The Act Of Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide

Furthermore, euthanasia is a disgrace to humanity. An individual person or group shouldn’t decide how, when, and if another person should die. The act of ending someone’s life just because another decided that the individual’s life gives no worth to the person or to society is unjust. That is simply the person’s opinion, and their opinion shouldn’t end a precious human life. Usually, people with disabilities who request euthanasia, do so because of how others treat them, not because of their actual disability. If we were to respect those with disabilities, that would remove hardships, not death. Another reason why euthanasia is wrong is that a person who can’t think straight or is a human vegetable, a person who does not have mental or physical abilities (O’Steen). She/he can be killed by a guardian’s request according to law, even if the patient never showed a desire to die. The Declaration of Independence states our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and euthanasia goes against that. If the right to live is reduced, all over rights are worthless (“Euthanasia Statement”).

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?

Being able to decide the fate of your own life is not an easy decision to make, and is not something to be toyed with. However, when someone is in a desperate situation, and must choose before they lose their mind (quite literally), death may be more appealing, instead of living, and being forced to suffer. By legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, we would provide “vulnerable” patients with better overall protection and health care, give patients (who are excruciatingly suffering and have no chance of recovery) the option to end their lives before they ever needed to go through such an ordeal and giving them peace of mind, and spare the families of the patients the emotional pain of watching their loved one slowly and painfully passing away. For these reasons, I believe that euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide should be legalized in Canada.

Active versus passive euthanasia are two different, albeit arguably similar, ways in which an individual is helped to die. Passive euthanasia involves withholding life-saving medical treatment or removal from life

In any discussion of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) it is important to differentiate between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Although they may have similar goals, they differ in whether or not the physician participates in the action that finally ends life. In physician-assisted suicide the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act (e.g. the physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide). However, in euthanasia the physician performs the intervention themselves. Currently, just four states (Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana) allow physician-assisted suicide.

Finding common ground on questions like euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) will never be possible, given the strong religious convictions that many Christians, Jews and Muslims have always had against any form of self-destruction. For them, suicide is a sin and killing is always wrong, except of course in wartime situations or when the state has to use force in policing and maintaining order. Their views are based on the Bible or other sacred writings as well as strongly-held religious traditions and convictions, and therefore are not going to change quickly or easily. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, assisted suicide is not a right, and it remains illegal in most states. Liberal Oregon is one exception to this rule, and even though its law permitting PAS was challenged in the courts for many years, in the end the Supreme Court did not forbid the states from passing such laws altogether. Poor quality care in hospitals and nursing homes at the end of life makes suicide appealing to many people, especially those with painful and lingering terminal illnesses which contemporary medicine cannot cure. Many states since already allow patients to refuse treatment in these situations, to die without having to endure extraordinary lifesaving measures, and to withhold food and water from comatose and brain dead patients. Over the last thirty years, the overall trend has been increasingly liberal or libertarian in allowing individuals greater freedom of choice over how

On September 9th, the state assembly in California approved the End of Life Option Act, which allows terminally ill patients to end their lives with the assistance of a physician. According to the legislature, patients who seek assisted-death must only have six months to live and are required to submit a written request as well as two oral requests at least 15 days apart. (Reilly). While Gov. Jerry Brown still has yet to approve this new law, the act has shed light on the topic of euthanasia/physician-assisted suicide. With the pending status of the law, the question remains on whether or not the act should be passed and if so should the US take initiative and begin to legalize assisted-death in other states. Currently, euthanasia is illegal in every state; however, physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washington, Vermont New Mexico, and Montana (article). Given its rather controversial nature, the issue of legalizing assisted-death has divided certain stakeholders on each side of the issue and contains strong proponents and opponents for this ethical and legal debate.

The World Health Organization (WHO) Centre for Health Development (2004) explains that the term euthanasia comes from the Greek word for “good death”. The modern definition for euthanasia, according to the WHO, is “a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of either painlessly putting to death or failing to prevent death from natural causes in cases of terminal illness or irreversible coma of another person” (WHO, 2004, p. 25). There are two types of euthanasia: active and passive. Active euthanasia involves an action that directly causes another’s death and can be voluntary or involuntary (Leming & Dickinson, 2016). Passive euthanasia involves the withholding of treatment from a terminally ill patient with the intended consequence of hastening death; this can involve refraining from nutrition, hydration, cardiopulmonary resuscitation or potentially life-saving

Throughout ones lifetime there is a set of experiences that affects ones moral views, causing us to distinguish right from wrong in certain situations. One topic that has caused major controversy as to whether it is ethical or not is euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. There are some who view this issue as unethical and murder, and others who see it as a basic constitutional human right. Many people differ in where they place the line that separates allowing one to die and murder, and the biggest issue would be as to whether the patient can competently agree to their death, hence the word suicide. After researching both sides of the issue I have decided that I will be advocating for the view that physician assisted suicided and

Conclusion: Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is a very complicated topic to discuss with heavy roots in past traditions and religious beliefs. The debate in the U.S. is still ongoing. These issues will most likely be a topic of discussion for a very long time due to the ethical and moral standpoints, and we will see what the next years bring in relation to the advancements or halts of their

Euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is described as the practice of purposefully ending the life of a sick person per their request. It is illegal in most countries and most, but not all, US states. The process and regulations to being granted the legal right to euthanasia varies in each area. There are many stipulations within the law to avoid abuse. Among other things, patients must be of sound mind and having been suffering for some time. PAS is extremely controversial for several reasons. Medical professionals argue whether or not it is ethical and if it abides by the Hippocratic oath. And religious persons

Abstract: Euthanasia and physician assisted-suicide are terms used to describe the process in which a doctor of a sick or disabled individual engages in an activity which directly or indirectly leads to their death. This behavior is engaged by the healthcare provider based on their humanistic desire to end suffering and pain. This is an act that defies the oath each doctor is under and should not be treated lightly, and very strict rules and guidelines should be enforced if an individual decides to take this route with his or her life.

People have different perspectives and views on Euthanasia or Physician-assisted suicide and how they should or should not be legal. In some cases people feel as if the patient who are suffering from a terminal painful disease should have the right to commit suicide in other cases people feel as if the patient is being selfish to end their life when you have loved ones that are going to suffer because they killed themselves. People feel it should or should not be legal because of right to die, living wills, and Hippocratic Oath.

Euthanasia is a term used to express a death that is good, Kind and accomplished with a sense of dignity (Kowalski, 1996). Euthanasia has been split up into the two groups of voluntary and involuntary and each can be described as either active or passive. The refusing or complete departure from medical aid with the full consent of the patient is known as voluntary Euthanasia. Involuntary Euthanasia is the withdrawal of this assistance without the agreement of the patient (Kowalski, 1996). Active euthanasia involves the action of death or the actual administration

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.