Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Case of physician assisted suicide
The legal implications of euthanasia
Case of physician assisted suicide
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Case of physician assisted suicide
Jack has just been in a serious car accident. He is suffering from brain damage and paralysis. His family does not want him to live the rest of his life this way, but do they have a choice in ending the pain and suffering of their loved one? According to most state governments and countries, the answer is no; however, there is method allowed in some states to stop the pain and suffering for both the patient and his family. This method is called euthanasia. Euthanasia is the deliberate, painless killing of persons who suffer from a physically or emotionally painful or incurable disease or condition. Euthanasia is illegal in most countries and few doctors practice it, but it is a decision that seriously ill or injured people and their families should be allowed to make.
Jack is unable to do anything. He cannot walk, talk, or even kiss his wife and kids goodnight. Imagine the pain that Jack and his family are going through. His family would much rather see him be put to rest than to watch him suffer the rest of his life. Would you be able to live your life this way? Many people would not be able to, and that is why euthanasia is an important choice to have. It would prevent the family from a lifetime of suffering because the family would not have to see the ill person suffer and they would know that they did the right thing by ending the misery.
The major advantage of euthanasia is that it prevents a person from having to endure the rest of their life in pain. There is no appropriate reason that a person who is suffering from an incurable disease or condition should have to spend the rest of his or her life that way. If their family agrees with them, then the patient’s suffering should be put to an end. Many peop...
... middle of paper ...
...d on a patient who wants the help. Would you want to live the rest of your life the way Jack has to, and would your family want you to? The only way in which this can be prevented is euthanasia. If you would not want to spend the rest of your life suffering, how can we expect anyone else to?
Works Cited
“Let Death Be My Dominion.” The Economist. Oct 16, 1999. 353 (1999): 89-92. Proquest. Online. 19 Nov. 1999.
Daniel, Caroline. “Killing with kindness.” New Statesman. 126 (1997): 16(3). Infotrac. Online. 19 Nov. 1999
Emanuel, Ezekiel J. “Death’s Door.” The New Republic. 220 (1999): 15-16. Proquest. Online. 19 Nov. 1999.
Gillon, Raanan. “When Doctors Might Kill Their Patients.” British Medical Journal. 318 (1999): 1431-1432. Proquest. Online. 19 Nov. 1999.
“Suicide.” Clinical Reference Systems. Jul (1999): 1421. Infotrac. Online. 2 Dec. 1999.
The financial crisis of 2007–2008 is considered by many economists the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. This crisis resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. The crisis led to a series of events including: the 2008–2012 global recessions and the European sovereign-debt crisis. The reasons of this financial crisis are argued by economists. The performance of the Federal Reserve becomes a focal point in this argument.
Hanser, Matthew. “Killing,Letting Die And Preventing People From Being Saved.” Utilitas 11.3 (1999): 277. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 April 2014
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
In this essay, I will discuss whether euthanasia is morally permissible or not. Euthanasia is the intention of ending life due to inevitable pain and suffering. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek words “eu,” which means good, and “thanatosis, which means death. There are two types of euthanasia, active and passive. Active euthanasia is when medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die, such as giving lethal injections. Passive euthanasia is when a patient dies because the medical professionals do not do anything to keep them alive or they stop doing something that was keeping them alive. Some pros of euthanasia is the freedom to decide your destiny, ending the pain, and to die with dignity. Some cons
The “Compassionate Killers.” Newsweek. Web. The Web. The Web.
Euthanasia - Pro and Con & nbsp; Abstract & nbsp; This paper will define Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia is often confused with and associated with assisted suicide, definitions of the two are. required. Two perspectives shall be presented in this paper. The first perspective favor euthanasia or the "right to die," the second perspective. favor antieuthanasia, or the "right to live". Each perspective shall. endeavor to clarify the legal, moral and ethical ramifications or aspects of euthanasia. & nbsp; Thesis Statement & nbsp; Euthanasia, also mercy killing, is the practice of ending a life so as to.
