Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The moral implications of the practice of euthanasia have led to much discourse among medical professionals
Euthanasia and ethical dilemma
Euthanasia and ethical dilemma
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The moral implications of the practice of euthanasia have led to much discourse among medical professionals
Euthanasia is defined as “the act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable and distressing disease as an act of mercy” (Paola). The goal of this action is therefore not maleficent, such is murder, but instead compassionate. However, euthanasia in the terms of physician assisted suicide (PAS) is still illegal in United States as it is deemed a form of wrongful homicide. One of the most likely reasons PAS is illegal in the United States, with the exception of in Oregon and Washington, is because it is both morally and ethically controversial.
When it comes to the topic of euthanasia the four ethical goals of health care providers are in direct conflict with one another. An argument can be made that both permitting and preventing euthanasia violates one of those four principles which are as follows: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. Perhaps the biggest conflict is between the principles of autonomy and non-maleficence. When it comes to PAS we cannot allow our patients to act autonomously while at the same time making sure to do no harm. In addition the Hippocratic Oath serves as a large roadblock on the way to legalizing PAS. The Hippocratic Oath is an oath taken by healthcare providers at the beginning of practice outlining obligations and proper conduct of providers. The Hippocratic Oath is based on the maxim “do no harm” and more specifically it states “neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course”. American medicine traditionally succumbs to this oath and has therefore made PAS illegal. It is important to note, however, that this Oath was written thousands of years ago and it may need to be revised in the face of both e...
... middle of paper ...
...omy is in direct contrast with the medical maxim “do not harm” I have to disagree. The principle of non-maleficence does not simply state “do not kill” but it also states “do not cause pain or suffering”. For some the decision to die is less painful than to continue to live. Legalizing PAS in my eyes would equip individuals with the greatest amount of autonomy possible, which is choosing to end your life on your own terms. When we are forced to suffer through a terminal illness and let our lives end out of our control we are striped of all autonomy. Allowing individuals to make this decision consciously and voluntarily would instead allow us to regain an empowering sense of autonomy in our last moments of life. Instead of forcing these patients to continue a life they do not wish to live we can refocus healthcare resources on those who both need and want the help.
The word Euthanasia comes from the Greek and means “good death” (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp) and in the range of this paper, it will be called physician assisted suicide or “active” euthanasia. The definition of “active” euthanasia is ending one’s life yourself or with aid of a doctor. It can be done in various different ways; however, the most common form is with a combination of drugs, usually given by a physician. ( http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/hp.asp) The reason Physician Assisted Suicide (or PAS) is an important issue in this country and around the world is that there are many people out there suffering from debilitating, incurable and intensely painful diseases that would like to end their lives with dignity and without suffering. (Leo & Lein, 2010, The Value of a Planned Death)
PAS is an emotional debate that has been addressed in the courts repeatedly. In 1997, the Supreme Courts ruled PAS illegal in Washington State during the Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al. case. Several of the main reasons provided are, the state has the commitment to protect life, the medical profession, and vulnerable groups (Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al., 1997). However, in 2008 the Supreme Courts reversed their previous decision and passed the Death with Dignity Act legalizing PAS for Washington State. This declares that terminally ill individuals in the state of Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Vermont now have the liberty to choose how they will end their lives with either hospice care, palliative care, comfort measures, or PAS. The question remains is will the rest of the United States follow their lead?
Intro: The Hippocratic Oath clearly states, “I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked [for it], nor will I suggest the way to such counsel.”Steven Miles, a professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School published an article, “The Hippocratic Oath,” expressing that doctors must uphold the standards of the Hippocratic Oath to modern relevance. Euthanasia continues as a controversial policy issue. Providing resourceful information allows us to recognize what is in the best interest for patients and doctors alike. Today, I will convince you that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal. The United States must implement a policy stopping the usage of euthanasia for the terminally ill. I will provide knowledge of
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....
Should euthanasia be allowed or not? It has become a very controversial issue nowadays. Velleman and Hooker have different perspectives on euthanasia, and whether there should be laws permitting voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Although there are well-reasoned arguments on both sides, I would strongly agree with Hooker's argument that there should be a law permitting voluntary euthanasia when it is for the wellbeing of the person and that each individual should be able to make their own decision.
With the growing debate on the legality of physician assisted suicide happening in the United States,it is important for everyone to know the position that are being advocated. Having a full sense of knowledge on the conversation taking place gives people who are interested on this topic the necessary tool to draw their own conclusion on how they should feel on this particular issue. Even if someone is not interested in this topic on a cultural level, they should in a personal sense because it might affect their family or themselves one day. In a way this issue and debate affects everyone because there might be a possibility that we acquire a terminal illness, and when this happen we are either denied the option of PAS or granted that option, depending the status of it.
First of all, the “Right-To-Die” group and the Hemlock Society contend that terminally ill individuals have the right to end their own lives in some instances, and because PAS is illegal, many patients are unable to get the help necessary to terminate their lives and must involuntarily endure the extreme pain and suffering of their diseases. Others argue that PAS must be legalized...
I picked voluntary euthanasia as my written assignment topic this week because while reading through it, my mother’s comment of that she wants to just pass away quickly, rather suffering slowly and be a burden to everyone around here a long time ago came to my mind. She made that comment after visiting someone dying from cancer, so I understand why she made that remark. The reasons cited for voluntary euthanasia is to end the suffering and stop being a burden to everyone around you and is asking for health professionals to assist in ending your life (Young, 2014). Not many countries as we learned has legalized euthanasia, but a few like the Netherlands has set 5 very strict conditions for asking for voluntary euthanasia which are: “suffering
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
In closing, despite all of the different opinions that people have on PAS, there are many good outcomes that come with the decision. Having the right to make a “choice” is what PAS comes down to. Many argue that it is inhumane, while many will argue that it is a choice. If choosing PAS as a last dying right, then one should respect that choice. It is a choice and only the patient should have the right to choose.
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
“Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.”(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life. These patients are incompetent to decide because they are either minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted when it is against the will of the patient (Gupta, Bhatnagar, Mishra). Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia means life-sustaining treatments are withheld and nothing is done to keep the patient alive. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician do something by giving drugs or substances that ends a patient’s life. (Medical News Today)
It raises the question of where does this stop and who will decide when Physician-aid-in dying is permitted. Another argument is that good palliative care can; help control pain, shortness of breath, and nausea. With this many believe the option of PAS wouldn’t be chosen, and is unnecessary. Infact, some would even say it is the physician's job to keep the sick from harm and injustice. The Hippocratic oath declares “I will keep the sick from harm and injustice.
I hold the stance that Physician Assisted Suicide is an ethical practice in regards to patients who suffer from terminal illness. For these individuals, if P.A.S. is the only remaining option for a peaceful death, I believe it is a virtuous act for a patient who is fully aware of the decision, consequences, to exercise their human right to a peaceful death P.A.S. Having choice allows individuals to maintain control, dignity, and autonomy while facing the cycle of nature’s most difficult hurdles. P.A.S. offers an option for individuals to maintain a sense of individuality and choice when faced with disabling circumstances. If my grandfather had been given this choice, perhaps the final footprints he left in this world would have been more reminiscent of who he was as an individual, rather than a product of a debilitating circumstance.
Physician-Assisted Suicide is assisted suicide from a physician to a person to make it as painless and dignified as possible. There is also Euthanasia, which is to end a person life so they don’t have to go through any more pain and suffering without the patients consent. As of right now, only Montana, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have legalized Physician-Assisted suicide. To be eligible for Physician-assisted suicide, a patient must have a terminally ill disease. There are many pros and cons in this if you are having unbearable pain and want to end the suffering.