“It’s Over, Debbie” an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, written by an anonymous person, sparks a heated debate concerning the nature of euthanasia. The article is written from the perspective of gynecology resident’s. After analyzing the patient’s condition, he gives her a twenty milligram dose of morphine sulfate. This amount of dose is not concerned lethal; however, given the patient’s underweight body and medical condition was enough to kill her. The problem arises in determining whether this was active or passive euthanasia. Due to the ambiguous wording of the article, the answer can vary from reader to reader. For example, the anonymous author describes how the nurse gave the resident hurried details, …show more content…
Therefore, the resident may not have been aware of the detrimental effect it had; instead, it is hypothesized that he gave the dose in hopes of reliving her from pain not life. Debbie’s case was a case of double-effect that is ethically accepted. Part III: Killing and Culpability The God complex is not a rarity in the world of medicine. To add the power of euthanasia to doctors would inevitability grant them a dangerous amount of power. In Daniel Callahan’s article, “Physician-Assisted Dying: Self-Determination Run Amok”, he explains his stance on euthanasia. Callahan believes that doctors should not have the power to hasten death. Instead, he believes that terminally ill patients should be allowed to die, but killing should be banned. Callahan compares euthanasia to slavery: Slavery was long ago outlawed on the ground that one person should not have the right to own another, even with the other’s permission…it is a fundamental moral wrong for …show more content…
A person’s autonomy is under speculation when euthanasia comes into the picture. Take for instance a situation where a patient is in a coma followed by a brain hemorrhage and the chance of him surviving without the aid of life-support is fifty-fifty. Obviously, the patient is unable to voice his opinion on whether or not he should be euthanized. Thus, this choice will be made either by the doctor or the family. In this situation, the person does not have autonomy. More so, whether or not he can live is a decision made by people who may or may not have his best interest in mind. This gives undue power to the doctor and the
According to Gamliel (2012), euthanasia refers to actions or omissions that result in the death of a person who is already gravely ill. Techniques of active euthanasia range fro...
Another reason a patient may opt to euthanasia is to die with dignity. The patient, fully aware of the state he or she is in, should be able choose to die in all their senses as opposed to through natural course. A patient with an enlarged brain tumor can choose to die respectively, instead of attempting a risky surgery that could leave the patient in a worse condition then before the operation, possibly brain-dead. Or a patient with early signs of Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease may wish to be granted euthanization before their disease progresses and causes detrimental loss of sentimental memories. Ultimately it should be the patient’s choice to undergo a risky surgery or bite the bullet, and laws prohibiting euthanasia should not limit the patient’s options.
Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is a topic, which proponents often support by the affirmation of patient free will or as the exercise of patient autonomy. The purpose of this paper is to examine this argument further from an inter-disciplinary approach, regarding PAS from medical, ethical and legal standpoints and to examine the concept of free will from the philosophical discipline. Are these concepts compatible in a meaningful context and can a sound argument be constructed to support PAS on the basis of patient free will?
For example, a patient has the right to refuse medical treatment. They also have the right to refuse resuscitation if they are in need of life support. Active or involuntary euthanasia refers to providing the means for someone to take their life or assisting with taking their life (“Euthanasia”). There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death.
The issue at hand is whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized for patients who are terminally ill and/or enduring prolonged suffering. In this debate, the choice of terms is central. The most common term, euthanasia, comes from the Greek words meaning "good death." Sidney Hook calls it "voluntary euthanasia," and Daniel C. Maguire calls it "death by choice," but John Leo calls it "cozy little homicides." Eileen Doyle points out the dangers of a popular term, "quality-of-life." The choice of terms may serve to conceal, or to enhance, the basic fact that euthanasia ends a human life. Different authors choose different terms, depending on which side of the issue they are defending.
Imagine, if you will, that you have just found out you have a terminal medical condition. Doesn’t matter which one, it’s terminal. Over the 6 months you have to live you experience unmeasurable amounts of pain, and when your free of your pain the medication you’re under renders you in an impaired sense of consciousness. Towards the 4th month, you begin to believe all this suffering is pointless, you are to die anyways, why not with a little dignity. You begin to consider Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). In this essay I will explain the ethical decisions and dilemmas one may face when deciding to accept the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I will also provide factual information pertaining to the subject of PAS and testimony from some that advocate for legalization of PAS. PAS is not to be taken lightly. It is the decision to end one’s life with the aid of a medical physician. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that PAS is “Suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent.” PAS is considered, by our textbook – Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. There are other forms of euthanasia such as non-voluntary, involuntary, and passive. This essay is focusing on PAS, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. PAS is commonly known as “Dying/Death with Dignity.” The most recent publicized case of PAS is the case of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where she lived. At the time California didn’t have Legislative right to allow Brittany the right to commit PAS so she was transported to Oregon where PAS is legal....
Paramedics deemed the patient competent and therefore Ms. Walker had the right to refuse treatment, which held paramedics legally and ethically bound to her decisions. Although negligent actions were identified which may have resulted in a substandard patient treatment, paramedics acted with intent to better the patient despite unforeseen future factors. There is no set structure paramedics can follow in an ethical and legal standpoint thus paramedics must tailor them to every given
The topic of assisted suicide has been a controversial topic across North America. Although both supporters and critics have expressed very different and logical views on the matter, competent terminal patients should be given the right to decide when they want to end their overall suffering. Euthanasia in Canada distinguishes between active and passive euthanasia. Active, is the act of intentionally killing a person to relieve pain. While withholding or taking away life-preserving procedures such as water and food, is passive. Over the last few years, Canada, more specifically Ontario has gained permission by provincial courts to end their life ahead of the federal government 's new law. In 2015, The judgement of the Supreme Court of Canada
One of the arguments used by people who support euthanasia is that the quality of life matters more that quantity. Additionally, the proponents of euthanasia maintain that a person has the right to make the decision on what is good for him/her provided he/she does not violate other people’s right (National Health Services,
According to Immanuel Kant, a person has dignity that makes him autonomous. Thus, the decision of the autonomous patient to die has intrinsic value. Because patients are rational agent, they are able to make their own decision based on reason. A rational patient will reason that if continued existence is full of suffering and no-hope for better well-being, therefore, the best option is to discontinue his/her life to save him/herself from that future condition. It is the patient’s approach to manage his/her own life. Dan W. Brock is right in his article “Voluntary Active Euthanasia” when he said that, “self-determination [or autonomy] has fundamental value… [because]… individual [can] control the manner, circumstances, and timing of their dying and death” (75). The dignity of the patient lies in their “capacity to direct their lives” (Brock 75).
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
Assisted suicide brings up one of the biggest moral debates currently circulating in America. Physician assisted suicide allows a patient to be informed, including counseling about and prescribing lethal doses of drugs, and allowed to decide, with the help of a doctor, to commit suicide. There are so many questions about assisted suicide and no clear answers. Should assisted suicide be allowed only for the terminally ill, or for everyone? What does it actually mean to assist in a suicide? What will the consequences of legalizing assisted suicide be? What protection will there be to protect innocent people? Is it (morally) right or wrong? Those who are considered “pro-death”, believe that being able to choose how one dies is one’s own right.
to over turn the law. Also Kevin Andrews was strongly not in favour and with
There are many negative aspects of legalizing euthanasia. One of the important negative factors would be the power that the doctor has in deciding about the patient’s life. As it is written in the book “A natural law ethics approach”, legalizing applications of euthanasia’s forms are attributing the doctors the role of God (Paterson 28-29). As a result, it becomes doctor’s decision for the patient, for h...
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because