The Pros And Cons Of Terminal Illnesses

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.

Physician assisted suicide or PAS is a controversial topic in the world today. But the important question is, should physician assisted suicides be allowed in cases such as: the patient’s suffering is far too great and there is no chance of them getting better? This is a highly debated issue, that has activist groups on both sides fighting for what they think is the right thing to do. Physician assisted suicides can stop the excruciating pain a patient is in, especially if there is nothing that can be done to stop the pain. Or it can be done for a patient that fully understands that there is nothing that can be done to save their life, so as not to put their loved ones into financial hardship. In this

Instead of turning to death as an option, patients should realize that there are other ways to

In homes across the world, millions of victims are suffering from fatal and terminal illnesses.With death knocking on their door, should these people have to endure pain and misery knowing what is to come? The answers to these questions are very controversial. Furthermore, there is a greater question to be answered—should these people have the right and option to end the relentless pain and agony through physician assisted death? Physician-Assisted Suicide PAS is highly contentious because it induces conflict of several moral and ethical questions such as who is the true director of our lives. Is suicide an individual choice and should the highest priority to humans be alleviating pain or do we suffer for a purpose? Is suicide a purely

Every day in the United States 1,500 people are diagnosed with a terminal illness. These people are given few options when determining if the wish to try treatment and if treatment does not work, how to deal with the end of their lives. (author unknown, “Cancer”) With this horrible future ahead of them many may wish to make amends before it’s too late, however, an increasing number of people are seeking an alternate solution. In states such as Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and soon California a relatively new, legal option is available for people with terminal illnesses. The states of Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana created a law which allows people with a terminal illness and less than six months that are mentally healthy seek professional medical help that will end their lives (Humphrey, Derek) . This topic has created heated debates across the United States with each side have clear and defined reason as to why or why not this controversial law should be processed for the whole country. The people who defend the law believe that people who are losing their lives should be able to leave this world on their own terms, and with the help of physicians they can go in a painless and mess-free way. Supporters also believe that by not wanting to the end it can help save patients, doctors, and insurance time and money that could be better spent on patients who may have options and may not be able to reach them without

The first priority for the car of the patients facing severe pain as result of a terminal illness, or chronic condition should be the relief of their pain. Techniques of Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA) enhance the sense of control of terminally ill patient’s, and for this specific reason, are particulary effective. Often it’s the loss of control, rather than physical pain, that casues the most suffering for dying patient’s. In contrast, those that arefor assisted suicide, are that it’s a patient’s right to decide whether they want to live or die. Physician-assisted suicide opens the door that carry far greater risk. For example, if assisted suicide is permitted and legalized, then there is a strong argument for allowing euthanasia. It would be arbituary to permit patient’s who have the physical ability to take a pill to end their lives, but not let similarly suffering patient’s die if they require the lethal drug. Once euthanasia is permitted, there is a serious risk of involuntay deaths.

Matthew Paris explains in his article “Soon We Will Accept That Useless Lives Should End,” published in the Spectator, that dying is not a desire for the patients with a terminal illness. Terminally ill patients end their life because they did not receive pleasure from the life that they had. Pleasure was taken away in their lives when the pain and suffering took over. Patients who are labeled with a terminal illness lose their quality of life quick. There are many cases in which patients would much rather choose an assisted death over living in pain. In Brittany Maynard’s article, she describes the suffering that she endured in her battle with brain cancer. Even though Brittany’s cancer was labeled terminal, she still had many surgeries. When given her prognosis of six months, she knew her quality of life would rapidly diminish. She went through with physician assisted suicide for many reasons, one of them being that she did not want to suffer anymore. The same article displays a perfect reasoning as to how physician assisted suicide ends suffering for the patient. Brittany Maynard chose physician assisted suicide to escape the pain and suffering that she would soon face. Having full brain radiation would leave her scalp with first-degree burns. Even if Brittany chose hospice care, the tumor developing in her brain would eat away at her mind and she

As humans, we have the right to life. In Canada, in section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians can expect “life, liberty and security of the person.” This means not only to simply exist, but have a minimum quality and value in each of our lives. Dying is the last important, intimate, and personal moment, and this process of dying is part of life. Whether death is a good or bad thing is not the question, as it is obviously inevitable, but as people have the right to attempt to make every event in their life pleasant, so they should have the right to make their dying as pleasant as possible. If this process is already very painful and unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten the unpleasantness. In February of this year, judges declared that the right to life does not mean individuals “cannot ‘waive’ their right to life.” Attempting suicide is not illegal in Canada, but the issue here is for those whose physical handicaps prevent them from doing so, and to allow access to a safe, regulated and painless form of suicide. It is a very difficult, sensitive and much-debated subject which seeks to balance the value of life with personal autonomy. In this essay, I will argue that the philosophical case for pro-euthanasia is more complete than those arguments against it due to the

