The Right to Die with Dignity and without Pain

Having the right to die is a very controversial and popular topic. It is so popular that it is even currently under debate. Having the right to die means that a terminally ill or chronically in pain patient would have the choice to medically end their life by way of medication or injection. Having the right to die can also mean choosing to be taken off machines that are keeping a person alive or it can mean being given a lethal concoction of medication in order to end a life. There are many different ways that right to die can be utilized. The basic procedures are simple in principle: Doctors certify that the patient qualifies under the law, by virtue of fulfilling the stated criteria then after appropriate waiting periods, the physician writes a prescription for life-ending chemicals. The laws do not specify how and when the patient should take the chemicals intended to bring immediate death, so that part of the process is left in the hands of the individuals(2007, January 1).

Yellowing of the skin, hollowed in eyes, hair loss, and habitual wheezing or shortness of breath is only an insubstantial glimpse of the rancid face of leukemia. It is estimated that around 1 million people in the United States are living with a terminal illness (Pan 2). Some people may feel hopeless, like their life is now meaningless due to their circumstance, and the hand they have been dealt. When something of this magnitude occurs in ones life, doctor assisted suicide should never be an option, or even a thought on their mind. Human euthanasia is ethically, and morally wrong. It violates the principles of medical ethics that doctors take, it costs less to keep a person alive, rather than die, and if this medication falls into the wrong hands, a murder could come about from it.

Furthermore, euthanasia is a disgrace to humanity. An individual person or group shouldn’t decide how, when, and if another person should die. The act of ending someone’s life just because another decided that the individual’s life gives no worth to the person or to society is unjust. That is simply the person’s opinion, and their opinion shouldn’t end a precious human life. Usually, people with disabilities who request euthanasia, do so because of how others treat them, not because of their actual disability. If we were to respect those with disabilities, that would remove hardships, not death. Another reason why euthanasia is wrong is that a person who can’t think straight or is a human vegetable, a person who does not have mental or physical abilities (O’Steen). She/he can be killed by a guardian’s request according to law, even if the patient never showed a desire to die. The Declaration of Independence states our rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and euthanasia goes against that. If the right to live is reduced, all over rights are worthless (“Euthanasia Statement”).

Doctor Faye Girsh backs up this statement by showing that many patients want to end their lives and the suffering that comes with it. She says, “At the Hemlock Society we get calls daily from desperate people who are looking for someone like Jack Kevorkian to end their lives which have lost all quality... Americans should enjoy a right guaranteed in the European Declaration of Human Rights -- the right not to be forced to suffer. It should be considered as much of a crime to make someone live who with justification does not wish to continue as it is to take life without consent.”(1) This shows that euthanasia supports the common good, which is one of the values our Democracy was founded on. Euthanasia has also become legal in Oregon and Washington in the United States now. This means that votes have actually shown that people want euthanasia to be legal. Because one of the Democratic ideals is popular sovereignty, the United States must carry out the will of the people. All of these examples show that euthanasia should be allowed in the United States, but how do we get that goal to become a reality? The best way to get people informed and involved is to create plenty of ads and announcements regarding euthanasia in order to

Even though the law is only in few states it can be known to those who believe in liberty and in freedom at making end of life decisions. Rd. Kevorkian’s invention of his machine increased confusion about whether he was assisting suicides or weather he was actively participating in helping patients who were suffering from an illness. His suicide machine was designed out of house hold items and parts that he had found at home e and garden stores. His machine involved 3 liquids and a timer, once a patient was hooked up on the machine the patient could pull the button and start the flow of drugs into the human body and system, this kind of involvement serves a point as Rd. Kevorkian served in prison a sentence that was 25 years or more but was released after 8 years continuing his death mission he died at the age of 83. The fact that people went to him because they knew he could help them with any possible matter of the patient having the right to die was automatically the best for them, people deserve to die at peace and make decisions for themselves and not the government deciding for them. Suffering in pain is not right. The death with dignity law should be established in the whole United States. Its only fair if somone who is dying has that option to choos for themselves, even if their young its them who wish to take that choice and decision but the fact that only few

Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.

