University Name
Name of The Institute
Course Title
A Report on
Physician assisted death for the terminally ill in US
Student Name
Introduction
In United States, Euthanasia is a highly controversial subject among politicians, legislators and society members. Just the mention of this issue polarizes different groups on opposing ends as some either support it and others want to keep it illegal and unlawful(Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, &Zwahlen, 2013). The main ideology that is discussed in the situation is whether an individual has a right on his own life in cases of terminal illness where there is no way of recovering according to medical professionals. The argument that is for the provision of assisted-death for terminally ill can be understood by other names of Euthanasia which are- mercy-killing and dignity-death. These names are given to the practice of physical assisted-death as it allows the terminally ill patients to avoid the extreme pain, constant awareness of certain death and humiliating medical conditions that are part of some terminal illnesses. In this report, the present state of Euthanasia has been evaluated in context of United States. The goal is to look for the existing political and legislative environment for and against Euthanasia and identify an appropriate solution.
Present State of Euthanasia
In most of the western countries, the legislators are no longer keeping the rights of people to decide whether or not they want assisted-death if
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.
1. (problem – PAS): In today’s society, Physician Assisted Suicide is one of the most questionable and debatable issues. Many people feel that it is wrong for people to ask their doctor to help them end their life; while others feel it is their right to choose between the right to life and the right to death. “Suffering has always been a part of human existence.” (PAS) “Physicians have no similar duty to provide actions, such as assistance in suicide, simply because they have been requested by patients. In deciding how to respond to patients ' requests, physicians should use their judgment about the medical appropriateness of the request.” (Bernat, JL) Physician Assisted Suicide differs from withholding or discontinuing medical treatment, it consists of doctors providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication to aid in the use to end their life.
Unlike, previous reviews, the author begins by defining physician- assisted suicide death and its differences from other forms of euthanasia. In this article, Ardell also addresses the ethical and moral dilemma between letting people have control over their own bodies through assisted suicide and the state’s decision to prevent individuals from taking their lives. Specifically, Ardell compares two countries, Netherlands and the United States, in which physician-assisted suicide is legal and illegal to assessed how each decision has influence patients with terminal illness. Finally, Ardell also focuses on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act to explain how the court decision of legalizing assisted death has impacted a whole community of people, hospitals and generally end-life care for terminally-ill patients. Although, the author doesn’t offer her opinions or a general conclusion about legalizing physician-assisted suicide, she explains that most Oregon physician assisted suicide cases has been about achieving a “death with dignity” or a death in control, rather than preventing pain. Hence, this article is important for my research paper because it explores both the legal and moral repercussion of legalizing physician -assisted suicide in the context of achieving a “death with
The Declaration of Independence stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This shows that all Americans are secured with indisputable rights which must include the right to live life as well as end it if need be. Even though Physician Assisted Death is not listed in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” However, in forty-four states, terminally-ill patients do not have the right to die. Physician Assisted Death is when a terminally-ill patient undergoes counseling before a trusted doctor can prescribe a lethal dose of drugs for the patient to terminate his life peacefully. Having Physician Assisted Death available as an option to terminally-ill will allow patients to exercise their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, relieve them from unbearable pain, and lessen the agony of the patient’s family.
A woman is thrashing in bed and crying from the pain her illness is causing her to feel. Her family rushes to find a nurse nearby to administer pain relieving medication. A nurse comes by to give palliative care to the woman that’s in agony. However, the strongest medication that’s at hand cannot relieve the pain without overdosing the patient. The terminally ill patient now has to live with intractable pain for the remaining days of her life. Physician Assisted Death is sometimes necessary in case state-of-the-art palliative care no longer works on the cancer patient. Terminal patients should have the option to control the circumstances surrounding their inevitable deaths with Physician Assisted Death to treat the pain.
Physician assisted death, often referred to as death with dignity or euthanasia, is a practice that is debated globally and practiced limitedly. It is when a physician helps a patient with a terminal condition carry out their elective death, usually through prescriptions or other medical means. The debate regarding this controversial practice has many sides, one being the defense of the sanctity of life. This claim operates on the premise that human lives have innate value as determined by God, and therefore physician assisted death is an unjust practice and an invalidation of the worth of human life. However, as demonstrated by the philosopher Sartre, it becomes evident that each individual creates and determines their own significance,
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.
Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.
Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics discussed among people every day. Everyone has his or her own opinion on this topic. This is a socially debated topic that above all else involves someone making a choice, whether it be to continue with life or give up hope and die. This should be a choice that they make themselves. However, In the United States, The land of the free, only one state has legalized assisted suicide. I am for assisted suicide and euthanasia. This paper will support my many feelings on this subject.
Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.
Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the stronger argument.
Euthanasia, or assisted suicide, was legalized in six states in the US. It gives terminally ill people the power to exercise their right to life, die with dignity, not pay for expensive treatments that won’t work, and most importantly it stops their suffering. Yet people argue, doctors should keep patients alive and depending of their religion some don’t believe in euthanasia. Most Americans are open minded therefore, they should be more accepting towards this proposal. People should use their voices to legalize Euthanasia throughout the United States not just in six states. It makes it easier for those people with no hope to end their suffrage as well as, keeping their families from debts in the future.
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
Euthanasia is a controversial contemporary issue discussed in philosophy and bioethics. The debate has encapsulated regions of the United States and Europe. An array of research has established evidence of euthanasia, in light of ‘treatment’ for terminally ill patients and any individual who wishes to have the right to die. Generally, euthanasia is regarded as, a criminal homicide at the request of a suffering patient. Individuals who are in favor of euthanasia have expressed reasons for their passionate support of euthanasia. Researchers have conducted research mainly in the state of Oregon in which euthanasia has been legalized since 1997, for the past 20-years. Reference is also made of Washington, Montana, Vermont and Mexico. On the international scale regions in Europe such as the Netherlands, Belgium and the UK has legalized Physician-assisted suicide. These countries have become models for others who have shown interest in Euthanasia and want to legalize Physician-assisted suicide. Research has shed light on the nature of medicine from the perspective the family members and physicians.
In cases where an individual's quality of life is irreparably diminished by terminal illness, one may seek to end their life with the help of a doctor. This has been a solution for patient suffering in neighboring countries, but there are ethical and legal issues that make it an impractical solution for American healthcare. Considering the results of negative potential of euthanasia practices exposes its flaws, and sheds light on better alternatives. Therefore active euthanasia, not to be confused with physician assisted suicide, should not be legalized in the United States.