The main question remains: should we kill in order to relieve pain? But also should a doctor who swore to save lives, be the person to end one? Aren’t there any alternatives to euthanasia? Seeing that euthanasia is subject to an increase in popularity, it would be interesting to see how the world would cope, but also how it will seek to regulate the process, in order to avoid useless deaths. Euthanasia is touted as the ultimate pain relief, but comes at the ultimate price.
Core Assessment Paper Physician Assisted Suicide Creates Perpetuates the Slippery Slope Argument Abstract Human illness, suffering and death, unfortunately, are part of the human condition, and dealing with chronic illness and death is part of the human experience. With a topic as far reaching as Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), and, of course the root topic, death, it is understandable that much controversy exist between propends of suicide as a method to ease suffering and their opposition. This paper will address the controversy by presenting a balanced assessment of each argument. The research and findings will show trend predictions in the Slippery Slope argument have been proven factual. Keywords: Physician Assisted Suicide, Medical Ethics, Goals of Medicine, Slippery Slope, Sweden .
Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? Dion O. Hales SOC120 Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility Prof. Theodore Framan June 22, 2012 Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal? While killing yourself is harder than having someone do it for you is that killing yourself requires firmer resolve, Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal? Because a patient's last will and last testament should be honored, a competent patient's request to terminate life-sustaining treatment, and it is our moral right to prevent a person from suffering if they suffer from a disease we cannot cure. First, Should euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide be legal?
Just maybe it should be a human right. Along if their decision is not acted out in public, nor does it put anyone else in danger. In his essay “The Right to Die,” Norman Cousins contended that the idea of someone committing suicide is often looked down upon by society. Even beyond the respect towards religion. Norman also suggested the need to reevaluate the true significance of being alive.
I can see both aspects of the argument and can find some right in both sides. I believe murder is wrong, even in times of war, I do understand that Physician-Assisted Suicide can be a humane option when someone has no other alternatives. I do not view Physician-Assisted Suicide as a form of murder. This type of request, when made by a mentally competent patient, takes the aspect of murder out of the equation and categorizes it as euthanasia. When I was 12, my grandmother passed away from Multiple Myeloma.
If these are indeed the rights which the state deems valuable for its citizens, then a paternalistic cause must act in support of a majority of these rights. Obviously, allowing PAS and euthanasia eliminate a patient's right to life by killing them. However, the banning of PAS and euthanasia may lead to the elimination of a patient's right to the pursuit of happiness. Happiness is not simply the state of being happy, it also is the state of not being unhappy. Happiness can be seen as a continuous scale between the state of total misery and total joy, with non-existence sitting exactly in the middle.
“Live and Let Go: The Euthanasia Debate Has Been Opened up with the Introduction of the Assisted Dying Bill.” Nursing Standard 20 (2005): 16-22. Carol Davis is a physician. This article is a debate on euthanasia based on patients’ right and quality of life. Carol thinks that euthanasia is patients’ right, and physicians should assist their patients to end their life if patients request. Carol concluded that physician assisted suicide is necessary in the right circumstances.
To this day, one of the biggest controversial topics that continue to spark endless discussions is the public approval of euthanasia. Euthanasia which is commonly known as “assisted suicide” is the deliberate action of ending a life to relieve continuous pain and suffering (Nordqvist, 2010). This has become a complicated global issue, as various cultures battle with the list of ethical, religious, and legal factors that play a major part in the act. Many see euthanasia as a benefit not only for the patient, but for the patient’s family as well. In this case, the practice is able to end one’s life in a peaceful manner, while a financial and emotional burden can also be lifted off of the family members.
However, there are many pros and cons to each side of the argument. Physician-assisted suicide is unethical based on the Hippocratic Oath, but is ethical based on the patient’s views – which sometimes outweigh the morals of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide first became an issue when our society decided that it was neither moral nor ethical for a physician to help end a terminally ill patient’s life. According to Katie Pickert, Dr. Jack Kevorkian brought lots of attention to the topic during the “epic assisted suicide battle of the 1990s” (1). People who argue with Kevorkian for physician-assisted suicide feel that by helping a patient end his or her life peacefully is helpful to family and friends.
Euthanasia should remain illegal Euthanasia is a word with such great meaning but is often misunderstood by individuals. Some define this term as “the right to die” whereas others define it as “the right to kill Euthanasia is the act of encouraging a painless death or looking for the help for a good death. The act of euthanasia often occurs because long-term patients would rather drink poison or get shot by somebody than suffering their whole life fighting against a major disease. The term euthanasia is also known as mercy killing since it’s a way of ending one’s life who is not willing to live anymore. [1] This happens usually for compassionate reasons such as to reduce the pain of the ill ones.