The Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide

It is said that helping somebody who wants to die in a peaceful, painless way should be legal. Choosing how we die is a basic human freedom and if an individual's quality of life is deteriorating, due to a terminal disease such as cancer, they should have the right to stop their suffering via physician assisted suicide. It might be the case that the drugs for assisted suicide are far less expensive than the cost of their current medical care. This allows the government to save money as well as the lift the financial burden from the family of patients who are suffering from serious illness. Some people say that physician assisted suicide decreases the value of human life, but this isn't the case as it actually helps those who are terminal retain their dignity and choose their own death.

On the positive side of assisted suicide, it is strongly believed that the right to assisted suicide allows the terminally ill to have a clean and fair death. No one wants to live with pain and sorrow. From their perspective, doctor's help the suffering and terminally ill to die when they choose is nothing wrong. From what they had argued, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution allows people the right to freedom of speech, press, petition, religion. With this logic, it would be reasonable to believe that you are allowed to have the right to die. The right to assisted suicide can help the patients with the terminally ill to release from pain and suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.

Assisted suicide is when you give someone else permission like a physician, to kill you. Assisted suicide is legal in at least six states (Tolle, 1996) and there is lots of people who wanted to die because the disease they might have at the moment is just too much for them. If a patient that wanted to die the they would either talk to a physician or their doctor and give the doctor permission to just kill the patient. Assisted suicide can only happen when your medication is not working and the pain from the sickness you have is just abdominale. There was a case that was about how a man who was going through chemotherapy he didn't want to go through it so he talked to his doctor about assisted suicide. They decided to

Additionally, the term “euthanasia” does not mean the same thing as assisted suicide. Often people confuse these processes when they differ immensely. Despite this, they remain similar in their resulting death of a human life through the help of a physician. Euthanasia is the direct killing of a patient by a physician by means of lethal injection and it is completely controlled by the doctor. On the other hand, patients in assisted suicide have full control over the process that leads to their death. For this reason, procedures of these sorts must be eliminated as medical treatments and should not be authorized. Consequently, physician assisted suicide has been proven to lead to euthanasia in some cases. Assisted suicide should become illegal in all fifty states of the United States of America because it raises religious concern, endorses legalized murder, puts vulnerable people at risk of abuse, and

Many people in the world are suffering from illness that cannot be cured. They live their last days in pain and suffering wondering when and why it happened to them. Instead of suffering, many people dream of suicide to take their pain away but they know no one would understand. In very few states, it is legal for people to get assistance to put them out of their pain and suffering. It is called assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is the help from a physician to end their patients’ lives with their permission. The patient must have a terminal illness with less than six months to live to qualify. Many people are against assisted suicide because they believe that it is just a cover for murder. People should be thought of as dying with dignity

People opposed to euthanasia may argue that physician assisted suicide is going against God. However, people shouldn’t lengthen the process of dying than what is absolutely necessary. In his article on euthanasia, Steve Seibold wrote, “If someone chooses to believe that God wants her to suffer through a terminal illness that's her decision, but when you force the rest of us to obey laws based on evidence-less beliefs, it’s wrong and needs to be stopped.” Others may possibly mention that life is sacred and euthanasia cheapens the value of life. On the other hand, all people, who are mentally capable of deciding, should have equal rights and opportunities to live, or to decide not to continue

Physician-assisted suicides (PAS) successful legalization in multiple locations, including four U.S. states, proves that opponents’ predictions of PAS leading to medical misconduct are inaccurate. Jacob Appel, a doctor in New York City, is quoted explaining, “ Despite predictions that legalization would lead to abuse or to decrease in palliative care, jurisdictions that have sanctioned the process, like the Netherlands and Oregon, have shown that a system of assisted suicide can be implemented responsibly” (qtd. in “The Right to Die: Do terminally ill patients have a right to die with the assistance of a physician?”). Appel’s claim is corroborated by Lewis Cohen who says,

Albert Camus once quoted, “But in the end, one needs more courage to live than to kill them self.” Today I will be discussing the topic of Euthanasia also known as “assisted suicide.” The word originated from the Greeks, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia refers to the ending of one’s life, primarily to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and generates many political and religious debates. Although euthanasia is illegal in Canada, in some jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, euthanasia is a legal and common practice.

