Should Life Be Prolonged?

They are there day in and day out and develop special relationships. They might not agree with the decision to end one’s life, based on religious aspects, but they still have to go through with the decision (Gielen et al, 2009). This also brings into question about the ethical dilemma faced by physicians to preserve life. Likewise, this ideology is published in numerous medicine journals across the world. More specifically, this quandary is outlined in the QJM: An international Journal of Medicine. Within this journal, it poses these very questions. Should the patient’s decision to end their life override the doctor’s moral and ethical duty to preserve life? “I believe there are practical as well as legal and moral reasons to adhere to the ancient Hippocratic dictum: when efficacious treatment is possible, the physician's duty is to the patient, and to no one else—not to the family, nor the community—to prevent suffering and preserve life for as long as you can” (Epstien,

Compare two people to see who is the doctor? First person should do everything to save people lives and the second person who is give drug to the patient to die. The doctor is the first person. Job of physicians is to kill pains, not to kill people. A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life. Reduce pain is an important issue to be addressed. If a patient seek death because they cannot stand the pain; the first concern of doctors should care about is the reduce pain, not the way to make they died. For patients unconscious for a long time, many people believe that patients should be able to die, but it is not clear; how they can identify that patients want to die while the patient is no longer able to communicate. They will use all knowledge and ability of medicine to save lives rather than using the ability and developing the medicine to kill people. The doctors and nurses using any way of human intervention to end the life of a patient are still considered as a murder. Choosing to die over pain is like running away from the problem. Death - with people who are wearing white shirt is a failure, failure of the life, medical failure, and failure of the doctor. The doctor and nurses should not entitle to surrender with the death. Anyway, the true remains life still has the values higher than the death. And now, with the advancement of science, the terminally disease cannot cure in couple months, but it can be cure in the future. Instead of creating the euthanasia drug, they should create new medicines that might ease the pain, not completely cure the disease but at least lessen the pain experience by the patient. The implementation of assisted suicide is totally contrary to medical ethics that is to heal rather not

Death is a touchy enough subject for people; add in the idea of assisted suicides and there’s an uproar in society. Euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is a very controversial topic in our society today. Physician assisted suicide by definition is “suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent (Merriam-Webster). There are two modes of looking at assisted suicides; either it’s seen as an absurd immoral decision to take away the life of someone or it’s seen as a logical and peaceful release from pain and misery. There’s this idea that asking a healthcare provider to help you end your life is unfair and unnecessary, no matter how much a person is suffering suicide is not justified. People fear patients changing their minds, physicians being severely impacted by this, and families not agreeing with the decision making it hard to cope. On the other side people believe that it’s freedom of choice to choose to be medically assisted with a suicide; this is a right the patient has. Some believe if you’re in pain and dying why should you be forced to stay in a painful state of life. Freedom of choice versus life isn’t ours to take away. If you were in a terminally ill patients position, what would you do?

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.

Life is a delicate subject to address, especially when it comes to the end thereof. Oftentimes, talking about death is a sensitive and therefore controversial subject. In America, citizens are allowed to hold and express their personal ideologies and beliefs, which has created a lot of discussion about whether or not it should be legal for doctors to help terminally ill patients peacefully end their lives. This is commonly referred to as Aid-In-Dying. The human experience is filled with many difficulties and sufferings. In the dreadful circumstance that someone is diagnosed as terminally ill, why would anyone want him or her to continue to suffer? When a human being is dying and experiencing excruciating pain, they absolutely should have

New issues and ethical questions have arisen as a result in technological advances in the field of medicine. One of these issues is quality of life for the individual. Is it better to keep a person hooked up to a life machine, if the person has no quality of life? That is there is no interaction with other humans and the person is only being kept alive because the machines are handling vital bodily functions. These advances add to moral dilemma of physician-assisted suicide and to the intense debate if the practice of physician-assisted death is ethical. Furthermore, there are direct and indirect physician-assisted suicide practices. Direct physician-assisted suicide practices include: administering a legal dose of drugs to end a life, withdrawing or withholding life sustaining treatments, and palliative sedation. Indirect physician-assisted suicides are a little bit different in that the physician may give

Imagine having to witness a family member or even a friend on life support be kept alive while knowing that there is no chance for a cure. A patient might feel like it is their time to go, but family members might have a hard time accepting the situation and will disagree. That is why patients in those extreme situations should have the option to end their life peacefully or continuing living in the conditions they are in.

