The Decision For Life Of Terminally Ill

Imagine laying in a hospital bed living everyday in extreme pain with no hope of getting better. This scenario explains what many people go through everyday, which is a living with a terminal illness. M. Lee, a science historian, and Alexander Stingl a sociologist, define terminal illness as “an illness from which the patient is not expected to recover even with treatment. As the illness progresses death is inevitable” (1). There are not many options for the terminally ill besides dying a slow and painful death, but assisted suicide could be best option for these patients. Assisted suicide is “any case in which a doctor gives a patient (usually someone with a terminal illness) the means to carry out their own suicide by using a lethal dose of medication” (Lee and Stingl 1). Some feel that assisted suicide is unnecessary because it is too great of a controversy and will only cause problems in society. However, assisted suicide should be legal in the United States as long as there are strict regulations to accompany it.

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

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.

Terminally ill individuals suffer during their last days, so most of them decide to end their lives. Physician-assisted suicide is the voluntary termination of one’s own life by the administration of a lethal substance. Some believe that if the physician-assisted suicide is legal in the country, it will give the insurance companies more money, also that some physicians will end patients live without their concern; however, terminally ill individuals shouldn’t suffer and live with pain, likewise the patients live with their body deteriorating and that is not quality of life.

Modern medical expertise has achieved remarkable achievements in lengthening the lives of humans. Ventilators can support a patient’s weakening lungs and pills can sustain that patient’s bodily processes. For those patients who have a genuine chance of surviving a sickness or accident, medical technology is science’s greatest gift to mankind. For the terminally ill, however, it is just a means of prolonging suffering. Medicine is supposed to alleviate the suffering that a patient undergoes. Yet the only thing that medical technology does for a dying patient is give that patient more pain and agony day after day and cause them to spend more money that could go to help their family after the patient passes away. Some terminal patients in the past have gone to their doctors and asked for a final medication that would take all the pain away— lethal drugs. For example, imagine a woman who was suffering from a severe case of rheumatoid arthritis, begged her doctor to assist her to die because she could no longer stand the pain. Another example is a lady with an inoperable brain

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

ed. For the immense number of ill patients, the solution to their suffering is predominately quality sedative care, of which I ardently encourage. Though there are ill patients who seek sedative care, there is a significant amount of terminally ill patients for whom palliative care is not the solution and who suffer tremendously until they die. These are the type of patients who wish to end their suffering by making the decision to end their lives with the assistance of doctors. This also allows them to end their lives with dignity, and place of their choice. The only way to prevent suffering of this amount is to revise the law so patients are allowed to lawfully receive assistance to peacefully pass away.

The author’s claim is that if a human being is near death and is suffering more to stay alive rather than if they were to pass on peacefully, then it is not so harmful to the patient and the doctors to let the patient pass on without technology prolonging their death. The intended audience is aimed at those who would like to have everything done to keep someone they love, alive longer, when its to the point of the patient being in more pain alive than if they were not.

In conclusion, should people that suffer from terminal illness have the right to die with dignity, whether that means ending treatment or chemical assistance? When it is considered inhumane to cause something cruel and unusual punishment by torturing someone. What then is being said when a person is suffering and wasting away with nothing that can be done to end it, but to allow them to die if that is what they choose. It should be the right all people have to choose to die with what they see as being

There is no doubt that the medical field has gone through numerous changes due to the advancement in technology. In reference to Spekowius and Thomas, technological development has been the primary driving force towards the improvement in medical care that has seen numerous lives saved. Nonetheless, despite the advancements, chronic diseases such as cancer remain without a cure. Palliative care remains the only process that can keep individuals alive and comfortable for as long as it is medically possible. However, there has been debate over the effectiveness of palliative care in reference to care offered to chronic disease patients. Euthanasia has been an option in such discussions. The view of assisted suicide as a medical solution for

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.

The main argument in support of Physician assisted Suicide is that every competent individual has the right to decide on the manner in which to live life. That autonomy should also be extended to persons suffering from terminal conditions and therefore should control the timing and the manner of death they wish to face (Hawkins, 2002). Every person has the option to live quality life and avert any suffering and pain and be allowed to do in a dignified manner. Thus terminally ill patient should allowed to die in dignity without the need to face any anguish and that this autonomy must not be taken away from them.

Often times when a terminal patient has six months to live they still have autonomy. One would need to be autonomous to be approved for PAS and as such we can infer that the patient is able to make peace, tie up loose ends, find comfort in religion, and be comforted with family before being consumed by the disease. Giving the patient the option to die with dignity vs. naturally where time and treatments slowly deteriorate the mind and body can offer freedom from suffering for the patient and family. For example if a patient that felt ill and after medical testing receives a diagnosis that she has a rare systemic cancer and at best has six months to live. That patient then could with the support of her family discuss everything that needs to be taken care of prior to the advancement of the disease. After taking care of business, the patient could discuss with her family and friends ways to create special days leading up to her last day. This option could give the family, as well as the patient, the possibility to say goodbye before the disease has removed autonomy and personality. This patient’s family would not have to watch their daughter, wife, sister, or mother suffer greatly to the point she screams for God to take her.

Some people argue that in favor of physician suicide and believe that the decisions about circumstances and time of people death are personal, and that competent people should have the right to choose their own timing and manner of death. Others believe that people shouldn’t suffer, because they are in a lot of pain, have a loss of sense of self and no functional capacities’. So

In summary, there will always be difficulty on weighing in which decision is more appropriate - is it more proper to prolong life with excruciating procedures or let it end in peace. The author was effective in persuading the readers that with some terminally-ill patients that it’s indeed more humane to allow the patient to die in peace as opposed to having them suffer all the excruciating procedures that really don’t guarantee prolonging life or that even if it did that it would be a quality