Research Paper on Euthanasia

A state's categorical ban on physician assistance to suicide as applied to terminally ill patients who wish to avoid unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death substantially interferes with this protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained. The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships,

A little over nine years ago, a man succumbed to his thirty-year battle with multiple sclerosis. At the time of his death, his body bore little resemblance to the man who had once successfully coached two little league teams and held down three jobs. In the last year of his life, James Halsey decided that the debilitating cycle of drowning in his own internal body fluids, only to return to a state of awareness, no longer served his spirits and desires. Regrettably, he was not given the opportunity of a peaceful death. Instead, James spent the last days of his life pumped full of morphine, in harrowing pain as his family stood by, rendered helpless. He was denied an inherent right and the ability to exercise his independent will. Physician-assisted

Hutchinson proposed that voluntary ¬euthanasia could grow to the deaths of more than 1000 terminally ill patients a year before 2030. The Andrews government had the country's first assisted death in September 2017. The self-¬administered death is open to terminally ill patients aged over 18. The suffering must be with an ¬incurable disease with a life ¬expectancy of less than 12 months. I will use this to demonstrate the growing number of physician assisted suicides.

An article in the journal of the American Medical Association by Ethics and Health Policy argues that “allowing physicians to assist in the suicide of hopelessly ill patients will violate the nature of

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld court decisions in Washington and New York states that criminalized physician-assisted suicide on July 26, 1997.12 They found that the Constitution did not provide any “right to die,” however, they allowed individual states to govern whether or not they would prohibit or permit physician-assisted suicide. Without much intervention from the states individuals have used their right to refuse medical treatment resulting in controversial passive forms of euthanasia being used by patients to die with dignity such as choosing not to be resuscitated, stopping medication, drinking, or eating, or turning off respirators.9

In places where assisted suicide is legal there is no evidence that the law is being abused, impotent populations are being targeted, or that the patients are being constrained by physicians and or their family members to choose this action. The right to die and to decide when life is no longer worth living for is essential for human freedom, autarchy, and personal sovereignty. Neither the government nor religious establishment should foist their own notions of ethics upon individuals who are not harming others. A ban on physician assistance to suicide as applied to suit terminally ill patients who wish to avoid the unendurable pain, substantially interferes with one’s protected liberty interest and cannot be sustained.

Euthanasia remains highly controversial in the U.S. because even a state such as Oregon which upholds the Death with Dignity Act “passed by a margin of 51% to 49% as stated by the Oregon Health Authority. Thus, even though Niles suggested that Oregon supports euthanasia, the Death with Dignity Act seemingly remains controversial because almost half of the population in Oregon is against Euthanasia, and there are stakeholders who still challenge its implementation. In the context of this paper, euthanasia refers to an instance in which “the physician would act directly, for instance by giving a lethal injection, to end the patient’s life” (Niles 254). Clearly, euthanasia remains illegal in most parts of the country, and this is because it is a contentious moral and legal issue according to Haberman. There are numerous arguments which support and oppose euthanasia. Even so, the benefits of euthanasia outnumber its detriments. This implies that euthanasia should be legalized across the remaining states in the U.S. The legalization of euthanasia would have economic, ethical/moral, legal, and personal benefits.

Mary is a middle aged woman who has stage four breast cancer. She’s not expected to live much longer. She is in a lot of pain, medical treatment is taking its toll on her body, and medical treatments are a lot of money. Doctors have asked her if she would consider assisted suicide. Mary unsure about this decision because she has to think about her family and about her rights. People in a situation like Mary’s may face the same controversial decision of pursuing assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is when a physician helps one of their patients end their life. The topic of assisted suicide has been renewed in recent years; supporters say that patients have rights, well critics say that it’s not physicians job is to be killing

Assisted suicide is a physician facilitates a patient’s death by giving a lethal drug to someone they know is contemplating suicide. Assisted suicide is wrong. We do not get to choose how we die or when we die. God is the only one who gets to decide. Making a patient, who is dying, comfortable is acceptable. Assisting a patient in suicide is wrong. This type of suicide is a murderous act. By participating in assisted suicide, one is picking a choosing what laws we must abide.

An issue facing much of today’s elderly and terminally ill populations is that of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Several countries, most notably the Netherlands, has legalized euthanasia and physician assisted suicide leading to what is now referred to as “death tourism”. People from across the world are traveling to place with legalized euthanasia, like the Netherlands, in order to end their lives through assisted suicide.

Throughout the history of the United States, we have seen certain rights once withheld from specific groups of people given to them through law. Women’s rights, civil rights, mentally-ill rights, and gay rights have been spotlighted in the political agenda. When legislation was passed providing rights to these groups of people, each topic was extremely controversial. However, looking back today on all of these decisions makes it clear that the United States had come to the right conclusion benefiting our society and making our country a better place. One of the up and coming policies in the political spotlight is the right to euthanasia.

The journal article establishes the main points to understand the concept of euthanasia, such as: basis, legislation, religious view of euthanasia, among others. This article introduces the debate about the euthanasia and the author introduces the topic with the following question: Should human beings have the right to decide on issues of life and death? In order to answer this question, the author through the journal article gives their point of view about euthanasia, also presents positive and negative arguments to be discussed about the topic. Furthermore, the article presents different religions points of view such as: Islam religion, Buddhism religion, Judaism religion, among others that give their opinion about the euthanasia, and also

Euthanasia debate opposes two sides in which one side argues that letting someone suffer is not ethical and the other side defend that to help someone to die is not ethical based on the morality that no one should kill or help someone to die (fundamental right that everyone is allowed to live), they judge that euthanasia should compromise the criminal code. For my own morality, I am for the euthanasia possibility for the people in need to die for the reason of the person’s well-being.

One of the biggest and most controversial topics throughout society today is the act of euthanasia in humans. In the medical field, euthanasia is commonly known as assisted suicide that is essentially for terminally ill patients only. When thinking about euthanasia, Americans tend to relate it towards the rights for animals, but in this specific example I will focus on the controversial topic of legalization on behalf of people who are professionally diagnosed with a life-threatening diseases. This will not include minorities under the age of eighteen or the elderly over the age of sixty. Thus when looking at the data in today’s society, euthanasia is clearly defined as taking action of ending a person’s