The Importance Of Legalizing Euthanasia In Ohio

Today, there is a large debate over the situation and consequences of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act of ending a human’s life by lethal injection or the stoppage of medication, or medical treatment. It has been denied by most of today’s population and is illegal in the fifty states of the United States. Usually, those who undergo this treatment have a disease or an “unbearable” pain somewhere in the body or the mind. Since there are ways, other than ending life, to stop pain caused by illness or depression, euthanasia is immoral, a disgrace to humanity, according to the Hippocratic Oath, and should be illegal throughout the United States.

Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) has grown into quite a contentious topic over the years. According to Breitbart and Rosenfeld (1), physician-assisted suicide can be defined as “a physician providing medications or advice to enable the patient to end his or her own life.” One may find many articles that are written by physicians, pharmacists, patients, and family of patients who receive PAS; from there, it is possible to gain a better understanding of what PAS is and how it has become a rising issue in the United States. For readers who have not heard about PAS and what it entails, it is important to understand that this is a debatable topic that should be approached lightly and non-aggressively in the United States when factors such as offering terminally ill patients the right to end their suffering, the likelihood of overall healthcare cost to decrease, and the comparison of palliative care to physician-assisted suicide are examined.

There are several ethical and legal issues that are raised by the majority concerning the legalization of physician assisted suicide and the role of nurses in the process. Assisted suicide is a legal act of assisting those who are suffering from a deadly illness in ending their lives by providing them the means to do it (Griffith, 2014). Netherland was the first country to legalize physician assisted suicide. In 1994, Oregon became the first state to legalize physician assisted suicide by passing a bill called “death with dignity” followed by Washington and Montana. The law states that in order to be eligible for gaining access to assisted suicide, the patient must be left with 6 months to live, signed by two physicians and mentally stable enough to make decisions. Euthanasia is an alternative term used to describe the act of putting an end to a life in order to spare the individual’s suffering from an incurable or a painful disease process. It is classified to passive, active, involuntary and voluntary euthanasia. Active euthanasia is an act that is actively done to terminate life, while passive is when treatment is stopped in order to shorten the patient’s life. Involuntary euthanasia refers to a decision that is made by the health care providers without the patient knowledge and voluntary refers to patients that knowingly request to end their lives (Levy et al, 2013).

The legalization of physician assisted suicide (PAS) in Oregon in 1994 changed the face of the argument between those who believe in death with dignity and those who believe in letting nature take its course. It was a major victory for PAS advocates as the first state in America had legalized PAS in the country’s history. In 2008, the neighboring state of Washington followed suit with a similar law and legalized PAS by a 58-42 margin. Vermont legalized it in 2013. PAS has also been decriminalized in the state of Montana. The assisted suicide of a 29-year-old Oregon woman with terminal brain cancer named Brittany Maynard in late 2014 brought light to the debate again.

[The criminal code of Canada states] “everyone who councils, aids, or abets someone to commit suicide whether or not suicide ensures , is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.” 1 It is this law which violates the human right to life as well as creates a widely spread controversy over whether or not euthanasia should become legalized in Canada. 2 Legalizing euthanasia would create many benefits for those who suffer from a terminal illness, giving them freedom and control over their own lives. Euthanasia should be legalized in Canada; this is because the euthanasia law is not consistently applied, it would create medical advances for Canada which would bring the country up to speed with other countries around the world, and legalizing euthanasia would benefit those who wish to die by preventing inhumane suicidal crimes from occurring. 3

The topic of legalizing Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) has long been a controversial issue in Canada and has recently received increased attention. In 1993, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide. Two decades later, the Supreme Court of Canada began to deliberate whether to uphold or strike down the law prohibiting doctor-assisted suicide. On October 15th (What is the year), the nine justices of the Supreme Court heard impassioned pleas for overturning Canada’s absolute prohibition against assisted suicide, with proponents arguing laws that consider the act equivalent to murder are a violation of personal autonomy and infringe the Charter of Rights and Freedom that provides for “life, liberty and security of the person” (Connor, 2014). The hearing sparked fresh debates across the country. Opponents argue that legalizing physician-assisted suicide would lead society down a dangerous "slippery slope" that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable. In addition, opponents argue that legalizing physician-assisted suicide gives too much power to doctors and it may reduce the availability of palliative care. The aim of this paper is to make a comprehensive argument in favor of physician-assisted suicide.

