The tension between the two was played out this week in the Northern Territory, where the local Civil and Administrative Tribunal is considering whether to uphold the Medical Board of Australia’s suspension of Philip Nitschke’s medical licence after a three-day hearing. The suspension came after Nitschke discussed assisted suicide with 45-year-old Perth man Nigel Brayley even though he knew Brayley did not have a terminal illness. Brayley reportedly told Nitschke in an email that he was “suffering” in the sense that he was deeply unhappy in his life. Nitschke did not refer to him to a psychiatrist or offer any other help. More complex than it appears Nitschke’s actions have been roundly criticised, particularly by other euthanasia advocates, …show more content…
Approval will only be granted where where applicants are of age, mentally competent and their suffering constitutes an “incurable condition” that causes continuous and unbearable anguish. Of the 1,432 recorded cases of euthanasia in Belgium in 2012, 52 were on psychological grounds. In the Netherlands, the figure was 42 out of a total of 4,829 cases in 2013. Still, the idea – and practice – remains deeply controversial. Concern often focuses on a lack of confidence in the notion that mental illness or emotional pain should ever be regarded as “incurable”. A troubling question then arsies as to whether we might be too carelessly priviliging the right to autonomy, and undermining our responsibility to protect vulnerable people from harm. There’s concern about the confidence with which we can say that mental illness or emotional pain should be regarded as ‘incurable’. Porsche Brosseau/Flickr, CC BY Others have suggested that if we extend the right to die beyond those who are actually already dying, we risk setting off down a “very dangerous path and one that’s extremely slippery”. This worry seems to be that we slide into a situation in which marginalised and vulnerable people’s right to life will not be sufficiently …show more content…
In a troubling 2012 UK case, for instance, a hospital was ordered to cease a palliative care program consented to by a 32-year-old woman with anorexia nervosa and to forcibly re-feed her despite her deep distress at the prospect. The woman had consistently refused re-feeding over the past several years, experiencing it as a violent assault. The court decided the fact that she had an eating disorder made her incompetent to make a legally enforceable decision to refuse treatment. The implication of the decision was that, by definition, people with anorexia cannot make an end-of-life decision, no matter how harrowing and intractable their illness becomes. It was a conclusion that bitterly disappointed the woman’s parents, who said: It seems strange to us that the only people who don’t seem to have the right to die when there is no further appropriate treatment available are those with an eating
The Superior Court of Los Angeles County became a pivotal case in a patient’s right to refuse treatment. In the initial case Ms. Bouvia and her legal team sought a court order to have the NGT removed and to stop all medical treatments she did not consent to. She argued that this treatment would not be a cure for her condition and would not improve her quality of life. The hospital staff argued the interest of the state prevailed over a patient’s right to refuse treatment. They noted that the state and healthcare teams viable interests include: “(1) preserving life, (2) preventing suicide, (3) protecting innocent third parties, and (4) maintaining the ethical standards of the medical profession, including supporting the right of physicians to effectively render necessary and appropriate medical services” (Liang & Lin, 2005). Additionally they sighted Ms. Bouvia’s failed previous attempt to “starve herself to death” in 1983 with the assistance of her medical team. The court denied her request citing these key interests and the fact that medical professionals felt that Ms. Bouvia could live 15-20 additional years with supplemental nutrition justified the state’s interest in preserving her life. The court also stated that any other decision would be condoning a medical team to aid and abet suicide.
Danny Bond was a young man that was born with an excruciating bowel disease. As he body grew, so did the pain that he went through. There was nothing that doctors could do to save him. He wanted to die but everyone refused to help him, so he attempted to kill himself numerous times. Each time his mother intervene, saving him. Soon after his 21st birthday, his health plummeted and the pain became unbearable. Again, he spoke about no longer wanting to live and again no one listened so he starved himself to death, because it was considered the only legal way for him to kill himself. If a person is undergoing an excruciating incurable disease he should be able to have a say as to whether or not he lives or dies. And if he chooses to die, starvation
When people think of an “illness” they typically don’t automatically think of mental illness. They think about HIV, cancer, or even a cold or flu. However when it comes to mental illness it is a whole different idea. But is mental illness even real? Addressed in the book, The Myth of Mental Illness (1961), a psychiatrist Thomas Szasz argues that the idea of classifying psychological and emotional difficulties as “illnesses” takes away sense of control. Instead of holding people personally and morally responsible for their actions, he states, doctors attempt to “treat” the person, often with medications. Diagnosing mental illness, on the other hand, argue that mental disorders are as real as physical diseases and diagnosing them allows people
At the time of the Court’s ruling, eighteen states and Washington, D.C. had laws that allowed family members to withhold treatment from patients lacking the capacity to make medical decisions. The majority of these statutes required that the patient be terminally ill. As of June 1998, thirteen states require that the proxy have specific authorization and/or specific conditions be met in order to withhold artificial nutrition and hydration.
