Since this topic is illegal physicians and patients do not speak of it. It becomes a topic that is hidden under a rock. Physicians know they can help the dying and the dying know that the physicians can help them, but because of legal issues no one dares to speak of the aid in dying. Legalization of PAD would promote open discussion and may promote better end-of-life care as patients and physicians could more directly address concern and options. Patients and doctors should have the right to speak about the topic of physician aid in dying.
No one has the right to decide who should live and who should die. This decision is left up to God (or whomever you worship) or fate. By legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide and making it acceptable, this opens the door for abuse of power, breaches the Hippocratic Oath “I will not administer poison to anyone where asked," and I will "be of benefit, or at least do no harm.” However, compared to the answers given by Physicians in the 1996 survey, it seems that the Hippocratic Oath may already have some grey areas. Physicians are also human, which means they can make mistakes. (Braddock C, 1999) The diagnosing of diseases and their prognosis may be science, but it is not absolute.
Adkins also was not terminally ill, so there must have been something else that she had going on besides the fact that she had just been diagnosed with this illness. Kevorkian went against nonmaleficence the duty to “do no harm.” He helped this woman commit death and obviously he there was no confidentiality because it leaked and he had a murder case. In my opinion people have the right to die if they want to, but it is something that is done on your own terms, not with the assistance of a medical doctor. I also think that it is so crazy how it only took the court two days for free this man. Then the fact that they did not have a law saying that it was wrong for someone to commit suicide or the medical assistance of it.
“Critics of physician assisted suicide believe that doctors like Jack Kevorkian are doing nothing less than playing God“ (Gay 47.) But as Karl Barth said, “It is for God and God alone to make an end of human life” (Lee 17.) Physicians were never meant to take the lives of others. In fact, the job of a physician is very clear, and killing their patients is not in the description. “Many physicians say they would be clouding their roles as healers if they helped patients to die” (Buchanan 36.)
Physician assisted suicide should be a right given to all people who are suffering from a painful, degenerative, or deadly condition. Anyone who might never enjoy the luxuries of living a happy and healthy life again. Though several ongoing debates are against physician-assisted suicide, ethicists are still not the one who is responsible to make this decision. Patients have the right to free will and human dignity that gives them the right to choose physician assisted suicide. Being able to have this choice allows the patient to maintain some control over their devastating situation.
Can these kinds of treatment really get patient and their families out of suffering as well as give hope? I do not think so. For passive euthanasia, the patients just refuse to accept any treatment and let their lives continue naturally without any medical or machine. For instance, Julia Quinlan, Karen’s mother, explained the family’s feelings: “We didn’t ask for Karen to die. We just asked for her to be removed from technology and be placed in a natural state.” People who are against euthanasia believe that passive euthanasia is wrong.
In politics, the question of euthanasia really taboo laid. There is no party who advocate active euthanasia in their program and it is not no party that takes proper position on the issue. In Sweden, only steps to achieve a dignified death to be taken when it is burdensome for the patient, this is called passive euthanasia, and means that the patient no longer receive life-sustaining treatment. In consultation with the family doctor close by all technical means, but the dose of painkillers continues, in order to shorten the patient's suffering. In Sweden, both active euthanasia that physician-assisted suicide is prohibited.
Euthanasia is intentionally ending a person’s life from suffering (Glau and Jacobsen 399). What patient in the hospital is not suffering? Every patient is suffering to some degree; otherwise he/she would not be in the hospital. To many people, euthanasia is considered as a slippery slope to medical practice. This euthanasia idea can go so far as to being imposed on people who aren’t even in a comatose state.
A physician is supposed to do no harm. If they cannot prevent suffering and the person has a terminal illness with a low life expectancy how is it determined they are doing no harm by keeping them alive? The Hippocratic Oath has been rewritten many times to allow for different cultures but it still states the same. A physician will not do harm. Determining what is considered harm is the part of this debate that cannot be easily decided.
Burchardt (2013:15) states availability of hospitals owned by FBOs plays a huge role in supporting and ensuring better health services for people living with HIV and AIDS even when government hospitals run out of necessary facilities and medication. In conclusion, collaboration of state and faith based organisations is not a good idea, fbos should fulfil its goals and objectives without being confused by a failing state. state is already failing so there is nothing positive they can add on fbos. Moreover, fbos should continue with doing great job for people without looking at what the state does or fail to do, because at the end its about people, not the state. furthermore, services delivered by fbos help citizens more that it helps the state to hide behind the work done by