agitated. She was removed from a respirator and had a magnet applied to her

Have you ever heard the word euthanasia? This term covers valuable information. For this reason, brings much controversy in our community. Professionals, families, and victims have different opinion and point of views they would like to be scrounged and especially considered. The debate if euthanasia should be permitted in US is still an unresolved enigma. Many people have dissimilar opinion about euthanasia.

Every year, millions of people are diagnosed with terminal illnesses. Every day, millions suffer indescribable pain. The pain can get so bad that patients are put into medically induced comas. Others sign a DNR, or Do-Not-Resuscitate order, which forces medical professionals to not take any life saving actions when the time comes. Reaching that point is bad enough, but having to continue living after deciding to welcome death is a fate too terrible to imagine. There is a solution, though. Often described as a “mercy killing,” this is achieved when a physician uses medication to put the patient out of their misery-either in a hospital setting administered by the doctor through an IV, or prescribed and filled at a pharmacy to be taken by the patient in their own home. This medication is already being used on humans. Death row inmates are killed by lethal injection all over the country. Why is it that a serial killer gets to die peacefully, while infants and elderly with horrible diseases must suffer for weeks, months, or even years before finally being welcomed into the afterlife? Active euthanasia offers a way to end pain and suffering peacefully and safely when nothing else can.

When imagining assisted suicide, people often envision blood, knives, overdosing, or depression. Nonetheless, suicide is not always expressed through goriness. In fact, it raises awareness towards one of the biggest debates of our generation, the legalism of euthanasia. Euthanasia, the Greek word for “good death,” is the permitting of suicide when experiencing physical suffering. As the definition indicates, this course of death is peaceful and by choice. If desired, affected patients should be able to use euthanasia, for it can relieve pain, prevent overcrowding in hospitals, and support religion and beliefs.

Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing or assisted suicide, is the act of painlessly ending life in order to alleviate pain and suffering within a patient who has little to no hope of survival. In June 1997, the U.S. Supreme court unanimously ruled that there is neither a constitutional right nor a constitutional prohibition against euthanasia, thus the legality of euthanasia varies from state to state (Emanuel 142). As a whole, euthanasia is a very controversial topic in today’s society, and I feel as though various myths must be debunked and proven false before assumptions are made on the ethical and moral values a procedure such as this can have on those who are involved. Because euthanasia is such a severe procedure it is often associated with various pros and cons just as any type of medical procedure is, as all medical procedures have precautions; the overall goal of these procedures however, is to help alleviate pain and suffering in all patients who receive the necessary procedure. As for euthanasia, terminally ill patients are often killed and are unable to speak on behalf of themselves as to whether or not they wish to proceed with the procedure; because of this, however, euthanasia is often a very controversial procedure and is usually decided upon by the immediate family or medical faculty when applicable. Overall, I feel as though euthanasia is a procedure that has very high advantages that outweigh its disadvantages, and feel as though the procedure