This case study describes the difficult decisions and agony that Frank and Anita had to face in August of 2000 when their daughter Chanou was born with an extremely rare, incurable metabolic disorder. Because of the disorder, Chanou had an abnormal bone development that brought about a constant pain that prevented her parents from even touching her without causing increased pain. After months of watching their precious daughter suffer, they knew they had to do something to help their daughter. She had even begun to reject the food that was being given to her through her feeding tube. Doctors agreed to allow passive euthanasia by stopping Chanou’s feeding tube. There are at least 15 suffering babies each year in Holland, that doctors have to put their license on the line for if the parents give consent to help their baby die. There has been a committee developed to make Holland the first country to legalize “baby euthanasia.” Anti-euthanasia opponents have warned doctors of a “slippery slope” of the parents and doctors who are the surrogate decision-makers. It is said that, regardless of the law, “baby euthanasia” happens anyways. Eduard Verhagen has recognized the practice and has forced the government to confront the issue. Verhagen’s “Groningen protocol” has been adopted as the standard and will be endorsed by the regulatory committee. To discuss the questions concerning Verhagen’s thought process concerning the justification and moral righteousness of “baby euthanasia,” I have an adamant decision. Regarding whether to leave a child with only a few days or weeks to live in a state of suffering until their natural death? I would respond “no”. It is not fair for a baby, especially one who has a severe debilitating disord... ... middle of paper ... ...surance would open the door to possible rampant abuse by those perhaps seeking early insurance money or selfish relief from the financial or other burdens associated with such situations. I fully realize the sensitivity of these issues. There are those who would question my beliefs in this regard and of course my own morals. It would be easy for me to say that they don’t share my empathy for the physical torture of some terminal diseases, but that would be unfair. For some, their beliefs make it an issue that is black and white. They believe no one has the right to take a life other than God Himself. I appreciate their belief, but my own life experience leads me to think a bit differently. It was not an easy decision for us to support the heavy sedation of our own loved one, but given her anguish, to us it was and remains the morally right and caring thing to do.
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
The word “euthanasia” comes from the Greek words “eu” meaning good or well and “thanatos” meaning death. Euthanasia means to take a deliberate action with the express intent of ending a life in order to relieve intractable suffering. Belgium has passed a law that allows euthanasia for terminally ill children experiencing “constant and unbearable suffering” who can show a “capacity of discernment”. This has sparked many debates about whether child euthanasia is moral and whether it should be legal or not. Although child euthanasia is a way for a child to escape “constant and unbearable” suffering or to avoid suffering through a terminal illness, child euthanasia should not be legal because children do not possess the mental capacity to make a request for such an irreversible decision, a child may choose to die because they fear that they are burdening others, and the requirements in place to request euthanasia may not be sufficient enough to protect against misuse.
Death is a frequent visitor of the intensive care unit; patients in this area are at the very peak of their illnesses, many of them being nonverbal. As well as figuring out how to communicate with your patients, one might also have to accept the fact that the case could be medically futile and nothing can be done other than make the patient as comfortable as you can for the remainder of their stay. Recent news headlines have brought this topic closer to home, often if you are not in the health care field or studying to enter the health care field you may hear about these topics on television or the radio but they do not take up place in your conscious thoughts. Hearing about Brittany Maynard made me stop and ask myself what would I do, if I were in her shoes, or if I was a nurse in the hospital that was treating her, and the answer is I do not know. Ethical dilemmas such as this are complicated and there is often not a black and white answer, we live in the gray areas, it is about finding what is right for that patient and being able to accept the fact that their beliefs may not be the same as your
Aiding the death of infants is a much disputed controversy in healthcare. H. Tristram Engelhardt Jr. provides an ethical view that there is a moral duty not to treat an impaired infant when this will only prolong a painful life or would only lead to a painful death. It is these individuals, like Engelhardt, who must defend this position against groups who consider that we have the ability to prolong the lives of impaired infants, thus we are obligated to do so.
How would you feel if you were forced to suffer through days of excruciating pain, all because someone else had different beliefs? Well, the novel Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck explores the topic of mercy killing through the killing of Candy’s dog, who was merely existing while in constant pain. Another way to describe this way of death is Euthanasia. The article “Where is Euthanasia legal?” defines it as the act of intentionally ending a person’s life so as to help relieve the suffering of pain. Euthanasia is justified in certain situations because no individual should be forced to endure agonizing physical pain against their will; moreover, they should be able to have control over their own death, making it as comfortable and pleasant
In the Netherlands, courts have begun to permit the administration of lethal injections to terminally ill patients (Jacoby 101). To many people, this is a barbaric practice. To others, it is the only humane thing to do. When a person is dying of a terminal illness with no hope of recovery, that person should be allowed to die if they wish. Deliberately keeping them alive to endure the pain and suffering of their illness is the barbaric practice. If they wish death, death should be given to them. Activists for the "Right to Life" don't stop to consider the right to die. I believe that the Right to Die is as sacred a right as the Right to Life. People ...
