The Slippery Slope Of Euthanasia

Others have argued that physician assisted suicide is not ethically permissible, because it contradicts the traditional duty of physician’s to preserve life and to do no harm. Furthermore, many argue that if physician assisted suicide is legalized, abuses would take place, because as social forces condone the practice, it will lead to “slippery slope” that forces (PAS) on the disabled, elderly, and the poor, instead of providing more complex and expensive palliative care. While these arguments continue with no end in sight, more and more of the terminally ill cry out in agony, for the right to end their own suffering.

Once people are diagnosed to be terminally-ill, they only have a certain amount of time to live, and they know that as their disease progresses that they will only get worse and worse and they will eventually lose themselves. These people should have a choice as of whether they want to live out those dreadful days that lie ahead of them, or to simply end their lives peacefully, without any pain. Physician- Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia allows people to make the decision. Although the end-result of both procedures is the same, the technique differs slightly. In Physician- Assisted Suicide, the physician injects the lethal substances, and with Euthanasia, the doctor only provides a lethal amount of a drug to the patient and they ingest it themselves. Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia should be legalized as a federal law so that the patients have the right to decide whether they would like to end their lives when in a terminally-ill state.

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

To fully understand the issue at hand, one must understand the various forms of euthanasia. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary: Tenth Edition defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals…in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia occurs when a patient is relieved of medical treatment and is allowed to die naturally. Active euthanasia occurs when either a physician or a family member actively takes the life of the patient, perhaps through lethal injection, and eliminates a natural death process. Many people commonly use the word “euthanasia” to refer to assisted suicide. Essentially, assisted suicide is a form of active euthanasia in that a person, usually a physician, aids in the suicide of a patient.

The slippery slope argument is based on the idea that once a healthcare service starts killing its own citizens, a line is crossed and a dangerous practice has been set. The concern is that a society that permits voluntary euthanasia will progressively change its stances to include non-voluntary and then involuntary euthanasia. Legal voluntary euthanasia could ultimately lead to a widespread range of unanticipated consequences, such as very ill people who need endless care, or people with severe disabilities, may feel pressured to request euthanasia so that they are not and do not feel as a problem to their family and occasionally, doctors may be mistaken about an individuals diagnosis and position, and the person may choose euthanasia after

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are two similar topics which are constantly countered with extremely weak statements, such as “the argument that if we respect the liberty of some individuals to choose assisted death we will thereby expose the ill and frail to an increased risk of abuse or exploitation” (Schafer, “the case for legalization”), which is commonly known as the “slippery slope” debate. However, several countries and select states in the United States who have legalized euthanasia have not shown any signs of “slippery slopes”. In fact, these areas have actually demonstrated that:

For multiple years, the debate on physician assisted suicide has prevailed. Physician assisted suicide is the death of a terminally ill patient, who wants to die on their own terms with the administration of a doctor. This is different than euthanasia because physician assisted suicide is backed by a controlling legal authority (“Physician…”). Some debaters are uncomfortable with the morality issues that arise with doctors killing patients or physician assisted suicide being abused. Others focus on the pain people who are terminally ill suffer from and the control physician assisted suicide gives them. Overall, the right to live or die should not be up to the government. Physician assisted suicide is legal in six states within the United States. Specific regulations are already practiced in five of those six states. Legalizing physician assisted suicide nationally would solve any regulation issue. Physician-assisted suicide should be legal nationwide with strict regulations in order to offer the freedom that the United States stands for.

Doerflinger argues that the removal of the stigma and unlawfulness of assisted suicide will result in an increase in reasons to commit assisted suicide even for those who may not actively seek it. He calls this the slippery slope idea and believes it would result in increased coercion to patients and their physicians to seek to end life. Doerflinger writes, “Socially accepted killing of innocent persons will interact with other social factors to threaten

The idea of non-voluntary active euthanasia is not such a disaster, as euthanasia itself. The problem that comes into consideration is when and why it should be used. When euthanasia is non-voluntary and active, such as on a patient with dementia, the ethical decision comes into play if there are episodes of clarity and the patient has or has not mentioned what they want to do at the end of life situations. Principles of deontology suggest duty and obligation. A medical professional in such situations have an obligation to fulfill the patient 's wishes. The nature of their obligation does not sway based on what they personally think. Patients with dementia have some moments of clarity, but because their brains are still deteriorating, non-

Throughout the years, euthanasia has been a highly debated topic. Not only has the legality of euthanasia been debated, but also which forms of euthanasia will be used. One of the types of euthanasia has become legal in five states. This form of euthanasia is called Physician Assisted Suicide. Physician Assisted Suicide requires the doctor to provide the patient with the lethal drugs, but the patient must take them. Legalizing physician assisted suicide would change end of life care as we know it.

Physician assisted suicide is legal but it is always subject to change. How does this make you feel? Do you agree with this choice or not? There are only 4 states in the U.S. that makes this legal. Oregon, Montana, Washington, and Vermont are the only states that have made this legal in the U.S. People are actually putting their lives into someone else’s hand who mind you gets paid for what they are doing. They are letting someone who is getting paid to do what they are doing decide if they live or not. Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized in any of the 50 states. Euthanasia is the practice of ending a human life with that person 's consent, voluntary stopping of eating and drinking, and physician assisted suicide invites compromise among caregivers or family member who might have economic or otherwise selfish interests in ending another’s life.

Currently it is legal in four places among the world, Oregon, Washington, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The parameters of assisted suicide are different in every state or country. For example, Oregon’s law states that the patient must be terminally ill two physicians must have consulted with the patient, and that the patient must make repeated requests for assisted suicide to qualify. Many other countries do not outlaw assisted suicide but rather have no laws against them at all. However, physicians may face other charges if they do this in certain areas that don’t consider assisted suicide. If physician assisted suicide was pronounced legal in all states many laws could be constructed to respect the rights of the doctors, the patients, and their families. It would be easy for law makers to construct specific laws so that assisted suicide is not something just anyone could obtain.

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

Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, has been a controversial issue for many years. It usually involves ending a patient’s life early to relieve their illness. Most of the controversy stemmed from personal values like ethics or religion. The euthanasia debate puts a huge emphasis on what doctors should do for their patients and how much a person’s life is worth. Supporters of euthanasia primarily focus on cost and pain alleviation. Opponents of euthanasia tend to focus on morality. Whether euthanasia is legal or not could significantly affect future generations’ attitudes about death. Euthanasia should be legalized nationally because it helps patients that could be in unimaginable pain, offers more options for more people, and it is relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives.