The Article On The Right Of Die Still Seems More Theory Than Practice Essay

Having the right to die is a very controversial and popular topic. It is so popular that it is even currently under debate. Having the right to die means that a terminally ill or chronically in pain patient would have the choice to medically end their life by way of medication or injection. Having the right to die can also mean choosing to be taken off machines that are keeping a person alive or it can mean being given a lethal concoction of medication in order to end a life. There are many different ways that right to die can be utilized. The basic procedures are simple in principle: Doctors certify that the patient qualifies under the law, by virtue of fulfilling the stated criteria then after appropriate waiting periods, the physician writes a prescription for life-ending chemicals. The laws do not specify how and when the patient should take the chemicals intended to bring immediate death, so that part of the process is left in the hands of the individuals(2007, January 1).

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

Abstract: This paper discusses the medical ethics of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). Focusing on the ideas of legal vs illegal, the different views of PAS will both be addressed. While active euthanasia is illegal, passive euthanasia, or allowing natural death, is completely legal everywhere. PAS will help patients end suffering for themselves at the end of their lives, as well as the family's. The price of the drug may be expensive but the price of medical treatments continues to rise. The Hippocratic Oath does not support the aid in ending a life, however it has been changed in the past. Many citizens are afraid that is PAS was considered legal, it would grow into something even more illegal being debated. Also, the religious aspect of the end of life had conflicting views as some believe PAS is ending suffering, a good deed, and other believe PAS is not respecting a human life. PAS is only legal in seven states but has gained the attention of many others and other places around the world.

On the other hand, it is offered that people should be given the freedom to choose a peaceful death at their convenience. Burke Balch explains the opposing argument; “They argue that society should respect and defer to the freedom of choice such people exercise in asking to be killed” (Balch and O’Bannon 1). The ‘right to die’ campaign, where some believe it is a personal right to ask for death, is a prevalent push towards the legalization of physician assisted suicide. However, the legalization of the ‘right to die’ can become a slippery slope to abuse of this right. Randall O’Bannon, Director of Research at National Right to Life, demonstrates this slippery slope; “the so-called ‘right to die’ is very likely in practice to become a ‘duty to die.’ Many consider the law to be the teacher of what is right and proper, and such a codification would be manipulated by the health care industry” (Balch and O’Bannon). The practice of physician assisted suicide could quickly become abused by people who see the human life of those who are

There is also debate as to whether or not non-participating states should make legislation to legalize this life ending option. Those who are against legalization of physician assisted death often present with the arguments that legalization will lead to abuse of the practice and consequently harsh treatments of our nation’s sickest patients. They also argue that it is an unethical practice in which mortals are “playing God” and determining where the line between life and death is. This group also establishes that physician assisted death is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors vow to “do no harm” to their patients. Additionally, they maintain the argument that all human lives have value from the time of conception until natural death and allowing physician assisted death would be a premature limitation of an individual’s life. The opposition, however, says that physician assisted death is a dignified treatment for hopeless patients whose only alternative treatment is prolonged suffering until death. Additionally, they argue that allowing doctors to participate in physician assisted death upholds the Hippocratic Oath because forcing a patient to endure undue suffering against their will is in fact doing harm. Also, a major argument states

The ethics of physician-assisted suicide of terminally ill patients is a very ambiguous topic. Critics see physician-assisted deaths as normalization of the growing death culture that started in 1973 with the legalization of abortion.

The right to doctor assisted suicide is a very controversial topic throughout the world. Some believe that it is morally incorrect, whereas others feel empathy for the suffering who wish to put an end to the pain. Without a doubt, patients should have the right to put an end to life when suffering or when death is imminent. With the help of doctor assisted suicide, healthcare implications are lessened, the burden on families is relieved and patients suffering can come to an end. These are some of the reasons why doctor assisted suicide needs be legalized in all parts of the world.