Euthanasia has been a very polemic subject in American society. Its objective is to conclude the life of a person at their own request, a family member, or by the determination of a health care professional to avoid unnecessary suffering. There is a lot of moral and ethics involved in euthanasia, exist a big difference between provoke death and allow death. The first one rejects life, the second one accepts its natural end. Every single intentional act of provoke the death of a person without consent is opposed to ethics and is punishable by law. One of the biggest moral controversies in the XXI century is the fact that some people agree in the autonomy humans have to determine the moment of death. The moral and legal implications are huge and the practical benefits are also enormous. This is a touchy and controversial issue and my goal on writing this paper is to remain on favor of euthanasia. I will elaborate later on my reasons to believe and support euthanasia, but first let’s examine the historical perspective of this moral issue.
Nolan, Jenny. "Legalized Euthanasia in the Netherlands Raises Serious Ethical Concerns." The Ethics of Euthanasia. Ed. Nancy Harris. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. 56-59. Print. Rpt. of "Dutch Legalize Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide." National Right to Life News 28 (2001): n. pag.
Do terminally ill patients have the right to choose death with the assistance of others? Do religious and political leaders have the right to intervene with a patientís decision to die with the assistance of others? These two questions are some of the many about which this increasingly complex debate thrives. Society is often asked to answer each ques...
Every person that lives in pain deserves to have the chance to put it all to an end. Some people are debilitated and can’t even feed themselves. Everything in their life has to be done for them and with assistance. Some people prefer to be dead rather than ...
Doctors’ and physicians’ technical ambition is purely to treat patients that they encounter. This common knowledge contributes to the obvious position that stands against physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia. There are several forms of euthanasia being practiced today. Some forms include a more commonly used phrase “pulling the plug” for when a patient is in a vegetable state and the family or physicians have to make the choice of removing o...
Teri Schultz overviews opposing professional opinions regarding Belgium’s new proposed law, which potentially gives terminally ill children the option of Euthanasia. Schultz compares pediatrician Olivia Williams’ opinion and Els Van Hoof’s opinion. Williams spends her life saving desperately ill children’s lives, but says kids deserve this option. “If you go to a geriatric ward, patients with the same quality of life and the same life expectancy as a 6-year-old with bone cancer, you wouldn’t let them suffer, when they ask you to go, you’d let them go,” (Schultz, 2). Olivia Williams supposes if children suffer enough and consider death, they should be given that option. Her morals say making them suffer is not humane or right. She questions the difference between making children and
There are two methods of carrying out euthanasia, the first one is active and the second one is passive. Active euthanasia means the physicians deliberately take actions which cause the death of the patients, for example, the injection of sedatives in excess amount. Passive euthanasia is that the doctors do not take any further therapies to keep the ill patients alive such as switching off the life supporting machines [1]. This essay argues that the legalization of the euthanasia should not be proposed nowadays. It begins by analyzing the problem that may cause in relation to the following aspects: ‘slippery slope’ argument, religious view, vulnerable people and a rebuttal against the fair distribution of medical resources. This essay concludes that the legalization of the voluntary euthanasia brings more harm than good.
Allowing a minor the right to die has been called both ethical and unethical. Ethical because if they have suffered enough to choose death, they should be given the right to end their pain, but unethical because a child should not have the ability to choose life or death without having a full life experience. With a focus on medical ethics, some of the articles bring up the idea of “doing the right thing” whatever that may be. If keeping someone who is terminally ill alive is right then it should be done, but if ending their lives in order to preserve them from the physical excruciation, then that should be done. It is difficult to make a decision on who can refuse medical treatment bringing them to their death, but authors have given light to the ethics of each situation and moral decision given to each patient.
Patients who have a terminal illness and are in immense pain should have the right to choose to end their lives and those that assist them shouldn't be prosecuted. Animals can be free from suffering, so why torture people? It is a compassionate response to relieve the suffering of dying patients, everyone has a right for suicide, because a person has a right to determine what will or will not be done to his body, and If there is a right to life then people have a right to dispose of that