Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Marijuana literature review
Marijuana literature review
Marijuana literature review
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Marijuana literature review
Introduction The article I chose to do my summary on is an online newspaper article for the East Valley Tribune. The article itself was on the new bill that will be voted on later in the week that has been passed in four other states that gives patients who have been diagnosed with illnesses that are not curable access to new medications that have not been fully approved by the FDA. My reason for writing this is because I find new drug developments interesting and this bill was also first passed in my home state. What is This New Bill? In Arizona, this new bill is referred to as Proposition 303. This proposition allows severely ill patients to be allowed to try new drugs and other treatments that have passed the first level of testing by the FDA, but not otherwise been fully approved to the public. This bill is revolutionary in the …show more content…
Qualifications that make a person capable to participate in this bill is that the patient’s physician has to decide that the illness or disease that the patient is fighting is terminal, or the illness will be a means to an end for their life. Another aspect that determines whether the patient is capable to have access to treatments and trials is that the patient has to have tried all other facets of treatment before the physician can recommend them to try new drugs or treatments. (Ogden, W) Voter Participation This new “Right to Try” bill is being passed a little bit differently in Arizona versus the other three states. Voters in Arizona get to have a say this time around. In the previous states the state legislature voted whether they thought the bill ought to be passed or not. Voters should educate themselves on the contents of the proposed bill before making a decision, because even though this is a miracle for those who have exhausted all aspects of care, it could also potentially put them at risk for advancing the disease even further. (Ogden, W)
In What Dying People Want, Kuhl comments, "Dying involves choice"(xviii). People choose what they wear, what they do, and what they will eat on a day to day basis. Choosing how, when, or why sick people die is just like an everyday decision for them. This however, has not been accomplished by some individuals in this Country. Americans have the right of choice. When a patient communicates the desire to die, the inspection of acceptability for palliative care begins instantly. Inspections include evaluation of pain management, depression, anxiety, family burnout, spirituality and other observed issues (Baird and Rosenbaum 100). When working or living with an elder, never ignore the words "I want to die". If this is ignored, that person will not receive their wishes they deserve. Countries are starting to understand that people should be able to die if they choose, "In the United States there are assisted dying laws restricted to terminally ill and mentally competent adults" (Firth). The assisted dying law is only in Oregon, Montana, Washington, Vermont, and California. That is five states out of fifty states. This must be expanded to all fifty states because all individuals have the right of this law. In 2013, Vermont passed an "End of Life Choices" bill. This bill allows terminally ill people to get
Currently, in the United States, 12% of states including Vermont, Oregon, and California have legalized the Right to Die. This ongoing debate whether or not to assist in death with patients who have terminal illness has been and is still far from over. Before continuing, the definition of Right to Die is, “an individual who has been certified by a physician as having an illness or physical condition which can be reasonably be expected to result in death in 24 months or less after the date of the certification” (Terminally Ill Law & Legal Definition 1). With this definition, the Right to die ought to be available to any person that is determined terminally ill by a professional, upon this; with the request of Right to Die, euthanasia must be
We consider the legislation consistent with the principle that "respect for that person [who is capable of participating] mandates that he or she be recognized as the prime decision-maker" in treatment. [2] The patient is a person in relationship, not an isolated individual. Her or his decisions should take others into account and be made in supportive consultation with family members, close friends, pastor, and health care professionals. Christians face end-of-life decisions in all their ambiguity, knowing we are responsible ultimately to God, whose grace comforts, forgives, and frees us in our dilemmas.
The citizens of the state of Arizona decided to pass an initiative that gives doctors the right to prescribe marijuana and other such drugs for medicinal purposes only. However, this initiative has brought many controversies to the Arizona government. Many of these issues include voters of Arizona not fully understanding the bill and many associations such as the American Lung Association trying to amend the bill.
