The Importance Of Choosing The Right To Die

Everyone has the right to choose to end their lives with careful considerations. National Center for Health Statistics stated, “Although living longer

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.

possible choice that a person who is suffering from an incurable disease might have to make.

Death, dying and other ethical dilemmas are issues that all Intensive Care Units (ICUs) throughout the world have to face and address. In the Current Opinion in Critical Care, Vol 16, No 6, December 2010, p. 640, Dixon-Woods and Bosk, writing on the topic of “Death, dying and other ethical dilemmas” under the journal’s section of ‘Ethical, legal and organizational issues in the ICU’, have stated that “Recent ethnographic work suggests that ethical dilemmas associated with end-of-life care in ICU clearly persist, even if clinicians are now more open about patients’ chances of surviving. An Australian study identified how decisions and actions made

Imagine yourself lying in bed at the hospital hooked up to all sorts of machines that are just barely keeping you alive. Imagine the pain and suffering you are in on a daily bass and the medication being given to you isn’t cutting it any longer and all the doctors and nurses can do for you is just keep you comfortable. The doctors have literally given you no chance of survival and death is imminent. You have taken the time you have left to say your good-byes, came to terms with dying, and you are ready to leave this world. If you could choose to end your life instead of wasting away, would you take advantage of it?

In the United States, we argue over what rights we have as living people. We even argue over what defines “life,” and when the rights we do have are established. Contrary to that, there are only 3 states in this nation that support the exact opposite of that—Aid in Dying (AID). Also known as Physician-Assisted Suicide, it is one of the most controversial and most debated subjects in the country. It is a topic that needs more discussion, and it also needs more support. In the 3 states that have passed this legislation—Oregon, Washington, and Vermont—they require a patient to be both terminally ill, meaning having a prognosis of less than six months to live, and to be mentally capable of making such a decision. We have various laws surrounding our right to life. For example, we know that the law prohibits homicide. However, what about our right to die with dignity? There are so many arguments opposing Physician-Assisted Suicide that they seem to overshadow the arguments for it. As a society, we need to come together and set aside our personal beliefs in order to understand and embrace this alternative.

They were the subjects of public disputes with family members, court systems, medical professionals, the media, and society at large. Terri Schiavo, Nancy Cruzan and Karen Ann Quinlan; their names are synonymous with permanent vegetative state (PVS). The amazing technological advancements in modern medicine has been credited with keeping persons alive who in times past would have died, therefore this is remarkable for countless families. In the cases of the Quinlan’s, the Cruzan’s and many like them, families members find it unbearable to witness loved ones who linger indefinitely in PVS with little or no chance for recovery. There are many like Terri Schiavo’s parents, who value the lives of their love ones no matter how limited their

The right to die has been brought to the media and public spotlight through the cases of Karen Ann Quinlan, Cruzan v. Missouri, and Vacco v. Quill. This issue has been the topic of heated debate for years in the religious, scientific, and political community. This is because this topic ties into many communities and effects a large amount of people.

Euthanasia is argued to be defined as depriving of life or causing the death of a living being. A primary and controversial component to euthanasia is the idea that the physicians are acting in “God” like form. Christians are thought to believe that “thou shall not kill.” Christians believe that all human beings have been in created in God’s image and should be cherished in all circumstances. However, according to the article written by Ann-Marie Begley, she explains, “if only God can end a life, then clearly all instances of killing are wrong, including killing in war and self defense” (Begley 300). The only way this philosophy can be upheld is with complete pacifism in which most Christians would not agree with. The other argument opposing euthanasia is the concern about the perceived public role of the physician. The metaphorical stance of doctors seen around the country is that they are the ‘enemies of death.’ The fear is that the image would be eroded resulting in the lost of trust within the public. Ann-Marie Begley explains, “the trust does not rest with the cure and healing but with the compassion and a recognition that there comes a time when the healer has reached the limits of his or her ability” (Begley 303). The argument of depriving someone of life is also seen in equivalence to murder. Scholars also differentiate murder from euthanasia in that euthanasia there is no malice

Jack Kevorkian, the assisted suicide advocate died at the age of 83 on June 3, 2011. Supporters say he was a compassionate caregiver who paid a severe penalty for helping chronically ill patients end their suffering. Critics, however, say Kevorkian’s compassion clouded his ethical physician responsibility. He first captured the public’s attention in 1990 when he put a needle in the arm of Janet Atkins. Although this needle did end her life, his compassion, considered clouded by critics, spared her from the painful progression of her Alzheimer’s disease (Hulett, 2011). On the day of his death, Lessenberry stated “It will be very interesting 50 years from now to see whether Kevorkian is regarded by history as this sort of a bizarre crank or whether he'll be regarded as a modern medical pioneer (as cited in Hulett 2011).

While examining the issue related to end-of-life decisions raise both legal and ethical concerns. The issues may be accountable by a number of issues like who the patient is, who has legal competence to determine what course of action is in the best interest of the patient, Pennsylvania state laws, the values of the patient or the patients parents, and the counselor of the patient providing the services. Standard A.9.c reports counselors have the option to break or not break confidentiality in this situation. Throughout the decision making process, Clinical Mental Health counselors need to be engaged in consultation or supervision since the professional has legal, ethical, and moral dirty to warn when the suspect their client may be in danger (Newsome, Gladding, Pg. 68)

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

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder and served an eight year prison sentence. (Fridstein. 1). This accomplished physician graduated from the University of Michigan with an impressively high IQ. He was a writer, inventor, movie producer and classical composer. (Kevorkian). Why would a man so intelligent and successful end up in jail for murder? Well believe or not he purposely challenged the legal system in a one man crusade to ignite a national discussion on the subjects of assisted suicide, Euthanasia and one’s constitutional right to choose. Euthanasia is a medical procedure that involves a person being induced with a soothing, relaxing medicine that allows them a peaceful passing. Dr. Kevorkian’s attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, summed it up best when he said, "We’re just talking about the right not of children and not of mentally incompetent people but the right of mentally competent adults to make decisions about their own bodies as to how much suffering they have to undergo.” (Kevorkian). Euthanasia is not for people experiencing temporary illness or unhappiness. It’s for people who are imprisoned by their own unbearable physical pain for the rest of their lives with no way out. Is it fair to not give those people a choice? Is it fair to make them slowly deteriorate while losing their dignity? I think not. That is why I support euthanasia being legalized, “Dying is not a crime.” (Fridstein. 1).

Moreover, euthanasia is restricted by the church. This is another important point that we should consider, especially for religious people. According to “Death and Dignity” it is emphasized that “Life is a gift from God and it is only God who can take it back”. Christian’s point of view considers euthanasia as a crime against church, religion and God. Christians consider this as an immoral act. When considering the religious factor as well, we can conclude that no one has the right to take control over our lives, especially when we are unconscious.

The ethical issue is Euthanasia, there are many groups that support or oppose this issue. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The different viewpoints are based around whether it is humane to assist someone in dying and whether it should be illegal for someone to assist the death of someone who has a terminal illness and are suffering incurable pain. Groups that oppose the issue generally believe that it is inhumane to end someone 's life early, these groups generally believe these people should be given care and as much comfort as possible until their last days. Groups that support the issue generally believe that if someone has lost their mental state or are suffering unbearable pain that cannot be cured, that they should be allowed the option of euthanasia because it is inhumane to make someone suffer unbearable pain if they do not need to. An ethical issue brings systems of morality and principles into conflict, ethical issues are more subjective and opinionated and generally cannot be solved with facts, laws and truth. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because there are two equally unacceptable options. It is considered wrong