In 1776, our forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence, guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This brings up the question, if you have the right to life, do you have the right to death? After all, it is your life and no one else’s, right? This is the question at the very center of the controversial debate on the legalization of physician assisted suicide in the United States. Anti-physician assisted suicide groups often argue that no individual truly wants to end their life. However, that statement does not ring true to those who would actually utilize physician assisted suicide- terminally ill patients. Imagine being diagnosed with a terminal disease, followed by months and sometimes years of treatment that brings insufferable side effects due to countless medicines, drugs and surgeries only to be told that you have a minimal chance of survival and will have to undergo treatment for the rest of your life. This is the bleak reality for many who are terminally ill. A compassionate individual would conclude that it is not fair for patients to be forced to live this kind of life or lack thereof, if they do not wish to do so. Physician assisted suicide should be a legal option to competent, terminally ill patients in the United States in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital costs on their loved ones and families and to preserve the individual right of people to determine their

It is the conclusion of Marcia Angell from the Supreme Court and Physician-Assisted Suicide in article #1 that a physician’s main duties are to respect a patient’s autonomy and relieve suffering. She believes even if this means assisting in a patient’s death. Her conclusion is based on several pretenses. First, the premise is the most ethical in medicine the respect for each patient’s autonomy. If this principle conflicts with others, it should always take precedence. She argues that sometimes physician’s need the option regarding hastening death, although this should be considered as a last resort. She considers that death is different for all and can be fast and peaceful or slow and cruel. She argues that death if withdrawing life-sustaining treatment simply allows the disease to take its course (Kaebnick, 2001). Three methods of hastening death are: withdrawing treatment to sustain life, assisting suicide, and euthanasia. Her concern about this is this is less patient-centered thinking and more physician centered? She further hopes that it will become a choice for those patients who need

The patient has the liberty to chose death and is a right that is possess by an individual and the government cannot control it. Like mentioned above, most people think of the guideline that doctors should not do any harm, but most people do not think about the compassion that doctors should have. Being caring for a patient, is moral.

According to Rachels (248), a proponent of euthanasia, states the act is justified if death is the only way out of one’s awful pain. On the other hand, Gay Williams (353), an opponent of euthanasia, views it as immoral to take someone’s life before his or her own natural death time reaches. Medically, euthanasia can be acceptable for those patients that are extremely suffering and their doctors have no idea on what to do to help a patient whose condition is only worsening. Often, it is administered on consultation with the family members of the patient in question. However, health practitioners are held within the bounds of professionalism where they are made to understand sanctity of life. Doctors are not supposed to decide the future of

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.

As human beings who prize and value their autonomy, one feels entitled to choose at the end of one's life though no such power is present or possible at the beginning. Moreover, one cannot possess a 'right to die', at least not in the same way one is said to have the right to life. In fact, the very notion of the right to die is an absurd claim, because we all will die: this is an inevitable, undisputed fact of human life. What one really means to say is that one should have the right to die 'on one's own terms.' Yet, let us look at the right to life. If someone has an absolute right to life, then within that right is embedded the obligation or duty of others to respect and preserve this right. The 'right to die', if it is also said to be a right in this sense, it must also imply an obligation to the person who has claim to this right. So, others, doctors or family members, would have the obligation to kill someone who makes a stable, competent request for death. This, of course, would have serious implications for health care providers - particularly with regard to what end of life care really

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.

Today we are face with death in a different setting then our ancestors, instead of dying at a younger age and dying in our home with our families, people are now dying at a hospital or in a medical setting. We are living longer because of the advances in medicine, this is causing us to develop diseases that our ancestors never had to face. Our ancestors did not live long enough to develop some of the diseases we face today. As Jones (2011) provides, “we don’t just die of different diseases then our ancestors, we also die in different circumstances” (p. 302). The changes in circumstances have caused us to reevaluate what is believed to be ethical when faced with dying. There are many medical options a terminal ill or elderly patient that is dying can choose from, however there is great debate whether some of these options are ethical.