The National Right to Life Committee and Oregon Right to Life filed a friend of the court brief in the case challenging the recent decision of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft that the Controlled Substances Act does not permit the use of federally controlled drugs for assisted suicide. Under the Ashcroft decision, physicians who prescribe controlled drugs for assisted suicide could lose their licenses to prescribe any federally controlled drugs, which would effectively end the medical practice of many doctors. The brief supports the position of the United States, arguing that the Ashcroft decision should be upheld. (Oregon)
A 2006 court case, Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach, would have forced radical changes in FDA regulation of unapproved drugs. The Abigail Alliance argued that the FDA must license drugs for use by terminally ill patients with "desperate diagnoses," after they have completed Phase I testing. The case won an initial appeal in May 2006, but that decision was reversed by a March 2007 rehearing. The US Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and the final decision denied the existence of a right to unapproved
The Death with Dignity Act was approved by voters in Oregon in 1994 and was confirmed in 1997 when the law went into effect. It is a law that allows mentally competent, terminally-ill adults to voluntarily request a prescription medication
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
The controversy of legalizing marijuana has been raging for quite a while in America. From some people pushing it for medical purposes to potheads just wanting to get high legally. Marijuana has been used for years as a popular drug for people who want to get a high. All this time it has been illegal and now it looks as if the drug may become legal. There has been heated debate by many sides giving there opinion in the issue. These people are not only left wing liberals either. Richard Brookhiser, a National Review Senior editor is openly supportive of medical marijuana yet extremely conservative in his writing for National Review (Brookhiser 27). He is for medical marijuana since he used it in his battle with testicular cancer. He says "I turned to [marijuana] when I got cancer because marijuana gives healthy people an appetite, and prevents people who are nauseated from throwing up. "(Brookhiser 27) Cancer patients are not the only benefactors from the appetite enhancer in marijuana, but so are any other nauseous people. Arizona and California have already passed a law allowing marijuana to be used as a medicinal drug. Fifty Six percent of the California voters voted for this law. "We've sent a message to Washington," says Dennis Peron. "They've had 25 years of this drug was, and they've only made things worse." (Simmons 111) The Arizona proposition garnished an even wider margin of separation between the fore's an against in a sixty five percent support tally. Ethan Nadelmann insists that " these propositions are not about legalization or decriminalization. They're about initiating some non radical, commonsense approaches to drug policy." General Barry McCaffery disagrees saying, "I...
...d how these determinations effect a physician’s approach to various types of critically ill patients? These types of questions come in to play when one attempts to critically analyze the differences between the types of terminally ill patients and the subtle ethical/legal nuances between withholding and withdrawing treatment. According to a review by Larry Gostin and Robert Weir about Nancy Cruzan, “…courts examine the physician’s respect for the desires of the patient and the level of care administered. A rule forbidding physicians from discontinuing a treatment that could have been withheld initially will discourage doctors from attempting certain types of care and force them prematurely to allow a patient to die. Physicians must be free to exercise their best professional judgment, especially when facing the sensitive question of whether to administer treatment.”
Only people who have witnessed or experienced a terminal illness know how much it impacts a person’s life and their families. According to the Cancer Facts and Figures, in 2015, there was an estimate of 1,658,370 people who were diagnosed with cancer and 589,430 of those diagnosed with cancer had died (American Cancer Society). Medication evolves every day, yet there is little to do for cancer patients. They can go through various treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiation therapy, however some patients these treatments are unbearable. In four states, physician assisted suicide is legal, many other states are debating on the issue at hand. States that have not legalized assisted suicide is due to it being considered murder and can result in imprisonment and doctor license revoked. There has been recent debates involving whether or not physician assisted suicide should be legalized because it is considered murder. Legalizing assisted suicide does not only provide an option to terminally ill patients, but gives others an option. Although some argue that physician assisted suicide should not be legalized, proponents argue that physician assisted suicide should allow options for the patients that are not suffering.
Have you ever thought if your vote actually counts or not? If you think it doesn’t than you are being mistaken, each and every vote in the election is taken into consideration whether it is just to pass a proposition or it is the presidential election. There were a lot of propositions allotted for the present election but, proposition 46, as we all know, has turned out to be the most debatable proposition as it consists of two very strong sides. The proposition divides the two sides into a group of doctors who are against this proposition and the lawyers and the law firms who plan to support it. The proposition mainly suggests the doctors to take the drug and alcohol
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
Colorado’s Proposition 106, or more commonly known as “The Right to Die” would at this moment make it perfectly legal for physician-assisted suicide in Colorado. The creation of this proposition is to give individuals who are terminally ill a chance have another option than what is considered a painful and slow death. By giving them a medication that would provide them with a chance to end their own life. By believing that by taking this additional option gives the families’ of these individuals a chance not having to witness their loved one slowly fade away. Furthermore not having to deal with extravagant medical costs in search of treatment.
Cancer patients often wonder if going through treatments like chemotherapy and radiation are worth the risk of the side effects, in addition to the cancerous side effects. They feel that they can’t enjoy or relax in what a short amount of time they have left because they are bedridden from the nausea and pain that treatments put them through. Patients tell their loved ones to just let them die so long as they don’t have to go through any more pain. Those who are too old, are unable to recover from the effects, or are just too far in the grips of cancer, should refuse the more harsh treatments like chemo and radiation. On the positive side, refusing treatments after a certain point can save their families from the stress and cost of hospital bills. If caught early enough, patients can opt for safer and easier routes to getting rid of cancer like surgery or by doing a stem cell transplant.