Euthanasia Case Essay Example for Free

Euthanasia Case Essay Let’s start off by defining the word euthanasia so that this paper is clear and then we can get in to why it can be passive or active. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma (dictionary.com). Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide and more loosely termed being mercy killing, basically means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering. Some interpret euthanasia as the practice of ending life in a painless manner. Many disagree with this interpretation, because it needs to include a reference to intractable suffering. Euthanasia is illegal. Now that we know what euthanasia is we can breakdown the two procedural classification of euthanasia (medicalnewstoday.com).Passive euthanasia is usually defined as withdrawing medical treatment with the deliberate intention of causing the patients death. For example, if a patient requires kidney dialysis to survive, and the doctors disconnect the dialysis machine, the patient will presumably die fairly soon. Perhaps the classic example of passive euthanasia is a do not resuscitate order. Normally if a patient has a heart attack or similar sudden interruption in life functions, medical staff will attempt to revive them. If they make no such effort but simply stand and watch as the patient dies, this is passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is taking specific steps to cause the patients death, such as injecting the patient with poison. In practice, this is usually an overdose of pain-killers or sleeping pills. In other words, the difference between active and passive is that in active euthanasia, something is done to end the patients life; in passive euthanasia, something is not done that would have preserved the patients life. An important idea behind this distinction is that in passive euthanasia the doctors are not actively killing anyone; they are simply not saving him. You would surely not be prosecuted for homicide. Thus, proponents of euthanasia say that while we can debate whether active euthanasia should be legal, there can be no debate about passive euthanasia: You cannot prosecute someone for failing to save a life (pregnantpause.org). Euthanasia has been a very controversial and emotive topic for a long time (medicalnewstoday.com). The beliefs that I have on euthanasia is that is right and it is wrong at the same time. I feel that asking someone to play God is not the way to go. Active euthanasia is just a way for someone to take the easy way out. I understand that they are hurting and are in pain but that’s why the medical field has many different types of pain medicines to keep the patient comfortable enough to deal with everyday life. I think that if a doctor agrees with giving his patient a lethal dose of medicines to end their life is wrong and that then becomes assisted suicide and that they should not have been a doctor because they have violated their oath to protect and heal patients and keep them alive. Whose place is it to decide if one lives or one dies? No one here on earth, I feel like the person that is requesting this type of method to end their life is committing suicide and you are not supposed to take your own life those are my religious beliefs. Another religious belief is that God will not put more on you than you can bear, which means this is all about the endurance you have to preserve life until it is time for you to die a natural life. The other reason why I feel that it is kind of wrong to have a passive euthanasia is because you should not give up on life, you should try all the ways to survive that you can except in the situation of being brain dead or being a vegetable. But then I feel that it is that person right to decide do not resuscitate because that is there right they have that medical right to decide if they do not want to be helped and hooked up on machines just to live. If I ever get to that point I want my family and the doctors to do all that they can do to keep me alive unless in the event like I stated earlier which is brain dead or in a vegetable state. But those are just my beliefs and I cannot change the way others think or how they dictate their lives, everyone has their free will to decide about their life when it comes to passive euthanasia. Assisted dying violates the sanctity of human life speaking from a Baptist person. I agree with that because I am a Baptist and I am a Christian and that is how we were taught was not to kill yourself because you are supposed to die a natural death no matter what the situation is. That means you are allowing God to do His job and that is to letting Him decide when it is time for your life to end, no one can do that for you. Even if you allow yourself not to want to be attached to machines or get resituated you are still dying a natural life. Right to die is just that the right to die but when I say it I mean a right to die of natural causes, not by the hand of another person or by a high dosage of pills to end your life. I understand that if you have a do not resuscitate then that is your choice and I support that choice because you either or going to die or you will pull through which gives that a 50/50 chance. But you are still having your request met by not being resuscitated. so I think that it okay to die a natural life like I have stated before but to have a euthanasia I do not agree with because it is not your time to go, it is the time that you would prefer to leave the earth not when you are meant to leave. Patient suffering at end of life, I hate that people has to suffer but it is a part of life everyone will have their ups and downs in life and unfortunately pain and suffering is life. But the medical field has expanded so far that they are easy to solve the pain or I should say make it easier for patient to be much more comfortable