Suffering is a constant companion of humans today; people experience it every day, whether it be emotional or physical, internal or external. Living with a terminal illness is also living with suffering, both because of the physical pain that is felt, and also the emotional blows the patient experiences every day. A terminally ill patient has a monumental part of their life taken from them. Few aspects of life still remain in their control, because of doctors, family members, and the illness itself. However, there is a practice that places a final decision, the right to choose the circumstances of death, with the patient. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS), or physician

Over the last thirty years the fight over assisted suicide has earned a spot in the national spotlight, for both positive and negative reasons depending on your stance on the issue. There have been challenges made based off the constitution, the right to privacy and moral reasons for both sides. While there have been many notable persons of interest during this time some have helped the cause as others have hindered progress.

With an advancing medical field, new technology allows doctors to do almost the impossible. Automatic genetic analysis, restoration of eyesight, and robotic limbs remain as some of the most cutting edge innovative technology in the medical field. Society witnesses the creation of even more medical breakthroughs, however, the application of new found research enhances and prolongs the quality of life for humans. A growing elderly population prompts the progression of superior palliative care and hospice care. While end of life care attempts to make the last months of a person’s life as comfortable as possible, ultimately palliative and hospice care become ineffective in helping with the excruciating pain. Thus, the legalization of physician assisted suicide provides a compassionate death while preserving the concept of patient autonomy.

Since Oregon legalized physician assisted suicide for the terminally in 1977, more than 700 people have taken their lives with prescribed medication, including Brittany Maynard (NPR Staff, 2014). After, months of suffering from debilitating headaches, 29 year old Brittany Maynard learned that she had brain cancer (Maynard, 2014). Because her tumor was so large, doctors prescribed full brain radiation. With this treatment, the hair on her scalp would have been singed off, her scalp would be left covered with first-degree burns, and her quality of life would be gone (Maynard, 2014). Brittany began to research death with dignity, an end-of-life option for mentally competent, terminally ill patients with a prognosis of six months or less to live.

Throughout the course of history, advances in medical technology have prolonged the length of life and delayed death; however, terminal illnesses still exist and modern medicine is often unable to prevent death. Many people turn to a procedure known as Physician-Assisted suicide, a process by which a doctor aids in ending a terminally ill patient’s life. This procedure is painless and effective, allowing patients to control their death and alleviate unnecessary suffering. In spite of these benefits, Physician-Assisted suicide is illegal in many places both nationally and internationally. Despite the fact that Physician-Assisted suicide is opposed by many Americans and much of the world on ethical and moral grounds such as those based on

Picture this, a 12-year-old quadriplegic with the functional level of a three-month-old. She can’t talk, walk, or feed herself. Repeat operations, surgeries, hospital visits, and constant excruciating pain. She does, however, respond to affection and smiles when she is happy. Her condition incurable, but potentially manageable. Her name is Tracy, her father killed her as an act of “mercy killing” because he could not bare to watch her suffering anymore. This paper will take a critical look, from a disability framework, what the risk associated with de-criminalizing euthanasia, or assisted suicide may be. Looking at both sides of the debate, through real-life cases, such as Tracy’s, lived in experience, research, and by contrasting it with the

Ethics are the moral standard one holds to guide them through right and wrong. Yet not everyone believes the same things. One moral to one person may not be the same to another. What people use to determine those wrongs and rights are laws and set standards such as the US Constitution, however, there are grey areas that can be left to interpret whether something is right or wrong such as Euthanasia and DNRs. Euthanasia is doctor-assisted suicide used most often in the instances of older people unable to function in their daily lives and are susceptible to life ending situations (such as heart attacks). (2) While a DNR is an order given to medical personnel. DNR is an abbreviation for do not resuscitate. The use of this order is widely

The controversy of a doctor assisting their patient who is already dying, end their life sooner to save them from continuous unnecessary pain and agony has been the topic of controversy for years. The practice of euthanasia is in my opinion a mercy and should not be banned because in reality it doesn’t physically hurt anyone. You could say it hurts the patient but then again that patient is already in tremendous pain or in an incapacitated state of no recovery, as in paralyzed or brain damage etc., so in reality it would actually help them by assisting ending their pain by assisted suicide. A doctors job is also always help their patients and the practice of assisted suicide in many ways is actually helping the person. However there has and probably always will be people who do not agree with the idea of a dying person end their life for sooner than nature had intended. This demographic would suggest that by dying by your own hand or assisted by a physician for medical reasons is still considered plain suicide. And for the religious people it is a sin by their beliefs. The people could also argue that it is not a person’s right to make that decision.

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