Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia And DNR

Should assisted death, or euthanasia be an option for the terminally ill? In 1994, the Oregon Death With Dignity Act was formed, making Oregon the first state to legalize physician assisted deaths with restrictions. As of today, Washington, Vermont, New Mexico, along with Oregon are all legalized in euthanasia. The individuals wanting to end their life must be at least 18 years of age with a terminal illness, be a state resident, and have less than six months to live (Procon.org 2014). The question is, is euthanasia ethical? In this paper, I will be focusing on euthanasia and how it relates to the Deontology Theory.

There are several ethical and legal issues that are raised by the majority concerning the legalization of physician assisted suicide and the role of nurses in the process. Assisted suicide is a legal act of assisting those who are suffering from a deadly illness in ending their lives by providing them the means to do it (Griffith, 2014). Netherland was the first country to legalize physician assisted suicide. In 1994, Oregon became the first state to legalize physician assisted suicide by passing a bill called “death with dignity” followed by Washington and Montana. The law states that in order to be eligible for gaining access to assisted suicide, the patient must be left with 6 months to live, signed by two physicians and mentally stable enough to make decisions. Euthanasia is an alternative term used to describe the act of putting an end to a life in order to spare the individual’s suffering from an incurable or a painful disease process. It is classified to passive, active, involuntary and voluntary euthanasia. Active euthanasia is an act that is actively done to terminate life, while passive is when treatment is stopped in order to shorten the patient’s life. Involuntary euthanasia refers to a decision that is made by the health care providers without the patient knowledge and voluntary refers to patients that knowingly request to end their lives (Levy et al, 2013).

People across America have been fighting for their right to die since the late nineteenth century. Currently only a few states including: California, Colorado, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Vermont, legally allow a patient to choose to end their life, but many (if not all) allow the patient of patient’s family to sign a do not resuscitate order, a DNR. Though do not resuscitate orders can be

An often-overlooked topic that is starting to come more to light, is Euthanasia, and should it be legal? There have been plenty of arguments and political debates about euthanasia and its occurrences in society. According to Demetra M. Pappas he says many different things about this topic. First, he states a supreme court case and says, “State supreme courts are split in their treatment of physician-assisted suicide, The Michigan Supreme Court, in response to Kevorkian’s activities and in response to the very first civil challenge regarding assisted suicide, determined that assisted suicide was illegal.”. Then he also points out “On the other hand, the Montana Supreme Court, perhaps with the hind-sight visual benefits of the Oregon and Washington State experiences, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court positions in 1997 and 2006, ruled that as a matter of state constitutional law, physician-assisted suicide should be permitted.”.

Euthanasia should be considered in all aspects of the medical field because people need to be in charge of their lives, statements from critics, and the serious evaluation process when chosen. Euthanasia can reserve all rights towards an individual’s choice towards death or not, because it is the person who has to endure and agonize through the incurable illness. An individual’s perspective on a situation is through their eyes and no one else, that is why euthanasia produces the choice of being alive or

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

The right to die act is referred to as physician-assisted suicide or human euthanasia. The concept allows a person to choose to end his or her own life with medication, prescribed by a physician. This act has recently been implemented into the State laws of Oregon, Washington, California, and most recently, Colorado. As a result, the topic of hman euthanasia has increasingly become an ethical dilemma. Supporting and opposing arguments have been stated, analyzed, and ridiculed without any resolution. The present paper is intended to give an overview of such arguments regarding human euthanasia, ethically and legally. In addition to the ethical dilemma, the importance of patient rights, advocacy, and sensitive nursing care is introduced.

Ethics are the moral standard one holds to guide them through right and wrong. Yet not everyone believes the same things. One moral to one person may not be the same to another. What people use to determine those wrongs and rights are laws and set standards such as the US Constitution, however, there are grey areas that can be left to interpret whether something is right or wrong such as Euthanasia and DNRs. Euthanasia is doctor-assisted suicide used most often in the instances of older people unable to function in their daily lives and are susceptible to life ending situations (such as heart attacks). (2) While a DNR is an order given to medical personnel. DNR is an abbreviation for do not resuscitate. The use of this order is widely

This act has been morally criticized by some, but still approved and improved by the authorities all over the world. It is part of the New York State's Patients' Bill of Rights and California Health Care Directive. DNR is considered legal in many parts of the world and this practice is considered as an ethical act as it fulfills a patient's will of not bearing the suffering or pain he/she might go through in his/her respective medical state. Any human being has the right to define his/her own limits and if a person does not want to go through some treatment which might be traumatic for him/her, the authorities and his/her loved ones along with the medical institutions/specialists must respect the patient's decision. However, DNR does not mean that the patient's treatment should stop completely. Only CPR and ACLS are to be avoided. DNR rights are only granted to close family members like the patient's spouse, children (if they are legally old enough), parents or siblings. Other than that, a person specified by the patient legally can

Euthanasia, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, legal and human rights debate in Australia. Broadly speaking, this term is used to describe the termination of a person’s life to end their suffering, usually through the administration of drugs. The core of this debate is centred on how to mitigate and pacify competing values; an individual's desire to self autonomy and freedom and choice to die with dignity when suffering, alongside with the devaluation of human life as a consequence that is formed through the legalisation of euthanasia. Due to the nature of the topic of euthanasia that is shrouded with ethical controversy and ambiguity, there is difficulty in legal justification and establishment of voluntary

It has been noted that in places where active euthanasia or assisted suicide has been approved, psychiatric evaluation is not required. This has caused the deaths of some depressed and or mentally ill patients who would have wanted to live if had they received appropriate treatment. (Minnesota CItizens for concerned life) Euthanasia gives way to pressure, elder abuse and coercion. “38.6 percent of patients committing suicide in Oregon have expressed concern about being a "burden" on others. And prescribing physicians are generally not present at the time of death” (Minnesota Citezens for Concerned Life) According to the National Institute of Mental Health, "More than 50 research studies worldwide have found that certain types of news coverage

Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.

Euthanasia comes from Greek as good death or easy death, something that humans and animal wish for. Euthanize is a shoot vets give animals to put them asleep forever. People have been asking is it right or wrong to euthanize. Some say we should not, for how do we know that the animals want to be killed. Others say that we can use it as a way to control the population and to prevent overcrowding in animal shelters. A brief bio of euthanize in history and three pros and three cons of it.

I will be arguing whether the primary health care team should be able suggest euthanasia as an option for their patients. The primary healthcare team refers to the doctors that will be the publics first call when they need medical help, for example General Practitioners, nurses, support staff, midwives, practise managers and health visitors are all part of the primary healthcare team. They will know the most about their patients’ health and wellbeing.

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.