PBS Frontline Documentary 'Facing Death'

I have recently watched The Day Kennedy Died which was a detailed documentary on the day he died. It had interviews from the killers neighbors, co workers, Mr. Kennedy's closest secret service agent, from a lot of bystanders, to someone who else felt the bullet and it also shows the details on who killed the murder. This movie is one of the best thing to watch if you want to know every little detail about that day. Though some of the graphics in it can be shocking and disturbing but it shows nothing but the truth.

The Book is written by a former radio reporter, Mumia Abu-Jamal who, during the time in the book is in a Pennsylvania prison awaiting his execution. He was convicted and sentenced to death in 1982 for the murder of a Philadelphia police officer. Live from Death Row is a collection of writings while he was in prison which tells a passionate and emotional account of the brutalities and humiliations of prison life. He explains the rules and regulations and day to day life in prison, on death row. He goes into detail about not only his feelings about prison life, but almost the feeling of life in general after being in prison compared to life out of prison. He explains what rules are enforced and which rules he violates and what is the outcome. He speaks of racism and political bias not only in America but mainly in the American justice system which he experiences first hand. He tells of instances of controversy surrounding the death penalty and freedom of speech against himself and others. This book is a compilation of the notes Mumia has taken over the years he was in prison and he highlights specific incidents to show readers what the life of a prisoner on death row is like. This volume is a collection of his writings, which documents the life in prison from his first-hand experience. I, like many I believe found this book fragmented as it is broken up into many short areas of topics and thought processes which he articulates and attempts to explain one issue after another to

“What doesn’t kill us, makes us stronger” (p. 28). In the scientific novel Survival of the Sickest by Sharon Moalem with Jonathan Prince, self-acclaimed “Medical Maverick” Dr. Moalem makes in-depth analyses of current human diseases that, ironically, may have actually been beneficial to the survival and evolution of mankind throughout its existence on Earth. With the use of myriad scientific studies and research, he formulates surprising theories about the potentially positive correlation between disease and humanity. Survival of the Sickest presents a novel concept that greatly contradicts what have been universally accepted beliefs surrounding biology and the process of human evolution for a long time. Though the associations may seem arbitrary at first glance, Moalem narrates the scientific world’s findings that strongly exemplify this concept. Three of the diseases that he examines, hemochromatosis, Type 1 diabetes, and favism, could have in fact proved useful for helping humans resist other illnesses and surviving a harsh environment.

Religion defines death by portraying ideas of legitimacy to life and, therefore, providing shelter and meaning to death. This essay will explore death through socio-historical lenses by identifying key death concepts in both Christianity and The people’s temple religions.

For those that oppose Physician Assisted Suicide, their concerns are practical. An article from Newsweek points out that, when a doctor takes the Hippocratic Oath it proclaims, “I will keep the sick from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked

To begin with, anyone should have the right to decide when their life should end in view of the fact that a person may be feeling intense physical or emotional pain for the average person to bear. Even the word “euthanasia” from the Greek language means

While watching Univision news today, October 10th, 2016, a graphic image of a man bleeding out with red open wounds, body in flames, and burning to death, popped on the television screen. Though the man was probably already dead, the videos and photographs were very gruesome. From there, it did not stop. There were many more images, including a man whose skull was mashed on the sidewalk, blood puddling around his head, and another man who was bludgeoned to death, brains spread spread across the pavement.

Medical ethics and patient care go hand and hand. As health care providers, it is their duty to see that the patient 's needs are met. We are charged to insure comfort and proper recovery. The question here is whether there is a difference for patients who request voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide. These patients have the same rights to quality care of their bodies as we all do. Although, the United States constitution ensures us the right to life, it doesn 't mean that the right to die is taken away. Five states currently allow physician assisted suicide. In each state there has been controversial and contentious debate as to whether states should follow the lead of states that have allowed PAS.

Many doctor's go against the idea of euthanasia. They are there to protect their patients and help them live, whatever that may suggest. However, when they are terminally ill and have a limited time to live, they need to respect not only their job, but their patients. This can be done by doing their duties as a doctor and helping their patient die painlessly. Those may argue they are not protecting their patients because they are shortening their life. However, their quality of life is very poor. The doctor has a duty to do what is not only best for their patient, but also relieve their pain. If they were refused euthanasia and still had to live for the next 5 months in pain, would that be moral? No, it would not be because the doctor has a duty to fulfill.

I’d like to start by saying I was unaware that physician assisted suicide was legal in the United States. According to MacKinnon and Fiala it is legal in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana (2013). I believe that a person has the right to die when they are terminally ill and have no quality of life. If a person is forced to stay alive just to suffer a slow death, I feel this is cruel. In my opinion the laws that prohibit euthanasia have little to do with the terminally ill and more to do with religious and medical platforms. Furthermore, if religious institutions are lobbying for laws against euthanasia, I feel this goes against the separation of church and state as well as tax exemptions (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2015).

Furthermore, euthanasia is a disgrace to humanity. An individual person or group shouldn’t decide how, when, and if another person should die. The act of ending someone’s life just because another decided that the individual’s life gives no worth to the person or to society is unjust. That is simply the person’s opinion, and their opinion shouldn’t end a precious human life. Usually, people with disabilities who request euthanasia, do so because of how others treat them, not because of their actual disability. If we were to respect those with disabilities, that would remove hardships, not death. Another reason why euthanasia is wrong is that a person who can’t think straight or is a human vegetable, a person who does not have mental or physical abilities (O’Steen). She/he can be killed by a guardian’s request according to law, even if the patient never showed a desire to die. The Declaration of Independence states our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and euthanasia goes against that. If the right to live is reduced, all over rights are worthless (“Euthanasia Statement”).

Euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide, what a touchy subject. There is millions of people would say that it would be absolutely cruel to allow people in the medical field to have this “power”. As well just as many people are arguing that not allowing euthanasia or the assistance of a doctor to end a life is a violation of their rights. The right to “Life” has and will always be the number one most argued point when it comes to this topic. Many argue that it is that person’s life and if suffering from horrifying pain, should be able to

There has long been a debate over the topic of physician assisted suicide as an option for end of life. Several countries and states have passed legislation over the last few years that allows physician assisted suicide to have a form of legality therefore giving these terminal patients more autonomy in deciding what end of life care options they can choose. While it is not up to us as healthcare providers to decide for patients what they should or should not do pertaining to end of life care, it is up to us to take care of them in the best way possible. The decision to die gracefully and without pain should be a personal decision.

Many religions such as Protestantism, Buddhism, and Catholic go against Suicide in any form as well as some other religions. While this may be true, it goes against the constitution to entrust a religion on anybody. This being the case, Euthanasia patients should have the right to decide this. They should not be limited to other people’s beliefs. In the first amendment of the constitution, it prohibits the government from “encouraging or promot[ing]… religion in any way” ( ACLU 6). Exempting patients from Euthanasia because of religion is a form of discrimination amongst them. Religion should not take away the right to perform

I do understand that there are ethical codes that must be upheld by those practicing medicine. I also understand that euthanasia pushes the boundaries of those ethical codes. Physicians have a responsibility to do what is thought to be in the best interest of their patients. Who says that a peaceful death opposed to an unbearably painful one isn’t in the best interest of the patient? Dr. Philip Nitschke explains that “at Exit International [their] motto is ‘a peaceful