Although euthanasia requests have begun to stabilize throughout the years while palliative care has improved, euthanasia will never completely disappear. This topic depends on the type of person someone is and what thethat person is enduring. Many people fear the process of dying and the dying itself. Even though there are treatments to relieve some pain throughin the process, a patient still knows death will eventually come. Some might believe it is better to end it now rather than prolonging it. Improving palliative care will not get rid of euthanasia requests, but instead, prolong the requests. A person’s suffering can only be temporarily managed. Even if a patient is on a pain relieving treatment, there might be other side effects that cause the patient to suffer, such as nausea and vomiting. Some may like the idea of temporarily removing the suffering, but others may not because of the realization of needing a treatment to temporarily make himself feel better. These treatments can be very costly and, over time, can add up to a great amount of money that a patient and his family does not have. Also, those who are on palliative care may decide later on that the wait or the side effects are not worth it anymore and eventually request euthanasia. The improvements of palliative care will only prolong the requests of
Euthanasia is one of the most complicated issues in the medical field due to the debate of whether or not it is morally right. Today, the lives of many patients can be saved with the latest discoveries in medicine and technology. But we are still unable to find cures to all illnesses, and patients have to go through extremely painful treatments only to live a little bit longer. These patients struggle with physical and psychological pain. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. discusses the topic of just and unjust laws in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” which brings into question whether it is just to kill a patient who is suffering or unjust to take that person’s life even if that person is suffering. In my opinion people should have the right, with certain restrictions, to end their lives in the way they see fit if they are suffering from endless pain.
Critics to the idea of providing dying patients with lethal doses, fear that people will use this type those and kill others, “lack of supervision over the use of lethal drugs…risk that the drugs might be used for some other purpose”(Young 45). Young explains that another debate that has been going on within this issue is the distinction between killings patients and allowing them die. What people don’t understand is that it is not considered killing a patient if it’s the option they wished for. “If a dying patient requests help with dying because… he is … in intolerable burden, he should be benefited by a physician assisting him to die”(Young 119). Patients who are suffering from diseases that have no cure should be given the option to decide the timing and manner of their own death. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for
Anyone can be diagnosed with a terminal illness. It doesn’t matter how healthy you are, who you are, or what you do. Some terminal illnesses you can prevent by avoiding unhealthy habits, eating healthily, exercising regularly and keeping up with vaccinations. However some terminally ill people cannot be helped, their diseases cannot be cured and the only thing possible to help them, besides providing pain relieving medication, is to make them as comfortable as possible while enduring their condition. Many times the pharmaceuticals do not provide the desired pain escape, and cause patients to seek immediate relief in methods such as euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending a life in order to alleviate pain and suffering, but is deemed controversial because many various religions believe that their creators are the only ones that should decide when their life’s journey should reach its end. Euthanasia is performed by medical doctors or physicians and is the administration of a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient on his or her express request. Although the majority of American states oppose euthanasia, the practice would result in more good as opposed to harm. The patient who is receiving the euthanizing medication would be able to proactively choose their pursuit of happiness, alleviate themselves from all of the built up pain and suffering, relieve the burden they may feel they are upon their family, and die with dignity, which is the most ethical option for vegetative state and terminally ill patients. Euthanasia should remain an alternative to living a slow and painful life for those who are terminally ill, in a vegetative state or would like to end their life with dignity. In addition, t...
The right of someone to take their own life has been a topic of debate since the time of Romans. In this paper euthanasia will be discussed including the history, current legislation, reasons for, reasons against, and the authors opinion on the topic. With an aging population, increasing lifespan, and an increasing rate of cancers euthanasia will become a larger topic of discussion in the years to come.
Every day, millions of people are being diagnose with terminal illnesses or being seriously injured in accidents. Sometimes, those illnesses and accidents become long and agonizingly painful deaths. Although medication could briefly ease the pain, the long-term agony that the patient has to deal with is ceaseless. Undoubtedly, the human life has an enormous value and is for that reason that it should be preserved in all the possible ways. Nevertheless, when the terminal illness comes to its last stage, or the damage caused for an accident is too much to handle and the only option left is death, shouldn’t it be the patient’s decision to end its suffering and pain in a dignified way? Or in cases where the patient has an impediment to decide, shouldn’t the family have the option to give their loved one an end to its suffer? As part of a free society, euthanasia should be considered as a legal and humane option for patients suffering from terminal diseases and victims of accidents, mainly because is every human right to die in a decent way.
The debate on whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalized has been a controversial topic. Euthanasia is defined as ‘a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering’ [1]. Voluntary euthanasia refers to the patients who understand the terms in the consent and sign up under consciousness, while involuntary euthanasia is performed against patient's wishes and some people may regard it as a murder [1].
Takagi, S. (2010) ‘Applying the Lessons of Asia: The IMF’s Crisis Management Strategy in 2008’, ADBI Working Paper 206. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. Available from: http://www.adbi.org/workingpaper/2010/03/16/3638.imf.crisis.management.strategy.2008/ [Accessed 10 November 2013]
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