Euthanasia - Dying Made Easy Euthanasia, is one of the most controversial issues of our time. This diverse issue raises many questions such as: how should decisions be made, and by whom? What should be determined as a matter of law and what left a matter of discretion and judgment? Should those who want to die, or who are in a "persistent vegetative state" be allowed to die voluntarily? Who should decide: the patient, the physician, the courts, or the families? The pro-euthanasia arguments turn on the individual case of the patient in pain, suffering at the center of an intolerable existence. When life becomes unbearable, quick death can be the answer. If living persons become so ill that they cannot tolerate the pain they have a "right to die" to escape from torment. So long as the right to die means not prolonging the life by undesireable treatment, it may be classified as rational suicide. The term "euthanasia" means "good health" or "well dying"; it is derived from the Greek "eu" and "thanatos". In its classical sense, it is a descriptive term referring to an easy death as opposed to an agonizing or tormented dying. In Greek literature, euthanasia connoted a "happy death, an ideal and coveted end to a full and pleasant life." The concern to die well is as old as humanity itself, for the questions surrounding death belong to the essence of being human. All people die, but apparently only people know they are to die. They live with the truth that life is under the sentence of death. Thus, from the "beginning of the species concern with how one dies has been an implicit part of the human attempt to come to terms with death." (Paul D. Simmons, 112) There is still a question involved in the contemporary debates about euthanasia which is posed by a case such as the terminally ill who are dying. The issue concerns the morality of mercy in aiding the dying patient. The question goes beyond simply withdrawing treatments. The issue is whether, in the name of mercy, one might morally aid someone's dying? "Are circumstances under which it is morally responsible to terminate a person, or does lovealways require resisting death through every means possible?" (Wickett, 109) Paul D. Simmons declares bluntly that "it is harder morally to justify letting somebody die a slow and ugly death, dehumanized, than it is to justify helping him to escape from such misery. (Samuel Gorovitz, 113) Some very prominent people are making packs with friends or relatives that specify that either will help the other die when life becomes desperate from pain or tragic accident. Families and physicians feel a variety of powerful emotions when dealing with a patient dying a slow and agonizing death. Certainly they wish that the pain were relieved and that health restored; that the patient not die but go on living and sharing concerns and joys together. "When the illness is terminal and there is no hope of relief or recovery, however, death is often desired for the patient as God's appointed way to relieve suffering." (Paul D. Simmons, 116) Mr. Sorestad, my junior high teacher, shared his experience at the death of his beloved wife after her prolonged battle with breast cancer. She had deteriorated physically and mentally practically beyond recognition. "I prayed for death," he had said, "because I loved her so much and could not bear to see her suffer so. And when death finally came, I thanked God for his good gift." She'd had enough, made her choice, and her choice was honored. But suppose that Mrs. Sorestad had asked her husband to help her die! He felt already that death was imminent and desirable. As a true Christian, he felt that death would be a merciful relief of pain and suffering. He was morally justified to act out his love for his wife by ending her suffering life in a painless manner. "The meaning of death, the morality of taking or ending life of one's own spouse or the "relationship of the person to the processes of nature and the activity of God in one's life." (Ann Wickett, 109) This issue raised concerns to doctors. Even the best doctors, given all the pressures that they must bear, could "benefit from more structured ways of remaining informed about how their efforts are viewed by their patients." (Samuel Gorovitz, 10) Importantly, it also heightened my curiosity about what it is like to be a physician c about what sorts of problems and pressures sustain their distance and separateness, and make it so hard for them to be open to new ideas from outside their profession. Most doctors found themselves spending more time than ever before dealing with decisions they were never trained to make decisions at the edge of life. Where the question "is what can be done for the patient." (Thomas W. Case, 25 & 26). He is uncomfortable when the issue turns from how to sustain a patient's life to such questions as whether to stop providing nourishment, thereby, to end a patient's life. It is strongly believed that physicians can play a positive role in the active euthanasia of mentally competent, terminally ill people who request assistance in ending their own lives. It is crucial that physicians who choose to help dying patients in this way should be "free to do so without the fear of criminal prosecution". (Ann Wickett, 87). There are those who will say that active euthanasia is not part of the physician's role and never has been. Historical evidence, however, indicates that it was "common practice for Grecian and Roman physicians to assist in suicide". (Thomas W. Case, 50). Physicians are not alone in having a high rate of stress impairment; other high stress occupations also have such problems. The choices and challenges faced by today's doctors, and the "reality of their complex relationships with patients, peers, and social situations have left the hippocratic oath behind." (Paul D. Simmons, 108). Doctors are no doubt eager toexplain about the stresses they must bear in the face of difficult decisions. They have their responsibilities, but should they support the patient's position, or should they stay out of it? Should they side with the family? These are very hard questions for them to face. They could avoid those decisions if they could, but there are too many pressures to allow them that comfortable escape. They come from many directions. "The most compelling pressure is the concern for the interests of patients; they realize that some patients may be harmed rather than helped by life sustaining treatment." (Paul D. Simmons, 201). Some cases have yielded mixed results in state courts, and the Supreme Court, that restricts the rights of family members to direct the withdrawal of such treatment in the absence of written evidence