Physician-assisted suicide, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means or by information provided by a physician aware of the patient's intent” (Merriam Webster), has been debated over for many years. It has often been called a death with dignity, “but there’s nothing dignified about the methods they advocate” (Torr et al. 56). Physician-assisted suicide has been a widely publicized controversy, and yet there have been many misunderstandings about the issue. It is not only a means of death for a comatose or dying patient, but it is also a way to kill people with depression and even infants in some places of the world. Although others may argue that physician-assisted suicide is an opportunity for the elderly and the disabled to make a choice about their death, euthanasia would threaten them more than give them freedom. Permitting this malicious practice does not just discard religion and ethics, but it also desensitizes society to killing, advertising physician-assisted suicide as a simple solution.

Physician-assisted suicide is a form of assisted suicide in the United States, in which the physicians prescribe lethal doses of drugs or explaining a method of suicide to the patients upon the request of the patients. Physician-assisted suicide is different from the active euthanasia, which refers to competent patients voluntarily agree to euthanasia through communicating their wishes when they are competent or through instructions to be followed if they become incompetent because the final act of killing is performed by the patients, rather than the physicians in the active euthanasia. To date, physician-assisted suicide is only legal in eight states, including California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont and

There is much controversy in many medical choices that one can make. The controversy can be distinguished by religious boundaries, whether the choice or decision is moral or ethical, if the choice contradicts the Hippocratic Oath, or it could be any combination of the mentioned. One topic that holds all controversies mentioned is physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide has many reasons why it should not be allowed. However, there are many more reasons that argue why physician-assisted suicide is beneficial and worth fighting to make it legal in every state, and eventually legal worldwide.

This great country, the land of the free, gave each and every person the right to make their own choices. This independence consists of each aspect of a citizen’s life, as well as health care. With independence comes a certain liability, this is also accurate in conditions of physician-assisted suicide. The constant resistance among those supporting and those divergent to this issue have wreaked havoc on the health care field; what is morally and ethically correct? In reality, physician-assisted suicide is never morally or ethically tolerable despite any conditions. It is not only a direct infringement of a physician’s Hippocratic Oath, but also unconstitutionally requisite. Physician-assisted suicide could also lead to superfluous fatalities in order to lessen various health care expenses. Citizens of the United States are warranted the highest of admiration, while taking part in the health care system; approving physician-assisted suicide deteriorates the state of American health care.

“The terms “aid in dying,” “death with dignity,” and “patient directed dying” are merely euphemisms for the practice [of assisted suicide]. In fact, these terms are not recognized by the medical community and are simply used by suicide advocates to mask what they advocate.”(Harned, 2012, pp 513). However, the people who assist with suicide call it being compassionate. “The United States Supreme Court held in 1997[ruled] that there is no federal constitutional right to assisted suicide under the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.”(Harned, 2012, pp 513). “In 2011, the people of Idaho responded to pressure from advocates to “find” legal recognition of physician-assisted suicide within their law by enacting a new

Euthanasia, or voluntary assisted suicide, has been the subject of much moral, legal and human rights debate in Australia. Broadly speaking, this term is used to describe the termination of a person’s life to end their suffering, usually through the administration of drugs. The core of this debate is centred on how to mitigate and pacify competing values; an individual's desire to self autonomy and freedom and choice to die with dignity when suffering, alongside with the devaluation of human life as a consequence that is formed through the legalisation of euthanasia. Due to the nature of the topic of euthanasia that is shrouded with ethical controversy and ambiguity, there is difficulty in legal justification and establishment of voluntary

Today, the resolution for the debate is “Let it be resolved that euthanasia should be morally permissible for the disabled and children”. To begin with, one must comprehend the essence of “euthanasia” and “morally permissible” to follow the arguments in this debate. According to the Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma”. Whereas, morally permissible according to Deni Elliot, in her book “Ethics the First Person” means the “behaviour that is tolerated by the moral system”. With regards to Euthanasia, it is classified as active and passive. In layman’s terms, “Active Euthanasia” is when the immediate result of death is not from the patient’s disease but a medical action was done to result their death such as providing a lethal drug. In the other hand, “Passive Euthanasia” is when the death is caused by the patient’s disease which enables to advance naturally without any influence of treatment which might prolong the patients’ life. As I have stated my clarifications, I am hereby to present three arguments within the PRO side of the debate.