in their time of need where they will not suffer as much as they normally would. I agree that it is good that it is a law against euthanasia, because it does help prevent abuse and protect others. Slippery slope to legalize murder is something that should not be tolerated. Especially with regard to taking life, slippery slope arguments have long been a feature of the ethical landscape, used to question the moral permissibility of all kinds of acts (procon.org) In my opinion it is giving people a reason to want to die only because they consent to it because they have less than a certain time to live. No one knows the day and time that they are going to die unless they commit suicide and still if they do that that they do not know the time they can only assume how long it will take to die, that is just like the doctors giving patients less than a week to survive and they live and extra month so euthanasia is nothing positive as well as the slippery slope to be legalized. If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent? Why need we ask for consent (procon.org)? If the slippery slope to legalize murder is so right why does it cost for the insurance company to pay for it and why should they even be in the hospital using up space that someone else that needs and wants a chance at life could be at. The people that want to kill themselves should just go ahead and do it at home and save everyone the time and money it cost to get euthanasia. Not trying to be rude about it. Hippocratic Oath and prohibition of killing the much-quoted reference to do no harm is also in need of explanation. Does not doing harm mean that we should prolong a life that the patient sees as a painful burden? Surely, the harm in this instance is done when we prolong the life, and doing no harm means that we should help the patient die (procon.org)? Surely not, we should not kill someone because they are in pain we should do our best to make sure that patient is as comfortable as possible and there is plenty of medicine out there that can do the job of making people comfortable instead of killing them. Like I said previously that if God wanted them to die then he would make them die of natural causes not because of euthanasia, which is not the way to doing things in my eyes. You are causing more pain on them by trying to end their life because you do not know if the way they die will be a pain free death with the euthanasia it could choke them or it could cause them tremendous pain before they die nothing on earth is pain free. Doctors are made to save lives not take them, that is their oath and that is what they should do is save the patient and keep them as pain free as possible to make their life a lot more comfortable. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect In forswearing the giving of poison when asked for it, the Hippocratic physician rejects the view that the patients choice for death can make killing him right (procon.org). Government involvement in end of life decision, when do we withhold which therapies and allow nature to take its course? When are we, through our own indecision and fears of mortality, allowing wondrous medical methods to perversely prolong the dying rather than the living (procon.org)? I think that we as medical people should prolong life as long as we can because the health care business is about taking care of the ill, elderly, and people with disabilities. Once the medicine starts not to work any longer then it is up to that person and family to request that they no longer get any medication (treatment) and allow them to die a natural life even if that means them dying in pain. That is the only time that I feel that a person should stop trying to prolong life is when nothing else is working for them and they are ready to suffer the pain to die a natural death. Euthanasia is definitely not the answer. However, I think that it sad that the government has to make decisions on infants and elderly people with disabilities that cannot stand up for themselves and make the decision in a way they are just kind of treated like a number, or who they think will live the longest will get to live and the people that cannot make it to live they are wrote off. Palliative (end of life) care, every appropriate palliative option available must be discussed with the patient and, if reasonable, tried before a request for assisted death can be accepted (pro con.org) And even then when everything is done that needs to be done physicians cannot assist in suicide or euthanasia they can only cute off the treatment and let them die a natural life. There are very few hospice facilities, very little in the way of organized hospice activity, and few specialists in palliative care, although some efforts are now under way to try and jump-start the hospice movement in that country (procon.org). They have very limited options once they get to this point of life. Healthcare spending implications, considering the way we finance healthcare in the United States, it would be hard to make a case that there is a financial imperative compelling us to adopt physician-assisted suicide in an effort to save money so that others could benefit (procon.org).. In so many ways that sounds so harsh but the reality of it is true. If it was legal for physicians to assist in suicide then they are saying that more people could be helped due to the fact that they are killing people off to save more money for others to be taken care of. In a way they are saying that they are saving money from people with terminally ill disease will make it better for the healthier person, which is just my opinion and what I am getting from the information. Savings to governments could become a consideration. Drugs for assisted suicide cost about $35 to $45, making them far less expensive than providing medical care. This could fill the void