of the patient's wishes that is clear and compelling. There is a legitimate public interest in preventing such outcomes no matter what the patient would have wanted. The decision to forgo lifesustaining treatment must surely be as hard as any that arises in a hospital or within a family. Principles to guide such a decision are elusive, because whenever the question arises, some of our most cherished values are in conflict. People believe in the value of life but it is not clear that all life has value no matter what. People believe that suffering should be reduced, but sometimes that means shortening life. People also believe that patients' wishes should be respected, but that seems not always best for the patients. It is expected of doctors to be a strong champions of life, but people fear their capacity to impose continue life. Cardinal John J. O'Connor, writhing in Catholic New York (July 20, 1989), explained why he refrained from supporting the euthanasia bill, affirming that any concern for therelief of human suffering should be tempered by a respect for what he calls the "tremendous potential of suffering": frightening number of people are being condemned to death by the courts, at the request of loved one or "proxies," or by their own personal requests. The reason: They are suffering 'needlessly'; their lives are 'useless'; they are terminally ill, or comatose, or have nothing to live for.' Of course, there are many things that doctors do know best, and how to prolong the life of a seriously ill patient is among them. There is also a deep and geniune commitment among physicians the occasional medical rogue aside c to serving the interests of their patients. That commitment can lead to zealousness in defense of life, a zealousness that can distort the physician's judgment about just what is in the patient's interest. And, increasingly, there is the fear of legal jeopardy. It is the physicians' role to educate the patient by discussing both the state well being and the indicated treatments. The risks and benefits of each treatment option must be thoroughly discussed. It is the patient's role to evaluate this information in light of his or her present level of physical and social, spiritual, and psychololgical needs. It is hard to say that the family has the right to demand that the doctor pull the plug just because they thought the patient "would never want to live like this". Despite their confused state, the family urges the physician to withhold the tube, thereby hastening death. The issue, quality of life, is perceived by the family: No one has the right to judge that another's life is not worth living. The basic right to life should not be abridged because someone decides that someone else's 'quality of life' is too low. Once we base the right to life on 'quality of life' standards, there is no logical place to draw the line. Dying is not something any of us really look forward to, but it is a natural process that we can use to come to terms with ourselves. It is indeed our last chance to become our best selves. Few of us like pain and suffering, and only those of us who are "profoundly religious can find meaning in them". (Thomas W. Case, 28-29). We ameliorate human suffering when cure is not possible, and we provide structure for people in times of chaos. We need not view this inevitable part of the lifecycle as evil. WORKS CITED Case, Thomas W. "National Review," Dying Made Easy. New York: Neal Bernards, Inc. November 4, 1991, pp. 25c26. Gorovitz, Samuel. Drawing the Line: Life, Death, and Ethical Choices in an American Hospital New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Simmons, Paul D. Birth an d Death: Bioethical Decision Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1983. Tong, Rosemarie. "Current,"Euthanasia in the 1990's: Dying "Good Death. New York: Harper Collins Publishing, March 1993, pp. 27c33. Wickett, Ann. The Right To Die: Understanding Euthanasia. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1986.
in the end we all have to die so the little time we have should be
Life is a precious gift given to us the moment we are born and Thomas Jefferson knew this. We can define life as having respect for ourselves and others, accepting our individuality, not judging certain groups or individuals, and being able to exercise our morals and beliefs. Living in America, we are allowed to live these rights of “life”. The United States has become a very diverse nation.
In his essay, “Resistance to Civil Government,” often times dubbed, “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) argues against abiding to one’s State, in protest to the unjust laws within its government. Among many things, Thoreau was an American author, poet, and philosopher. He was a firm believer in the idea of civil disobedience, the act of refusing to obey certain laws of a government that are felt to be unjust. He opposed the laws regarding slavery, and did not support the Mexican-American war, believing it to be a tactic by the Southerners to spread slavery to the Southwest. To show his lack of support for the American government, he refused to pay his taxes. After spending a night in jail for his tax evasion, he became inspired to write “Civil Disobedience.” In this essay, he discusses the importance of detaching one’s self from the State and the power it holds over its people, by refraining from paying taxes and putting money into the government. The idea of allowing one’s self to be arrested in order to withhold one’s own values, rather than blindly following the mandates of the government, has inspired other civil rights activists throughout history such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Both these men fought against unjust laws, using non-violent, yet effective, methods of protest. From these three men, we can learn the significance of detaching ourselves from the social norm; and instead, fight for our values in a non-violent way, in order to make a change in our government’s corrupt and unjust laws.
While Emerson and Thoreau certainly have difference of opinions, they recognize the need for public discussion and discourse. Emerson declares “a foolish consistency” to be “the hobgoblin of little minds” (Emerson 367). This is shown in their essays “Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience” in which they support individuality and personal expression. Despite their contrasting views of society and government, the two most prominent transcendentalists in literary history share a passionate belief in the necessity that every American must exercise their constitutional rights and make known their views even and especially if it challenges the status quo.
