The Ethics Of Executions Should Be Legal

In today's society, one of the most controversial issues is physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Many people feel that it is wrong for people, regardless of their health condition, to ask their health care provider to end their life; while others feel it is their right to be able to choose how and when they die. When a physician is asked to help a patient into death, they have many responsibilities that come along with that single question. Among those responsibilities are: providing valid information as to the terminal illness the patient is suffering, educating the patient as to what their final options may be, making the decision of whether or not to help the patient into death, and also if they do decide to help,

Imagine that you are arrested and going to be tried for a crime that you did, or did not, commit. What if you cannot afford the cost of a lawyer? Will you be able to handle the physical and mental toll that all of the appeals have on a person? The death penalty, or capital punishment, is one of the most debated topics in America. It has been used for centuries, but many claim it to be barbaric, and want the practice to end all together. The death penalty should only be used in cases where there is absolute evidence that the criminal is guilty, because life in prison can be an alternative, there are many flaws in the justice system, and it can be a cruel and unusual punishment.

Physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia is still under scrutiny for a number of reasons. “In spring, 1996, the Ninth and Second Circuits were the first circuit courts in the country to find a constitutional prohibition against laws which make physician-assisted suicide a crime” (Martyn & Bourguignon, 1997). New York was one of the states that followed this prohibition. Eventually, The Ninth and Second Circuit, “allow physician-assisted suicide while attempting to protect individuals from unacceptable harms, such as involuntary euthanasia” (Martyn & Bourguignon, 1997). An assumption can be made, that euthanasia involves a licensed physician to play an active role in this partaking, and it’s where the patient prepares to die at.

In today's society, a very controversial issue is physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. Many people feel that it is wrong for people, regardless of their health situation, to ask their doctor or attendant to end their life. Others feel it is their right to be able to choose how and when they die. When a doctor is asked to help a patient to their death, they have certain responsibilities that come along with it. Among these duties, they must prove valid information as to the terminal illness the patient is suffering. They also must educate the patient as to what their final options may be. When they make the decision of whether or not to help the patient into death, and should they

Moral behavior of a murderer is considered lacking in many cases, but how are physicians who administer a lethal dosage of drugs any different? There are many physicians who are participating in assisted suicide, but they all have lives within their hands. They are responsible for the lives they have been entrusted with. In Norway any physician that helped with assisted suicide was charged with “accessory to murder.” In the United States there are many laws regarding murder, but accessory to murder is also a charge. A person who is considered an accessory to murder is “not typically present at the scene of the crime, but contributes to the success of the crime before or after the fact.” This statement creates a controversial wave within the country. Those physicians who are prescribing deadly doses of medication are knowingly providing a means to kill someone. Even though the physician does not administer the drugs themselves, the patient is still being killed because of the physician’s prescription.

In our country the premise of physician assisted death conjures images of suicidal madmen, hell bent on death and mayhem. The reality is, that could not be farther from the truth. So why is there a stigma on assisting patients with taking their own life? Others look at this as a dignified means to those suffering a terrible fate. There are many issues that weight heavy on the difference between physician assisted and vs. natural death. Is it cruel to let a terminal ill patient who will suffer horrendously until nature take its course? Would it be more humane to allow a patient to pass peacefully without the suffering or enduring painful end? This report will examine physician assisted death

People become doctors in order to save lives, so it could potentially be hard for them to agree if someone comes to them asking to be killed. The hippocratic oath was an oath that has been revised and edited for centuries in order to fit with modern medicine. Before the editing of the oath many common procedures and practices would have been unethical. While many physicians have left the old oath in the past there are some doctors and lawmakers who still hold on to the old values of the Hippocratic oath which has strict rules against abortions and other procedures also prescribing lethal doses of drugs.(www.pbs.org) Other than the oath the physician also has a personal opinion and that will play a factor in rather or not they decide to assist the patient.

The direct arguments in physicians-assisted suicide state that under no circumstances is the killing of another human being justified. Life is precious no matter how low the quality is and, should be valued at all times.

It is understandable that some patients in extreme pressure such as those suffering from a terminal, painful illness may come to decide that they would rather die than live. However, allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer and would be difficult or impossible to control.

Texas was the first state to use lethal injection for execution in 1982. Fast forward 33 years, the topic of medical professions participating is an intense debatable topic. There have been multiple attempts of execution that have failed terribly; however not all of the mishandled executions were due to the lethal injection, but also electrocution and asphyxiation. The moral question here is though, as a role in the medical profession who is dedicated in preserving life when there is hope, should they or should they not participate in an execution? Although it is necessary for doctors to check on people physically and mentally, it is not necessary for them to carry out the execution.

Another argument against physician assisted suicide is that it violates the oath that all doctors must take the, the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic oath, “specifically notes that the physician will give no deadly medicine”(Fuller 11). Just like any other document with mandating guidelines, there is room for interruption interpretations. If a physician is following the letter of the law, they would follow the literal interpretation of the words in the oath but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law( ##Spirt of the law idea## The over arching idea of the Hippocratic oath is to “do no harm”. In the award winning documentary, “ How to Die in Oregon” Dr. Katherine Morris sheds light on a new outlook on “do not harm”. The documentary

Is the role of a medical professional to ensure the health and comfort of their patients, or to help them end their lives? Since Dr. Kevorkian assisted in the suicide of Janet Adkins in 1990, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) has been one of the most controversial issues in the medical field today. While some view it as an individual right, others view it as an unethical issue that goes against medical ethics and religious values. Mr. H. M. is an elderly man who is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and no chance of improvement. After excruciating pain and suffering, he has decided to request physician-assisted death in his home state of Oregon. Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (DDA) states that terminally ill patients are allowed to use

(American magazine) The A.M.A. evaded a major part of the ethical problem. When doctors use their stethoscopes to indicate whether the electric chair has done its job, they are assisting the executioner.This issue has been much discussed in recent years because several states have provided for execution by lethal injection. The AMA's policy is clear and unambiguous – requiring physicians to participate in executions violates their oath to protect lives and introduces deep ambiguity into the very definition of medical care.To have the state mandate that physician skills be turned against a human being undermines a basic ethical foundation of medicine – first, do no

There are a number of suspected “mercy killings” by doctors or nurses who wished to help their patients escape the pain of possibly terminal diseases. Unfortunately, there are also people who have randomly killed those in their care simply because they

Do you think that death penalty will give justice for the innocent lives? The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy in the whole world because people have different beliefs for giving justice to the innocents. For some people, they want it legal because death penalty will give justice for the innocent victims and a form of vengeance to the criminals. On the flipside, other people don’t agree with it because a lot of innocents are putting into death. These people believe that it is better to put the criminal into jail without a parole unless there is a proof that he or she is innocent instead of removing the human rights of the criminal to live and have a chance to change his or her life. Although some people think that death penalty should be legal, I believe it should not be legal.