from cutbacks for treatment and care with the treatment of death (procon.org). I did not know that it cost as less as $35 to kill someone off, that is sad. But it will save a lot of money in the end. However, I am still against physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Social groups at risk of abuse, those who died by physician-assisted suicide were more likely to be college graduates, more likely to be Asian, somewhat younger, more likely to be divorced, and more likely to have cancer or amytrophic lateral sclerosis the reason for more people with cancer wanting assisted suicide or euthanasia is because they know that there is ultimately no cure for this disease and they feel like they want to skip out on all the pain before it gets that bad. Moreover, although 2.6 percent of Oregonians are African American, no African American patients have chosen assisted suicide (procon.org). Since I am African American I see that those of my ethnicity have the same views as I do about physician assisted suicide and euthanasia in Oregon where it is legal for this to happen. It just shows that just because you live in a state that allow these things to happen does not mean that everyone believes in going out (dying) like that, they as well want to get the best treatment they can get until there is no more treatment that can get done. But even if they wanted to get it done they have to say it and have it in writing a certain amount of time within a certain amount of days for any of this to happen. Religious concerns, some wonder if it is right for you to commit suicide or if it’s okay to ask someone to take you out of your misery which is euthanasia. Well it is not right why put that sin on yourself and then why go ahead and involves someone else in your sin to get them to sin for your benefit? That is wrong on all kind of accounts. If you think that you want to do something that is morally wrong then you go ahead and do that, but do not involve an innocent person into the situation because we are all held accountable for our sins, this just goes off my beliefs and background. But Catholic leaders and moral teachers, they believe that life is the most basic gift of a loving God- a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion. Our tradition, declaring a moral obligation to care for our own life and health and to seek such care from others, recognizes that we are not morally obligated to use all available medical procedures in every set of circumstances. But that tradition clearly and strongly affirms that as a responsible steward of life one must never directly intend to cause ones own death, or the death of an innocent victim, by action or omission (procon.org) both of our views seems to match up, so do you think it is right or wrong? Living wills can be used to refuse extraordinary, life-prolonging care and are effective in providing clear and convincing evidence that may be necessary under state statutes to refuse care after one becomes terminally ill (procon.org). It is always a good thing to have a living will so that your plans can be carried out by your family. Having this document will cut out a lot confusion and questionable decisions because you have documentation off everything. Without a living will then there is where the problems come from and that’s when the medical office staff have to get involved in it as well as other authorities. In Texas, where I live physician assisted suicide is illegal and I think that it should remain that way. Because there is no need for a doctor to help you commit suicide just because you are uncomfortable in life. That’s just like making regular suicide legal and not doing anything to those people that are trying to harm themselves when they really need a doctor to help them and care for them which is what doctors are supposed to do. In Texas it is illegal for physician assisted suicide. It is considered a class c misdemeanor if no suicide or bodily injury results, which means that they attempted to commit suicide but it did not go right. But if it does go right and the doctor helps kill the patient then it is a state jail felony, which means that the suicide was attempted with bodily injury. Then after that I randomly decided to pick Minnesota as my other state to see what the differences were in laws. Again it is illegal for physician assisted suicide in Minnesota and the conditions are way harder than in Texas. In Minnesota you receive up to 15 years in prison and/or a fine up to 30,000 if suicide results; up to seven years in prison and/or a fine up to 14,000 if attempted suicide results. The differences between the two are fines and different types of cases, in Texas it could be a class c misdemeanor whereas in Minnesota you will go to jail or pay the fines. In conclusion, you have seen and read all of the information above and it clearly states that I am against physician assisted suicide or euthanasia. It is morally wrong to kill someone and it is morally wrong to kill someone else to take their pain away. Minnesota laws are a lot stricter than Texas laws for as physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Which I thought Texas would be where I live, would have the stronger laws with the harsher punishment which surprised me. I learned a lot throughout this paper and learned that there is a right and a wrong way to do things in the medical field and you have to follow command. It is your duty to protect and save lives rather than end them. I do however; agree that it is right to die a natural life. REFERENCES Dictionary.com (2013) Retrieved from: http://dictionary.reference.com/ (n.d.)(2010) Retrieved from: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951.php (n.d.) Retrieved from: http://www.pregnantpause.org/euth/types ProCon.org (2013) Retrieved from: http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000126