It is more important to help a person suffering from mental illness to recover, before they are legally allowed to make such a terminal decision, and after a “thorough and comprehensive attempt to improve their life we have still not made living acceptable to them, we need to allow assistance to die” (Purdy, 2015). The exclusion of mental health as a condition, ties into the safeguard of type of condition. The 2007 British Attitude Survey shows that 84% of respondents agreed that a doctor should “definitely” or “probably” be legally allowed to end a patient’s life at their request” if they are suffering from unbearable pain and terminal illness (p39). However, if assisted dying were to be legalised extending this right to those suffering from painful chronic illnesses or severe disabilities should also be considered, if these individuals make the request, sufferer from terrible quality of life and show no sign of recovery. For example, it seems immoral to allow a cancer patient to request assisted dying, but not allow a paralysed individual, like Tony Nicklinson, to request the same consideration.
She was also prescribed antidepressants, a tranquilizer, and an opioid to take daily for several years. Geerts was so desperate after struggling with her illness that she asked her psychiatrist to take her life. In 2014, her doctor prescribed her a lethal dose of drugs to take. Geert’s sister, Adriana, expressed that she thinks society should try harder to help people who suffer with mental illness. Cheng exhibits this euthanasia case to demonstrate how difficult it can be to balance between individual freedom and protecting patients that are vulnerable. I will use this text and include Geert’s case to show that there should be a more efficient way to deal with patients that suffer with depression other than
Forcing terminally ill patients to suffer straight up to their last days is unacceptable and provisions can be made in order to allow competent patients to have a choice at the end of their lives.
A terminal disease diagnosis changes the outlook on life, leaving the choice of either living life to an inevitably painful death or ending the suffering by seeking a different medical option. A person who is terminally ill requires rigorous treatments to slow down the process of death, but there is an alternative option. Physician-assisted suicide continues to gain attention and is being legalized across the world. The process in the United States is slower, yet a few states have already authorized it. People undermine this option for unethical reasons; however, it enables a person in agonizing pain to end their life before becoming entirely incompetent. Doctors across the nation seek this practice in order to help the patients as well as their families; even though, they could be risking their license. Despite moral values contradicting this practice, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized across the United States for terminally ill patients lucid enough to make the decision on their own.
The legally binding 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 6, further elaborates upon the rights in the UDHR, stating that: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” It facilitates the abuse of vulnerable patients and can result in a “slippery slope” which claims that it will invariably lead to the acceptance or practice of concepts which are currently deemed unacceptable, such as involuntary euthanasia. In line with this, patients may feel they are a burden and so feel a subtle pressure, real or imagined, to end their lives. Legalisation of assisted suicide will inevitably brings about a shift in how we judge the value of our lives. The foundational societal value of respect for human life would be damaged and it implies that allowing euthanasia presents the subtext that "it's better to be dead than sick or disabled". Not only does this put the sick or disabled at risk, it also downgrades their status as human beings while they are alive. Thus, it is argued that in order to prevent these undesirable practices from occurring, we need to resist taking the first
Only a small minority of people will ever experience illnesses that fall under the category of eligibility for assisted suicide. This is good, because these illnesses rob people of their lives and leave them in great suffering and without self-determinism or control over their state of being. The truth is most people will be able to go through life without ever having to deal with symptoms such as abscesses in the lungs, paralysis of the vocal cords, or internal hemorrhages. But it very well could have been or will eventually be any one of us afflicted with a terminal disease. Therefore, we should protect the rights of individuals afflicted by these disorders.
It is also clear that while making these decisions, the decisions ought to be made based on informed consent (Werth and Crow 195). Sometime, the patient may be experiencing dementia, clinical depression or delirium for which they may be affecting the patient’s decision making capabilities (Werth and Crow 197, 198). If such a person is allowed to make their right-to-die decision, this may be done without the patient having comprehensive information before consent and thus should not be encouraged (Werth and Crow 198).
Although about 450 million people in the world currently are suffering from a mental illness, many untreated, the topic still remains taboo in modern society (Mental Health). For years, people with mental illnesses have been shut away or institutionalized, and despite cultural progression in many areas, mental illnesses are still shamed and rarely brought to light outside of the psychiatric community. The many different forms in which mental illness can occur are incredibly prevalent in the world today, and there is a substantial debate about the way that they should be handled. Some people are of the opinion that mental illness is merely a variance in perception and that it either can be fixed through therapy or should not be treated at
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
If patients don’t get the right to choose, they might refer to illegal methods to die or even commit suicide.
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