From the respirators that help those with failing lungs, to medications that sustain a patient's physiological processes. For the terminally ill, medical technology has removed the pain and misery from these patients lives instead of automatically ending a life that eventually, with effort, could have possibly been saved. These patients should not have the right to assisted suicide. Yes, it might end long term pain quicker, however, “honoring the sanctity of life overrides the right of individuals to choose how and when they will die” (Ersek 49).Assisted suicide encourages people to give up on life and take the easy way out. It encourages anguish instead of hope and strength to fight through their battle. Although it might give the patient requesting the process a feeling of control over their unbearable life, it doesn’t mean the only “positive” option they have is to take their own life. Some think respect for the individual's right to choose, even assisted suicide, is more important still, “autonomy doesn’t include the right to engage others (such as nurses and physicians) in immoral acts. The right to choose doesn’t extend to the right to die by asking health care professionals to assist in hastening death” (Ersek 49). The Hippocratic Oath states “The prohibition against killing patients... stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the

Those who are for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide states that this subject is a prevention of cruelty and protection of human rights. Allowing someone who is terminally ill to end their live is considered as a humane, compassionate, and a rational decision (Chand)Click and drag to move‌. An example would be a woman who is suffering from stage four cancer and only has two months to live. The woman’s pain is unbearable and she wants to end her pain and suffering by the help of assistant suicide/euthanasia. Would it truly be right to

Frankly, it isn't ethical to keep a dying person alive when someone who is recovering from an illness or trauma could be benefiting from the money being poured into the dying person. Consequently, it is unethical to throw away the life of someone who is young and recovering from an illness or trauma to keep a person alive longer than their natural

Throughout the millennia since the origin of man, technology has continuously evolved contributing to a longer life expectancy among humans. Now, even terminally ill patients can be kept alive by medications and machines. These life saving devices also carry the potential to kill a human with little effort or time. The debate has arisen as to whether people have the “right to die” or often referred to dying with their dignity. The modern dictionary defines the right to die as, “a person 's right to refuse extraordinary life-sustaining measures intended to prolong life artificially when the person is deemed by his or her physicians to be terminally or incurably ill”(right-to-die). As the questions circling these methods of killing grow, religious groups are beginning to take stances on the issue. Two of the largest religions in the world, Buddhism and Hinduism, have denounced the idea of death with dignity but for different reasons. While neither religion is a supporter of the right to die, the rejections are not unanimous for either group.

There has been as many arguments over these topics in the medical field as there have been with the law. With medical technology progressing, there are things that can prolong ones life. These things may all seem good, but for a patient who has to live a life of suffering, a prolonged one is not something these people may wish for. This is where physician assisted suicide would come in, the terminally ill patient would go to their doctors for medicine to help with their suffering, fatal drugs. Examples can be taken from landmark cases such as Karen Anne Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan, and Terri Schivao, these are all cases in which the patient (or a close family member), decided that using medical technology to prolong the patients life would not be worth it. The 1990 case of Nancy Cruzan was one that brought much controversy because her parents were the ones to decide to remove the feeding tube after Cruzan was left in a vegetative state after an accident. The parents argued that she should “die a dignified death as they said she would have wanted” (NY Times). Cruzan was in a vegetative state where she could not move and experience life as a

Most religions and cultures view and have a different perspective on how they approach end of life care. There are hundreds if not thousands of religions along with individual cultural beliefs all around the world but, the ones that will be discussed in the content of this paper include; Buddhism, Muslim, Hinduism, and Judaism . Buddhism is a tradition that focuses on personal spiritual development that attempts for a deep meaning into the true nature of life in which their spiritual beliefs and practices are based off of the teachings of Buddha. The Buddhist religion is based on four fundamental contemplations that form the foundation of understanding and meditation: first, that a human rebirth is extremely precious and should be used to its highest

Is it right that a person has to suffer through three months of life support before they die just because the law says that even though a person is going to die soon that it is wrong to help them end their suffering because that would be considered murder. Many people believe that euthanasia should be legalized. This has caused a lot of controversy in today’s society especially with religious organizations. Almost all churches claim that nobody has the right to take another persons life away except

As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations,