Nevertheless, the technologies also prolong the dying processes, leading some people to question whether modern medicine is forcing patients to live in unnecessary pain when there is no chance they will be cured. “Passive euthanasia—disconnecting a respirator or removing a feeding tube has become an accepted solution to this dilemma. Active euthanasia perhaps an overdose of pills or a deadly injection of morphine remains controversial “(McDougall,
Organ Sales Will Save Lives by Joanna Mackay In the essay Organ sales will save lives by Joana Mackay, Mackay states how the legalization of selling human organs will help to save thousands of lives. Mackay is based on the fact that this will benefit not only the person receiving the organ, but also would help receive money for it. People are waiting for an organ transplant that could save their lives, but due to “laws” that leave out the option of donating organs, these people are usually condemned to death as they wait on a list of donors or a death person to extract the organ they need. Governments “Should not ban the sale of human organs, they should regulate it”(92). She explains how in the third world countries they are illegal organs, trades and people are willing to sell an organ for proximity of $1000.
My theory also is that eventually people will start bidding on artificial organs and the richer people will have say over a family that doesn't have a lot of money. If doctors wanted to replace original organs with artificial ones, it would take a lot of perfecting and obligating a clean bill of health for the patient. Who, if anyone, should be a prime candidate for these types of artificial/synthetic replacements? Do you feel that anyone should have access to them? Even a life-long smoker or alcoholic who knowingly subjected themselves to harmful substances?
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.
Patients are often motivated towards euthanasia by terminal illnesses, such as cancer, AIDS, et cetera. Patients may want to opt for euthanasia when health authorities suggest they go into hospice especially designed to cope with their illness. A wish to maintain their independence, along
Eventually some people and their families might be forced to put financial concerns above the needs of a loved one. Doctors or insurance companies could try to convince some people to opt for assisted suicide rather than the more expensive treatment. This would be an injustice to all humankind. A history professor at San Francisco State University argued that assisted suicide would lead to inequities and would not be limited to those with a terminal illness. “Given the way the U.S. healthcare system is getting increasingly unjust and even savage, I don't think this system could be trusted to implement such a system equitably, or confine it to people who are immediately terminally ill"(Mohler).
“Many physicians say they would be clouding their roles as healers if they helped patients to die” (Buchanan 36.) Physicians even take the Hippocratic Oath, which states that “a physician promises to help the sick and never to cause harm” (Buchanan 36.) As Daniel E. Lee, a reporter for the Hastings Center, says “Meaning and hope are possible in all of life’s situations, even in the midst of suffering” (17.) If the United States were to nationally legalize assisted suicide, it would be a disaster, not only because the way it would go against our morals, but the way it would negatively effect today’s society. “Janet, Sherry , Marjorie, and Susan were not terminal by accepted medical definition…[they] were not Kevorkian’s patients in any traditional sense.
Assisted Suicide Assisted Suicide Kelly Dickinson PHI: 200 Robert Vaughan June 20, 2011 Assisted Suicide 1 The Philosophical issue I have chosen to write about from the topic of ethics Is Assisted Suicide. According to the Medical Dictionary, assisted suicide is a suicide by an individual Helps another
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.
It is indisputable that there is a shortage of organs for transplantation. In many cases, such as kidney transplantation, the successful transplant should result in substantial savings of medical expenditure on on-going treatment, which would otherwise be necessary should a transplant not be available (Pickover, 2012). Commercialization of transplants spurs a debate as to whether human body should be viewed as a collection of potential parts to help others. There has been need for transplant even to unrelated persons since the first transplant was success and this has been achieved by technological advancements. Commercialization of these transplants brings up ethical considerations which should examine various procedures that might be formulated to control the exercise.