Terminally Ill patients across the world all want a way to end what they are going through, but not all doctor’s want to help them achieve those goals. The right to die is a patient’s ability to choose their own time and means of death. A patient’s death can be caused through injections of lethal drugs or even by taking them off of their life support by the request of the patient. Some people support this law because they believe that a patient should have the right to choose whether or not they would want a “dignified death” or a death not caused by an illness. The people opposing this law take the side of the sanctity of life and upholding the integrity of the medical profession by “maintaining bans on physician-assisted suicide” (Right to Die).
Legalise euthanasia will ultimately undermine doctor-patient relationship. Euthanasia is basically giving doctors the right to kill their patients. ‘It’s not up to the doctors whether life is happy or unhappy, worthwhile or not and
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
Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.
Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are two similar topics which are constantly countered with extremely weak statements, such as “the argument that if we respect the liberty of some individuals to choose assisted death we will thereby expose the ill and frail to an increased risk of abuse or exploitation” (Schafer, “the case for legalization”), which is commonly known as the “slippery slope” debate. However, several countries and select states in the United States who have legalized euthanasia have not shown any signs of “slippery slopes”. In fact, these areas have actually demonstrated that:
There is also debate as to whether or not non-participating states should make legislation to legalize this life ending option. Those who are against legalization of physician assisted death often present with the arguments that legalization will lead to abuse of the practice and consequently harsh treatments of our nation’s sickest patients. They also argue that it is an unethical practice in which mortals are “playing God” and determining where the line between life and death is. This group also establishes that physician assisted death is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors vow to “do no harm” to their patients. Additionally, they maintain the argument that all human lives have value from the time of conception until natural death and allowing physician assisted death would be a premature limitation of an individual’s life. The opposition, however, says that physician assisted death is a dignified treatment for hopeless patients whose only alternative treatment is prolonged suffering until death. Additionally, they argue that allowing doctors to participate in physician assisted death upholds the Hippocratic Oath because forcing a patient to endure undue suffering against their will is in fact doing harm. Also, a major argument states
Worldwide controversy surrounds the physician-assisted suicide. Some countries have already adopted a policy that protects physicians who assist people into committing suicide through lethal doses of medication such as in the Dutch government. Many people believe that physician-assisted suicide should be legalized on the basis of mercy. Others oppose to such legalization; they argue that by decriminalizing euthanasia, vulnerable population (the mentally ill, those with physical disabilities, and the elderly) may be at risk of abuse (Weiss & Lonnquist, 2009).
Imagine living with a terminal illness that causes immense pain and suffering. It’s likely that many of us have not given it much thought. It’s much easier to believe that it won’t happen to us. The reality, however, is that people are diagnosed with these terrible illnesses every day. So, what options do patients have? For many years’, members of the medical community have discussed the practice of physician assisted suicide. This would allow terminally ill patients, many of whom have cancer, to make the difficult decision to end their lives peacefully. Doctors are able to simply write their patient a prescription, designed to end a person’s life in a non-painful way. Doctors and medical personnel have struggled with this topic, exploring the various consequences and benefits that come with making assisted suicide legal. Currently, physician assisted suicide has been made legal across a handful of states in the U.S; however, many people continue to question the ethicality of this practice. There are many different arguments to explore for and against physician assisted suicide. Some believe that physician assisted suicide will lead to involuntary euthanasia, while others say patients should have the choice to live or die. While each individual conviction may seem vastly different, they do share something in common: Their concern for the well-being of others.
Physician assisted suicide is the process of ending one’s life with the administration of lethal injection with the assistance of a physician. Throughout the years, euthanasia has become a controversial topic, determining whether not it is ethical for a doctor to end a patient’s life. On one side of the argument, the negative term suicide creates this illusion of sin and many citizens believe that the task of ending one’s life should not be placed in the hands of a doctor. Doctors have a code that they must follow, promising to do as much as possible to save a life. But when there is nothing more a doctor could do, is physician assisted suicide wrong? Those who support euthanasia often state that this is a form of regaining control of a horrific situation, and with the assistance of their trusted doctor, they are able to die with dignity. Physician Assisted suicide should be the choice of the patient and not the state.
When a patient is terminally ill or is experiencing extreme pain, often Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide can both be plausible options to end any suffering. Euthanasia is currently legalized in seven countries and parts of the United States (New Health Guide). This number is not likely to increase soon because of the high controversy, which is due to the very serious topic of this matter: a person 's life. The general process of these medical methods is usually understood as a doctor somehow deliberately causing the death of a patient or helping with their suicide. Many believe that it is unethical and violates laws, oaths, and more. Though people believe this, it is truly unethical to not give a person a choice in the manner in which they will perish.
Opposing viewpoints argue that human euthanasia is inhumane and unethical to patients and the doctors responsible. Many doctors feel that physician assisted suicide stands against everything they stand for. Physicians feel that they have a responsibility to treat patients not murder them. This viewpoint is concerned incorrect to those whom support the Right to Die movement because a doctor's first responsibility to a patient is not only to heal but as quoted in the Hippocratic Oath is to,"First do no harm” which includes allowing an individual to suffering in longing
Many people have different opinions on the debate of legalizing Euthanasia or Physician- assisted suicide. “The term assisted suicide has several different interpretations. Perhaps the most widely used and accepted is "the intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a doctor, relative, or another person". Some people will insist that something along the lines of "in order relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable) suffering" needs to be added to the meaning, “(2) The major debate on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are: the slippery slope to legalized murder, the right to die, and the Hippocratic oath and prohibition of killing. “Proponents of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) contend that terminally ill people should have the right to end their suffering with a quick, dignified, and compassionate death. They argue that the right to die is protected by the same constitutional safeguards that guarantee such rights as marriage, procreation, and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment.” (1) I
In all places, laws and safeguards were put in place to prevent abuse and misuse of these practices. Prevention measures have included, explicit consent by the person requesting euthanasia, mandatory reporting of all cases, administration only by physicians, and consultation by a second physician. With having these measures in place one can begin to see a future where assisted suicide is no longer taboo but something that is a common practice and can help so many people who are in pain. While putting certain safeguards in place there must also be a discussion about policy. Author Dan W. Brock of The Hastings Center Report explores the ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine. In his article “Voluntary Active Euthanasia” Brock debates the issue at hand by removing religion from the argument. Brock believes that in order to have a sound discussion over euthanasia one must examine only secular arguments. “First, there is empirical or factual disagreement about what the consequences would be. This disagreement is greatly exacerbated by the lack of firm data on the issue. Second, since on any reasonable assessment there would be both good and bad consequences, there are moral disagreements about the relative importance of different effects.” (Brock
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.
Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, has been a controversial issue for many years. It usually involves ending a patient’s life early to relieve their illness. Most of the controversy stemmed from personal values like ethics or religion. The euthanasia debate puts a huge emphasis on what doctors should do for their patients and how much a person’s life is worth. Supporters of euthanasia primarily focus on cost and pain alleviation. Opponents of euthanasia tend to focus on morality. Whether euthanasia is legal or not could significantly affect future generations’ attitudes about death. Euthanasia should be legalized nationally because it helps patients that could be in unimaginable pain, offers more options for more people, and it is relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives.