Should A Patient Have The Right To End Their Life?

The word suicide gives many people negative feelings and is a socially taboo subject. However, suicide might be beneficial to terminally ill patients. Physician- assisted suicide has been one of the most controversial modern topics. Many wonder if it is morally correct to put a terminally ill patient out of their misery. Physicians should be able to meet the requests of their terminally ill patients. Unfortunately, a physician can be doing more harm by keeping someone alive instead of letting them die peacefully. For example, an assisted suicide can bring comfort to patients. These patients are in excruciating pain and will eventually perish. The government should not be involved in such a personal decision. A physician- assisted suicide comes with many benefits for the patient. If a person is terminally ill and wants a physician assisted suicide, then they should receive one.

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 is argued to be defined as depriving of life or causing the death of a living being. A primary and controversial component to euthanasia is the idea that the physicians are acting in “God” like form. Christians are thought to believe that “thou shall not kill.” Christians believe that all human beings have been in created in God’s image and should be cherished in all circumstances. However, according to the article written by Ann-Marie Begley, she explains, “if only God can end a life, then clearly all instances of killing are wrong, including killing in war and self defense” (Begley 300). The only way this philosophy can be upheld is with complete pacifism in which most Christians would not agree with. The other argument opposing euthanasia is the concern about the perceived public role of the physician. The metaphorical stance of doctors seen around the country is that they are the ‘enemies of death.’ The fear is that the image would be eroded resulting in the lost of trust within the public. Ann-Marie Begley explains, “the trust does not rest with the cure and healing but with the compassion and a recognition that there comes a time when the healer has reached the limits of his or her ability” (Begley 303). The argument of depriving someone of life is also seen in equivalence to murder. Scholars also differentiate murder from euthanasia in that euthanasia there is no malice

People, are incensed because in Muslim beliefs one is not allowed to commit suicide, which also applies to Christianity. (Source I). Several Journalists have also stated against euthanasia because they believe that life is truthfully sanctified and that “God” created life, so one cannot choose to die. (Source A). The Hippocratic oath as well specifically reads that doctors or physicians are not sanctioned to kill patients. (Source M). Even though many people are against euthanasia the citizens still want options for the end of their own life. (Source C). If the alternatives are inadequate and regulated the agony of the patients does not go away; numerous places have already legalized euthanasia, such as the Netherlands in 2002 being the first. Similarly, Japan’s Shintoists believe that people and patients should be sanctioned to die if they request for it. (Source C). In the Netherlands, 85 percent of the doctors will and can also consider facilitating patients and people in death. (Source B). Even though the Hippocratic oath states that doctors are not to kill their patients, there are two main forms of euthanasia- passive and active. (Source C). The two central forms of euthanasia do not go against regulations because subsequently those doctors have to be in accordance with the patients and people. (Source C).

Euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, is an important and controversial topic in our society today, and (under the correct conditions) should both be considered legal and morally acceptable. In fact, throughout history euthanasia has been a debate in many countries, some areas accepting the practice, whereas others find it unacceptable. Many people and professionals continue to refer to the Hippocratic Oath, an vow stating the proper conduct for doctors, and it's famous words "Do no harm." However, when it comes down to whatever holds people back, whether it is their views on religion or oaths from many years ago, it should be considered a correct practice. In fact, in the case of Vacco v. Quill, one point raised was that "Over time, the Hippocratic Oath has been changed, and deleted. In order to "do-no-harm" one would end suffering instead of prolonging it." With the use of Supreme Court cases, and professional psychologist and medical quotations, one can see the clear reasons that this topic must be allowed. In the end, euthanasia should definitely be considered correct both legally and morally due to one's legal rights, sensible ethical values, and the multiple positive benefits upon the legalization of euthanasia.

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).

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.

The right to die with dignity should be every person’s legal right in times when medical treatment does nothing but pro-long an individual’s suffering and ultimately fail to save their lives. There are many moral and ethical reasons why physician assisted suicide should be legalized however, there is also opposition to euthanasia.

Moreover, euthanasia is restricted by the church. This is another important point that we should consider, especially for religious people. According to “Death and Dignity” it is emphasized that “Life is a gift from God and it is only God who can take it back”. Christian’s point of view considers euthanasia as a crime against church, religion and God. Christians consider this as an immoral act. When considering the religious factor as well, we can conclude that no one has the right to take control over our lives, especially when we are unconscious.

Religious beliefs are fundamental for most of the population in this world, as the religion is like the pillar that bound people together. Every religion taught their disciple to respect the life ultimately. Therefore, deprivation of life and legalising euthanasia is unacceptable for the people who have a religious orientation*. Conversely, at another side of the world, people do believe in the right of life. Euthanasia’s supporters believe that a person that suffering terminal illness has the autonomy in the matters of life and death*.

The acceptance of assisted suicide is a religious decision which research proves does interfere with the decision people decide about euthanasia. “The majority of the articles identified support the hypothesis that nurses’ attitudes towards euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are influenced by religion and worldviews.”( Gielen, 315) However, there is a misconception that everyone who is of a certain faith believe exactly what the church wants them to think. According to the article “Religion And Nurses’ Attitudes To Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide”, Non-believers, Jewish, and Asian countries religious views are in favor of Euthanasia; However, Christians, catholics, and roman catholic were strongly against it.

Some churches also emphasise the importance of not interfering with the natural process of death” (BBC). There are many ways that people can oppose this argument, they could target how many Christians dye their hair or get tattoos, which would be considered interfering with God’s creation of that person but, it is important however, for opposers of the argument to realize that euthanasia is not a religious issue. Even if that were the case, there is separation of church and state in the America. When considering euthanasia, it needs to be understood that the argument about euthanasia surrounds laws and public policies that may continue to forbid it or make it a difficult subject to discuss in courts across America.

First of all, what is euthanasia? It is something that not many people think about until they or a friend or family member is put in a position where they might actually have to consider it. Euthanasia, in the dictionary, simply is: the action of ending someone’s life in a painless way. It seems pretty simple but in reality it is a lot more complicated, not only for the people involved but for the society in general as well.

In current times we have made many technological advances that have boosted the medical productivity in hospitals. However, the rapid development of medicine is far from being a long term resolve for many health issues. We have a plethora of people whose quality of life is very low and has no chance of improving. During these situations allowing the person to end their life via euthanasia should be allowed. I will argue that Euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases because there are several moral justifications that argue for ending one’s life.

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.