The promotion of physician assisted suicide has sparked a debate throughout the world. From my point of view, assisted suicide is doctors assist patients who could not endure the pain of diseases and are voluntarily given lethal amount of substances resulting in death. However, physician assisted suicide might be considered to be deviant in many countries currently due to the religions, laws and the negative image. Also, the physicians who assist their patients to suicide might be labelled as "killers". For instance, Jack Kevorkian, who was known for successfully assisting more than 130 patients to end their lives, was charged with second degree murder and was

“Dr. Death and his suicide machine”. Jack Kevorkian, also known as Dr. Death, was an American pathologist who was also a painter, a composer, an author, and an instrumentalist. He is best known for publicly championing the belief that it is morally correct to put terminally ill patients out of their misery through a practice called euthanasia. Dr. Kevorkian assisted around 130 patients to suicide and went to jail because of what he believed in. In 1999 Dr. Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder, he was sentenced to 10 to 25 years in prison but he only did a time of 8 years. Even after he went to jail for this practice he continued to believe in it. Euthanasia isn’t acceptable unless it’s in extreme circumstances. Usually a doctor has to do

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.

The Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) was passed in the state of Oregon on November 8, 1994, and allowed competent, terminally ill patients 18 years old or older and were also state residents to acquire a prescription of barbiturates from a doctor to end their own life when their anguish became intolerable.6 208 individuals died under the DWDA. 36% of patients who received the lethal prescription never took them.2 This insinuates that patients dealing with immense suffering from a terminal illness at least sought control over the situation.

Did you know that illegal drugs from Mexico, used for suicide are being smuggled to New Zealand and Australia? As assisted suicide is illegal in these countries, people must rebel against the government and rely on bootlegged medicine to end their sufferings. The World Medical Association (WMA) works to establish the highest standards for physicians´ ethical and professional behavior. WMA recognizes Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) as “knowingly and intentionally providing a person with the knowledge or means or both required to commit suicide” (Harris 55). This concept includes advising individuals of lethal doses, prescribing, and supplying the drugs. Originating from Oregon 's Death with Dignity Act, the Death with Dignity National Center serves to promote options for terminally ill individuals. In the United States, only four states: California, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington have a Death with Dignity law. According to the New York Times, most of those who requested an assisted suicide "feared a loss of autonomy, dignity and decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable” (Pope). In recent years, the ethics and legalization of physician-assisted suicide has only grown in complexity. Mimi M from Chicago commented under the article, "legalizing assisted suicide only creates more options for the terminally ill." Many who favor the legalization believe that if they are able to refuse life-saving treatments, they should also be able to end their

As in all complicated matters such as this, the law is very contradictory in this field. Social workers who are well informed about life and death issues in the light of cultural and religious beliefs and practices, advanced directives, and the legislation related to them, will be more competent in assisting clients to express their desires and to make choices that encompass their life choices. Such knowledge enhances social work intervention by empowering the elderly to use their autonomous rights related to advanced directives while helping family members, through counseling, to negotiate difficult end-of-life procedures. There are certain forms for individuals to fill out that can state that they do not want medical treatment, or now, in some states like Oregon and Washington and now California, they are implementing the Death With Dignity Act. But what does this mean for the role of social workers in this field? As social workers, we advocate for living conditions conducive to the fulfillment of basic human needs and to promote social, economic, political and cultural values and institutions that are compatible with the realization of social justice. We also expand choice and opportunity, such as in end-of-life decisions, and they promote justice (NASW 2003). However, “social workers may not personally participate in an act of suicide when acting in their professional role” (NASW, 2003, P.9). This to me needs to change, to fit the laws that are now changing so that we

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.

Arguments that are in favor of active euthanasia by physicians as stated by, Gregory Weiss, author of The Sociology of Health, Healing, and Illness are, “that death should be peaceful and comfortable, people have the right to self- determination, laws could require safeguards, suicide already exist, and majority of American are in favor. Arguments that oppose euthanasia by physician are, “physician should sustain life, patients are depressed and thinking irrationally, interferes with good physician- patient relationship, making suicide acceptable, hospitals can help patients deal with pain and have palliative care (Weiss). Physician’s arguments such as Dr. Jack Kevorkian can be compared and relative to the arguments in favor of active euthanasia.

In cases of involuntary euthanasia, the patient is able to provide informed consent, but does not do so. For example, a young man is in agony after being severely injured in a car accident. He begs the doctor to do anything to save him. Knowing that the young man’s pain is only going to get worse and that he will die in a matter of hours, the doctor gives the young man a lethal dose of medication in order to spare him additional pain and end his life. Despite the fact that someone’s motive for euthanizing another person against their will could seem moral, I believe the practice of involuntary euthanasia is highly immoral and equivalent to murder. Not surprisingly, involuntary euthanasia is almost universally condemned in civilized society.