NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Every year two million people die in North America. Chronic illnesses, such as cancer or heart disease, account for two of every three deaths. Approximately seventy percent of those suffering from a chronic illness make a decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment (Choice in Dying). The ongoing debate concerning this issue remains whether patients should have the opportunity to implement euthanasia. Euthanasia originated from the Greek work meaning good death. It is the intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who dies (Religious Tolerance).
Euthanasia became a world renowned movement launched by a celebrated 1973 case of a doctor who helped her mother die and then was acquitted of criminal charges (Branegan 31). Since then it has been praised and protested all around the world. When a person commits an act of euthanasia, they bring about the death of another person because they believe that their existence is so bad that they would be better off dead. However, euthanasia has many different meanings, which tends to create confusion. Passive euthanasia refers to removing some form of life support, which allows nature to take its course.
Forms of life support include removing life support machines, stopping medical procedures and medications, stopping food and water, or not delivering cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Active euthanasia refers to causing the death of a person through a direct action, in response to a request from the person. Physician-assisted suicide refers to a request physician supplying information or the means of committing suicide to a person, so that they can end their own life. Involuntary euthanasia refers to the killing of a person in opposition of their wishes. This is basically a form of murder (Religious Tolerance 2 - 3).
Ultimately, euthanasia is a question of choice, empowering people to have control over their own bodies. But the choice is only to be given to an elite group of terminally ill patients. Advocates of voluntary euthanasia contend that a person should be allowed or assisted in their death, if a person is: &# 61607; Suffering from a terminal illness &# 61607; Unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure &# 61607; Suffering from intolerable pain as a result of the illness &# 61607; Has an enduring and rational wish to die &# 61607; Unable to commit suicide without assistance (Overberg) Modern technological advances, such as respirators and kidney machines, have made it possible to sustain a patients life for long periods of time. Proponents of euthanasia agree that prolonging life in this manner may cause great suffering to the patient and their family. As a result, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1985 completed the Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. This act entitles patients the choice to refuse life support (Baird 167 - 171).
It is a subtle form of euthanasia. The pro euthanasia movement has received considerable encouragement by the passing of laws in 47 states that allow legally competent individuals to make living wills. These living wills empower and instruct doctors to withhold life support. This is another subtle form of euthanasia (Baird 142 - 145). In America, where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are some of our basic freedoms, it would seem that euthanasia would not be an issue. The main argument of those in favor of euthanasia insists that people should have the right to die with dignity.
They should be able to die with all their senses intact, and be able to die free of insufferable pain. Others also argue that the costs incurred for the care of comatose patients on life support, prolongs death and becomes quite expensive. Opponents of euthanasia argue that verification of the patients true wishes is difficult in most cases. They believe that physicians and patients should not be given the freedom to play God and decide when their lives should end. It is also argued that patients who want to die are neither in a healthy psychological state of mind. Groups in opposition of euthanasia feel that if it were to become a publicly accepted option to the terminally ill, then it may become abused.
Perhaps the strongest belief that euthanasia is wrong comes from those who follow the words of the Bible and believe that every aspect of life belongs to God. The Old Testament records an incident involving King Saul of Israel, who became seriously wounded on the battlefield. Saul took his own sword and tried to fall against it. He cried to a soldier to come put him out of his misery because he was in terrible pain. The soldier did as Saul wished and killed him. The soldier brought some of Saul's armor to David and told him what had happened.
David ordered the soldier put to death (Eareckson 111). Therefore mercy killing is perceived by the Bible as immoral in Gods eyes. Much trust is given to the key players in our lives if anything were to happen to us because the chance to abuse the power of euthanasia arises. We do not know that they will make decisions in the best interest of the patient.
Temptation becomes an issue, especially if the person becomes financially burdened. An example of this is evident in the experience of a fifty-year-old woman with cancer of the bones, liver, lungs, and breast. Her doctor explained to the woman that he could lessen her pain with drugs, and offered her a hospital room. Aware of Hollands policy that allows doctors to end the lives of the terminally ill, the woman said that her religious beliefs would never allow her to accept euthanasia. Her doctor assured her that he would take care of her and put her in the room. After twenty-four hours of morphine treatment she was able to see her family (Eads 93).