Throughout On Reading Wordsworth's Lines on Peele Castle, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley has provided a minor attitude of resentment towards the direction of her attention. More overpoweringly though, is her immeasurable regard of William Wordsworth in terms of poetic hierarchy. It is apparent to her audience that she respects Wordsworth, especially at the height of his career.
No matter how many times you say it isn’t viable, therefore it doesn’t have a right to life, doesn’t change that it is indeed a life. Someone (Pro Choice obviously) brought to me the point that bacteria is life. Why do we get to use hand sanitizer and kill millions by the minute? No matter what you label this innocent life, it is a life none the less.
...n to die. Therefore, it is important to live like it is your last day and to strive to be a better person. For this reason, humans should realize that yielding to desires in the physical world will not constitute eternal happiness. It is only with the help of the gods can humans truly be happy and when it is time to depart from life, Marcus Aurelius encourages humans to welcome death “for [the gods] would not involve you in anything bad” (2.11). Death should be seen as a precious release because with God’s love and grace, the soul is freed from the battered flesh casing.
Death is part of the circle of life and it's the end of your time on earth; the end of your time with your family and loved ones. Nobody wants to die, leaving their family and missing the good times your loved ones will have once you pass on. In the Mercury Reader, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross “On the Fear of Death” and Joan Didion “Afterlife” from The Year of Magical Thinking” both share common theses on death and grieving. Didion and Kübler-Ross both explain grieving and dealing with death. Steve Jobs commencement speech for Stanford’s graduation ceremony and through personal experience jumps further into death and how I feel about it. Your time is on earth is limited one day you will die and there are many ways of grieving at the death of a loved one. I believe that the fear of death and the death of a loved one will hold you back from living your own life and the fear of your own death is selfish.
Throughout both plays, each main character exhibits a decay from the norm in their social persona. In Dollhouse, Nora who at first seems a silly, childish woman, is revealed to be intelligent and motivated though the play, and, by the play's conclusion, can be seen to be a strong-willed, independent thinker. She develops an awareness for the truth about her life as Torvald's devotion to an image at the expense of the creation of true happiness becomes more and more evident to her. When Nora calls him petty and swears about the house, and when Krogstad calls him by his first name it angers Torvald notably, and this anger at what he sees to be insubordination and improper etiquette heightens her awareness of the falsities being put in place by Mr. Helmer. When it is revealed to Torvald that their life-saving trip to Italy was funded by his wife borrowing money underneath his very nose and across his authority, he becomes very angry, as he very well should if everything is to abide by the social standard of the time By the end of the play, we see that Torvald's obsession with controlling his home's appearance and his repeated suppression and denial of reality have harmed his family and his happiness irreparably and escalates Nora's need for rebellion, which inevitably results in her walking out on her husband and children to find her own independence at the conclusion of the play.
the article, there is a case where a man is being found dead, though it is not clear on what caused the death, it is against the law to deprive any human being the right to live. Furthermore, according to the rights of human beings under the constitution of the United States if any person willfully denies another person a privilege or a right towards something should be subjected to a court and be fined or imprisoned for not less than one year. According to the article
Placing monetary value on an individual’s life is measured not by the way an individual has lived, but rather the individual’s income; at least that is how society views life. Every individual values life from a different perspective. And while every human will find value in life, those values will not be the same as everybody else. Some people will value life as a privilege and believe life should be taken seriously while considering the consequences in every decision contemplated while others will live in the fast lane with an irresponsible mindset. Individuals also view life differently depending on the circumstances. However, no matter how an individual views life, it seems to be impossible to extract emotion out of any decision. Society, on the other hand, values life by placing a monetary value on a human life. Society also has no choice but to set emotion aside when setting that monetary value. The government will use that value to compensate a family who has just lost a love one. However, some families mistake the compensation for “replacing” the lost soul and become indignant. There are many alternatives when it comes to compensating the victim’s family. In most times, society always ends up placing a value on an individual based on his/her income. Furthermore, while society delivers compensation to families, society also believes in compensation for an individual’s pain and suffering. There are times society should place a monetary value on life, while having restrictions.
In BJ Millers TedTalk, “What Really Matters at the End of Life?” BJ Miller discusses on how we think on death and honor life. He speaks to the audience about how for the most people the scariest thing about death is not death itself, it is actually dying or suffering. The targeted audience is everyone in the world, because eventually everyone is going to die and everyone thinks about death. BJ 3 has big points in the article saying, Distinction between necessary and unnecessary suffering. Also by having a little ritual that helps with this shift in perspective. Another point is to lift and set our sights on well-being. We need to lift our sights, to set our sights on well-being, so that life and health and healthcare can become about making life more wonderful, rather than just less horrible.
...ns. Patients should not be so medically ill that they are unable to make this decision. Patients should be fully conscious and understand the implications of their decision. Everything should be documented possibly even videotaped that way the doctor doesn’t lose their job, receive a lawsuit or worst jail!
middle of paper ... ... The value of a human life varies, depending on the person. Even though as humans, we assign a lot of value to many things, human life should remain the most valuable thing we have. The true value of a human life should not be combined with the monetary value that is determined by the government, or the value of life would be worth very little.
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