Terminally Ill Patients Should Be Allowed To Die Essay

Physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill is one of the most debated policies in America. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is only considered a when a patient has a terminal illness and expresses their right to end their life with a physician. This scenario typically takes place when a patient is suffering severely from a terminal illness and it is only a matter of time before they will die. Advocates for PAS have typically had a loved one who is or was suffering through their final stages of life. Each individual state has specific laws and policies regarding the process of PAS; however, the requirements for a patient to be considered for PAS are similar (Death with Dignity, n.d.).

When a patient is laying in a hospital bed in pain and the medication no longer helps, the doctors and nurses can no longer help except to try and make the patient as comfortable as possible; why not let them choose to end their life. When the patient is forced to endure agonizing pain even though they want to die, some decided to end their lives on their own ending in a more traumatic and messy outcome then a humane injection or pill that will take away their pain and let them slip away easily. In my opinion there is no reason to suffer endlessly waiting on their imminent death, why not let a physician who knows what he/she is doing help the patient to end their lives on their own terms.

The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.

Humans should not be forced to live against their will when they are suffering from an incurable illness that will lead to an undignified or painful death. Doctors have enough knowledge and experience to know when a person is close to the end with no hope for a cure. It should be their legal right to choose to end their life in a humane way, instead of waiting for death knowing that it’s not going to be peaceful. It’s common practice to put an animal down to end its suffering, yet that same kindness is being denied to human beings who would choose it for themselves.

It is said that helping somebody who wants to die in a peaceful, painless way should be legal. Choosing how we die is a basic human freedom and if an individual's quality of life is deteriorating, due to a terminal disease such as cancer, they should have the right to stop their suffering via physician assisted suicide. It might be the case that the drugs for assisted suicide are far less expensive than the cost of their current medical care. This allows the government to save money as well as the lift the financial burden from the family of patients who are suffering from serious illness. Some people say that physician assisted suicide decreases the value of human life, but this isn't the case as it actually helps those who are terminal retain their dignity and choose their own death.

Should terminally ill people be allowed to decide rather or not they want to live in constant pain and suffering? “Physician-assisted death is defined as the physician providing the means for death, most often with a prescription. The patient not the physician will ultimately administer the lethal medication” (Braddock & Tonelli, 1998) To better explain physician-assisted suicide, a situation in which a patient kills him-or herself, using means which have been supplied by the physician, with the physician being aware that the patient will use those means for the purposes of suicide. Physicians are trained to heal the sick, care for the injured, and cure diseases. However, medical school does not prepare them when they cannot cure

Forcing terminally ill patients to suffer straight up to their last days is unacceptable and provisions can be made in order to allow competent patients to have a choice at the end of their lives.

It’s one’s right to decide what happens to their body. Deciding one wants to end their life because they’re terminally ill and in pain should be permissible. It's no worse than a cancer patient refusing treatment, or a person being taken off life support. In fact, it might be better for people to be able to access physician assisted suicide as those suffering with chronic pain and no hope for a better future will be able to choose to die painlessly and with much more dignity. When the government refuses patient’s physician assisted suicide, people do at times decide to take matters into their own hands and attempt to end their own lives. This can go wrong and cause the patient to be in even more pain. This only includes those who are mobile enough to attempt suicide as well. The law against physician assisted suicide can also drive loved ones to end the patient’s suffering: so they no longer have to see them live in agony and misery. This causes many issues as the loved one may go to jail, or deal with psychological guilt for the rest of their lives. It seems better to allow people the ability to access physician assisted suicide as it’s no different than when one refuses treatment which is only prolonging

Humans are given the right to life which states that “nobody should be arbitrarily deprived of their life.” Imagine being given your lifespan at birth, and a person that does not personally know you or your family told you how to spend those years. This is essentially what the government is doing by withholding and criminalizing patients of the resources with which to end their lives. If people have the right to life, that right should also include the right to control their quality of life; the right to life should not entail the life that has been chosen for the individual, but rather the life that the individual choses. Over 91 percent of patients said that losing autonomy was the reason that they chose physician assisted suicide, and 71 percent said that they wanted to die with dignity. The desire to increase autonomy among terminally ill individuals is one that is shared by Dr. Timothy Quill M.D., a palliative care specialist from the University of Rochester Medical Center: “Patients with serious illness wish to have control over their own bodies, their own lives, and concern about future physical and psychosocial distress. Some view potential access to physician-assisted death as the best option to address these concerns.” If we aim to promote freedom and autonomy of oneself, why then, should we deny people the right to choose when, and on what terms, they die? Supreme Court Justice William Brennan states that: "An ignoble end steeped in decay is abhorrent. A quiet, proud death, bodily integrity intact, is a matter of extreme

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are both types of medical assistance aiding in ending a suffering patient’s life. This pain may be due to a terminal illness and suffering as well as those in an irreversible coma. This practice of doctor assisted suicide is illegal in many countries, but is increasing in popularity as people start to recognize the positive aspects that euthanasia has to offer for those that fit the criteria. Euthanasia is essential for those, placed in such life diminishing situations, and whom no longer want to experience suffering. This is where the issue gets complicated, and many religious groups argue that individuals should not have the legal right to choose whether they get to die or not, but that it is simply in God’s hands. Suffering patients argue that they should be given the right to choose whether or not they have to experience this suffering, to end their life with the dignity they still have, and to alleviate the stress that their deteriorating life conditions have on their families, themselves and the entire healthcare system. Therefore, despite the many arguments, euthanasia can have a very positive impact on the lives and families of suffering individuals, as well as the Canadian healthcare system.

Euthanasia Should Not be Legalized      "It is conceivable, that life can deteriorate to the point where persons lose their dignity and self-respect and are unable to communicate; life in such a form no longer meets meets the basic criteria of human- ness."  (O'Keefe, A1)  Under these

Do people have the right to die? Is there, in fact, a right to die? Assisted suicide is a controversial topic in the public eye today. Individuals choose their side of the controversy based on a number of variables ranging from their religious views and moral standings to political factors. Several aspects of this issue have been examined in books, TV shows, movies, magazine articles, and other means of bringing the subject to the attention of the public. However, perhaps the best way to look at this issue in the hopes of understanding the motives behind those involved is from the perspective of those concerned: the terminally ill and the disabled.

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.

Webster defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” This controversial issue has split people regarding whether or not it should be deemed constitutional to kill these people out of what is viewed as mercy (“Euthanasia”). The time it took to do a simple task such as counting to ten allows 17 people to die (“Statistics”). While death is a natural process, lives are being taken on purpose on the grounds that it relieves pain. Commonly called euthanasia, this process is also known throughout the world as assisted suicide, though the two differ just slightly as assisted suicide is