Later a nurse called her doctor and explained that after he had left the hospital, another doctor entered the womans room and ordered her family to leave the room. He then ordered an increase in her morphine dosage, but refused to confirm it in writing. Within minutes the woman was dead. The womans doctor demanded an explanation from his colleague. The doctor responded stating that it couldve taken another week before she died and he needed the bed (Eads 93). Legislators are mainly concerned with what is called the slippery slope issue.
Slippery slope is a term used to describe what may happen to society as a result of allowing something to happen. When applied to euthanasia, it means that if legislators legally allow physicians to end the lives of the terminally ill at their own requests, it will most likely not stop there (Hamel 35). People who become diagnosed with terminal diseases will also want to end their own life even though they have much more of life to live. It may result in an epidemic of mass suicide.
The Hippocratic Oath states: I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. This clearly displays a prohibition of euthanasia. Many doctors swear by this oath upon receiving their degrees. They swear to attend to the best interests of his patients, as well as no to harm them.
Depending on a doctors religious, moral, or political stances, his opinion on the best interests of his patient could vary significantly but according to the oath, he is forbidden to practice euthanasia (Baird 174). It is understandable that some patients in extreme duress may decide death is preferred to life. However, allowing physicians to participate in such an act is not right. The American Medical Associations current code of Medical Ethics states, Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physicians role as a healer, would be difficult to control, and would pose serious societal risks. (Baird 173) Instead of assisting in a patients demise, the physician ought to respond to the needs of the patient at the end of their life. Legalizing such actions would not be in the interest of creating an ethical society that values life. Euthanasia or assisted suicide should only be a last ditch effort after optimal care has been administered.
As in all cases, the responsibility of the patients life should be up to a medical staff in concurrence with the patient and family. Euthanasia can be gruesome and immoral if not managed with extreme responsibility. The religions of Christians and Jews both hold human life sacred and consider any form of euthanasia as an act of murder. According to Jewish law, a dying man is regarded as a living person in all respects (Kohl 6). To Christians, only God has the right to give and take life. According to traditional Christian beliefs, all forms of suicide were condemned because: &# 61607; It violates ones natural desire to live &# 61607; It harms other people &# 61607; Life is the gift of God and is only to be taken by God (Religious Tolerance 3).
The dignity of this life is linked not only to its beginning, to the fact that it comes from God, but also to its final end, to its destiny of fellowship with God in knowledge and love of him. Life is a fundamental good, a gift from God that is to be held with reverence and respect (Farley 418). Death may sometimes be welcomed, so long as it is in a way that does not ignore or violate the requirement to respect and value each person (Farley 429). I Thessalonians 4: 13 - 18 says that those who are saved will have a peaceful death and those who are not will have no hope. As I discussed this topic with my family, I learned that there are circumstances in which we will terminate the lives of our most cherished loved ones. I would like to believe that I would give the situation to God and pray that he would take care of it in His time.
I think that impatience is one of our biggest faults as humans because we want things done in our time and when we want then. We have to remember that God will never give us anything that we cant handle. Therefore I believe that ones salvation cannot be placed in jeopardy during the intolerable pain. I think that living wills are a wonderful idea because after ones death has occurred we have traditionally carried out the wishes of the deceased that are expressed in their last will and testament. I dont see why a person shouldnt be able to express how they want to live and have those wishes carried out in the same fashion.
No matter the decision of the terminally ill patient, it is and should be a completely individual and personal decision. Bibliography Baird, Robert and Stuart Rosenbaum. Euthanasia: The Moral Issues. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. 1989. Branegan, Jay.
I want to draw the line myself. Time. March 17, 1997. 30 - 31. Choice in Dying. Partnership for Caring. May 12, 1997.
Eads, Brian. A license to kill. Readers Digest. September 1997. 93 - 97.
Eareckson, Joni. When is it right to die? Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. 1992. Farley, Margaret A. Issues in Contemporary Christian Ethics: The Choice of Death in a Medical Context.
Moral Issues and Christian Response. 6 th ed. Forth Worth, Texas: Harcourt Brace. 1998. Hamel, Ron. Choosing Death. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International. 1991. Kohl, Marvin.
Beneficent Euthanasia. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. 1975. Overberg, Kenneth. Mercy or Murder? Euthanasia, Morality, and Public Opinion. Kansas City, Missouri: See and Ward. 1993.
Religious Tolerance: Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Home Page.
Free research essays on topics related to: slippery slope, religious tolerance, terminally ill, form of euthanasia, physician assisted suicide
Research essay sample on Physician Assisted Suicide Form Of Euthanasia
