Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
English i Believe Revised Draft

English i Believe Revised Draft

Ratings: (0)|Views: 18|Likes:
Published by Moh Hensley

More info:

Published by: Moh Hensley on Dec 06, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/06/2012

pdf

text

original

 
Moh 1Hensley Moh10/10/2012Prof. Marion BrunerDraft
Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Or Euthanasia Be Legalized?
Euthanasia means taking away someone’s life in order to relieve the person from
pain and suffering, normally with the consent of the person. Physician-assisted suicide iswhen the physician does not have to be directly involved in causing a death while witheuthanasia, the physician is actively and directly involved in the death. In some countrieslike Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the states of Oregon and Washington, voluntaryeuthanasia which is euthanasia done with the consent of the patient is legal. Involuntaryeuthanasia is euthanasia without the consent of the patient, usually done by a differentperson because the patient is incapable of doing so (Nordqvist. 2010). The majority of states are against euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. There have been variousperspectives on this matter over the years.Firstly, some of those in support of euthanasia believe the right to die is afundamental freedom for everybody. Nowhere in the constitution does it state or imply thatthe government has the right to keep a person from committing suicide ( Messerli. Jan 2012). If the patient and family have agreed and d
ecided that they want to do it, then it’s their 
business. The patient should be given the option to make the choice. Part of AmericanLiberty Union stated in its 1996 amicus Brief that a state's categorical ban on physicianassistance to suicide as applied to competent, terminally ill patients who wish to avoid
 
Moh 2unendurable pain and hasten inevitable death substantially interferes with this protected libertyinterest and cannot be sustained (
 
Procon). The majority of the U.S Supreme Court was
against this right to die stating that “
The history of the law's treatment of assisted suicide inthis country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it.That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right' to assistance incommitting suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause
(Procon).Another reason put forth by those in support of euthanasia or physician-assitedsuicide is that we should let people die with their dignity and pride intact rather than allowthem to suffer with the illness they have. Health care costs can be reduced, which wouldsave estates and lower insurance premiums (Messerli. January 2012) . Regarding health carecosts, it will be preferable to spend health care money on other things like treating patientsthat can be saved instead of spending huge amounts of money on dying patients whowant to end their lives. The International Task Force supported this statement on healthcare costs saying that drugs for assisted suicide cost about $35 to $45, making them far lessexpensive than providing medical care and this could fill the void from cutbacks for treatmentand care with the 'treatment' of death ( Procon).Those that agree with concept of euthanasia also believe preventing suicide is aviolation of religious freedom
.
A significant part of religious beliefs involves what happens inthe afterlife. According to many claims, the government is imposing its religious belief thatsuicide is a sin by preventing suicide. No one knows for sure what happens after we die; itshould be up to the individual to determine what he or she believes.
 
Moh 3By legalizing euthanasia, pain and grieve of the patient's family and friends couldbe reduced.
 
Friends and family of the patient often suffer as much or more pain as the patienthimself. It's difficult to see a loved one in such a bad state for so long. It's emotional andphysically draining to have all that stress for a very long period. Physician-assisted suicidewould give the patient the opportunity to say his or her final goodbyes and end his or her lifewith dignity. By legalizing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, vital organs and otherresources like equipments and medications can be saved allowing doctors to save the lives of others
.
There are long waiting lists for hearts, kidneys, livers, and other organs that arenecessary to save the lives of people who can be saved. The resources used on patients whowant to die could be used on other patients who can be saved.
From others’
perspectives, legalizing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide wouldviolate doctors' Hippocratic oath. Upon receiving a medical degree, each doctor is required totake a Hippocratic oath, which says among other thing, "First, do no harm" (Messerli Jan. 2012).Assisting in suicides would be a violation of that oath and may cause some damage to thedoctor-patient trust. Any damage to this trust may lead to many doubts by patients. Philipcontrasted this point of view saying surely, the 'harm' in this instance is done when weprolong the life, and 'doing no harm' means that we should help the patient die ( Nitcshke. ). Hisreason behind this statement was because euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide isconsistent with good medical end-of- life care though it involves killing the patienttechnically.Some fear that by legalizing euthanasia, Government and insurance companies may putundue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->