Making the decision not to exercise one’s right-to-die approach comes at a heavy cost. Davila (63) argues that the high costs that those seeking futile healthcare for the most inevitable deaths is an issue that can no longer be sidelined. The expense is not just

Physician-assisted suicide is one of the most controversial subjects in the medical field. Whether the debate is, “Should a doctor be allowed to assist in someone’s suicide?” or, “Is it the right thing to do for a dying patient?” Seeing a loved one in pain can possibly be one of the hardest things to do. But what if they were given the option to the stop the suffering? Knowing that death may be months, weeks, or days away comes along with a lot of time at hospitals, pain, and suffering. Giving terminally ill patients an option of physician-assisted suicide allows the patient to be in charge of ending all their pain and suffering they will go through as well as passing at the comfort of their family at home and not in a hospital bed.

Lachman explores the ethical alternative to Physician Assisted Suicide (PSA) for patients with a terminal illness. She strongly emphasizes the right of the patients to be fully informed of the other options they have available to them such as Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking. VSED is a legal treatment available in all states unlike PSA which is only legal in five states. Terminally ill patients typically feel that they do not wish to carry out the last moments of their life as a burden to their families and would rather rush their death. In these desperate situations they feel that the death in minutes, provided by the over dosage of prescribed lethal medication, PSA is a better alternative than VSED. Patients are not fully informed of the ethical benefits of VSED. According to Lachman, through VSED the patient dies of terminal dehydration and the discomfort they may feel during the process can be managed with the correct palliative care. By choosing to refuse life sustaining nutrients the patient can die in their own terms while allowing their body to perform a natural form of death. She indicates that VSED is also a form in which the patient will not have to feel the excoriating pain that they fear and will actually lose conscious during their final moments of the 1-3 week

Others argue that each person is responsible for making their own decisions or taking their own actions, so who are we to keep them from doing what they please? Many people with terminal illnesses even people without these illnesses don’t understand what it is that they are going through and go into isolation and a mixture of emotions. Therefore, how is a person in this state of mind so sure that they are making the right decision? In some circumstances, terminally ill patients could end up fully recovering and getting well. Every doctor knows that medicine is an art as well as a science. Some people might argue and say that it is rare for someone who is terminally ill to recover. Although it is rare, some terminally ill people can and do get better, and medical breakthroughs for cures seem to be constantly in the works. For example, Stephen Hawking suffers from a rare form of ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) in which the life expectancy is only two to five years after diagnosis and he has lived with this disease for over 40 years. The thought or request for suicide is usually a call for help. In reality suicidal individuals don’t want to actually die; they just want an escape from their pain and suffering. If this is the case, any patient going through pain and

Humans have the obligation to provide and care for their loved ones, whether it is their child or parent. For this reason, having the ability to take away one’s own life because of health related issues should be carefully thought out by the family and affected person. As individuals grow older, the body naturally degenerates and its effects can be very painful for the person and their family members. There are many views regarding how a family and the affected person should go about the ultimate decision of taking one’s own life. John Hardwig believes that as we grow older there is a “duty to die” before one 's illnesses would cause death, in the absence of any terminal illness and sometimes when one would prefer to live. In his essay, “Is There a Duty to Die?” he explains why he thinks that there is a need to take away one’s life to benefit others. Felicia Ackerman disagrees completely in her essay, “For Now Have I My Death: The “Duty to Die” versus the Duty to Help the Ill Stay Alive.” She believes instead that there is a, “duty to aid” and the amount of aid ultimately depends on the family circumstance. Ackerman’s view is illustrated by Jerome Groopman, MD in The Anatomy of Hope where he talks about a man named George Griffin and his success in the fight of a very serious and rare stomach cancer through family support and hope. The decision to take away one’s own life may be very challenging and complex, but there is an absolute obligation for the family to be involved

Although a patient’s choice of suicide symbolizes an expression of self-determination, there is a great distinction between denying life-sustaining treatments and demanding life-ending treatments. The right to self-determination is a right to allow or reject offered treatments, not to choose what should be offered. The right to refuse life-sustaining interventions does not correlate with a right to force others to hasten their death. The inability of physicians to inhibit death does not mean that physicians are allowed to help induce death.

It is argued that patients requesting help with hastening death come mostly from those who have not been treated or diagnosed properly (Asch). “There is a growing awareness that loss of dignity and of those attributes that we associate particularly with being human are the factors that most commonly reduce patients to a state of unrelieved misery and desperation,” (Rogatz). It would be to the doctor’s discretion and expertise to diagnose and treat the patient to the best of their ability, and the patient could seek assistance from another doctor if looking for more