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
The issue of euthanasia has become progressively known about in America as well as in many other countries. There are many different questions that are asked about the legalization of euthanasia. One specific question frequently asked about euthanasia is whose decision should it be to end a life? People's judgments about euthanasia are based on misunderstanding of information, history, and misinterpretation of data that is presented (Emanuel 1). Definitions of specific terms should be clarified in order to understand and argue the issue.
Euthanasia is the decision by the patient that his or her life will come to an end even when the life could be prolonged (Emanuel 1). According to Emanuel, this decision may include direct interventions, active euthanasia, or withholding life prolonging measures, passive euthanasia (1). People tend to make incorrect assumptions such as: euthanasia is the refusal of a respirator or artificial nutrition, the administration of drugs to a patient by a doctor who is aware that the patient will die but the patient is not, or when a doctor provides lethal medicine to a patient so they can perform the life ending process on their own (Emanuel 1). Historically euthanasia is rare because those who wanted to die simply committed suicide on their own and those who were seriously ill Smith 2 died anyway because of lack of technological advance (Heifetz 102). Therefore people cannot depend on history or information they hear because the correct information on euthanasia is not always given. I believe it is sometimes acceptable for doctors to stop a life sustaining treatment when there are grounds for assuming that it is in the best interest of a severely incompetent patient or one who is terminally ill.
Of course there should be some guidelines to prevent the matter from going out of control. Otherwise people would be using doctors to end their lives for no real reason and then the issue would become unethical in the eyes of many. One thing one must worry about when deciding to legalize euthanasia is what criteria should the patient fit into before the process can be considered. According to Doyal, treatment must be said to be no medical benefit or too burdensome, but that may not be linked to the claim that the patients life is no longer worth living (1). We must ask ourselves what makes a life sustaining treatment no benefit to the patient? Patients can only be said to be unable to benefit from treatment if they are judged as incapable of benefiting from further life itself (Doyal 2).
Another aspect one must look at is the respect for the patient when he requests to die. Respect is an essential component that should be a natural contribution to ones life (Keown 15). Respecting someone's decision to die is completely separate from whether or not we support the decision. Keown agrees there are certain dimensions to the attitude that are considered the idea of respect for a person (10).
One should look at the concern Smith 3 for welfare of the patient, the respect for the intrinsic value of ones life, and respect for the interests of the patient (Keown 10 - 14). A third thing to look at in arguing euthanasia is the best interest of a patient. If death is in the best interests of a patient, then the death constitutes a moral good for a person (Doyal 2). Studies show a wide range of serious physical and mental symptoms that come with being terminally ill. These symptoms along with social and existential factors, are know as total pain (Foley 1).
Most doctors lack expertise and time to address these aspects of a sick patient (Foley 1). Treatment of pain and suffering remains a complex problem in the medical field and the least one could do is providing the patient with treatments that encompass their own needs as a patient (Foley 2). One last thing to look at is the undiagnosed psychiatric disorders in patients requesting death that are suffering from a mental illness of some kind. A study has been done on twenty-two cancer patients who requested euthanasia (Bannink 1). Ten were granted the right, six were denied because they did not have a wish to die, five were denied because of psychiatric problems, and one was granted his wish despite minor psychiatric problems (Bannink 1). Bannink suggested after the experiment that a psychiatrist should be consulted if treatment team has doubts on whether or not to treat a patient (2).
It seems there are risks involved with this method such as the psychiatrist being labeled as the final gate keeper for a sick patient, therefore there should be a staff of people to help in the final decision making process. Most religious followers are against euthanasia because they feel as though it is God's responsibility to decide when we leave the world. These same people believe in Smith 4 capital punishment, killing during war times, and killing in defense of their religion (Heifetz 103). Heifetz also says, history of religion is full of killing and destruction as a result of religious doings (103). Why is it wrong in their eyes for people to be granted the right to a merciful death in the event that the patient is suffering from a great deal of physical and emotional pain? The argument on euthanasia usually increases in times when bonds in American community are weak and insistence of individual rights is strong (Foley 1).
After the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, people have become obsessed with not dying a painful, slow death like some of the victims of the attack (Girsh 1). Recent survey shows that many countries including the United States, Canada, Australia and Great Britain would like to think that a doctor could provide assistance in dying if the patient felt that the pain was too great (Girsh 1). Although there are mixed feelings on this emotion, it is almost clear that the majority of the people in certain parts of the world believe they have the right to decide to die if necessary to end their suffering. "We are all going to die, and it is safe to say that none of us wants the process to be drowned out and painful" (Booth 1) People argue about the infamous Dr. Kevorkian constantly. Some agree with his doings and some are completely against him and his ways. He is usually viewed as a negative and grim person in the history of euthanasia (Foley 2).
He illustrates the consequence of our ignorance about suffering and terminal pain (Foley 2). Foley agrees that despite the attitude that people have against Dr. Kevorkian, some Americans view him as a pioneer in euthanasia history (2). Smith 5 If euthanasia is legalized, it is obvious that there might be some abuses of the practice and there is absolutely no guarantee against that.
The main issue is will the abuses of the practice outweigh the benefits of the practice. It is apparent that there are many reasons why euthanasia should be legal in America. As mentioned before, if euthanasia is legalized, there should be some legal guidelines. According to Heifetz, legal euthanasia should not take place unless a panel of evaluators says that the sickness is valid and help establish the sincerity of the request (117).
If we hope to establish valid guidelines that are both ethical and pragmatic for the panel to follow, we must not combine the right to die with the right to kill (Heifetz 100). The right to die includes the right of an individual to refuse treatment and the right to an individual's privacy (Heifetz 101). Today our medical advances are so sophisticated that the period of suffering can be extended beyond the limit of human endurance. What is the point in allowing someone a few more months, days, or hours of so- called life when it is obvious the patient would be better off dead? Who wants to spend their last days of life lying in a hospital bed wasting away?
I believe prolonging suffering is far more inhumane than euthanasia, as long as it is regulated. People are entitled to dignity in life as well as death. Just as we respect a persons right to live, we should respect there right to die. When someone requests to die, it is far better to honor the request rather than deny it. After all, whose life is it anyway? Smith 6 Works Cited Bannink, Author. "Psychiatric Consultation and Quality of Decision Making in Euthanasia. " The Lancet. 356 (2000): 2067.
Info Trac. Gale Group. Dacus Library, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC. 20 March 2002 < web Booth, Bonnie. "Time to Die. " American Medical News. 44 (2001): 19. Info Trac.
Gale Group. Dacus Library, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC. 23 March 2002. < web Doyal, Len, "Why Active Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide Should be Legalized. " British Medical Journal. 323 (2001): 1079 - 1081. Info Trac. Gale Group. Dacus Library, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC. 27 March 2002. < web Emanuel, Ezekiel. "Whose Right to Die?" The Atlantic Monthly. 279 (1997): 73 - 80. Info Trac.
Gale Group. Dacus Library, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC. 28 March 2002. < web Foley, Kathleen. "Pain and Americans Culture of Death. " The Wilson Quarterly. 18 (1994): 20 - 22. Info Trac. Gale Group. Dacus Library, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC. 28 March 2002. < web Girsh, Faye. "How Shall we Die?" Winter 2001: 22. Info Trac.
Gale Group. Dacus Library, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC. 28 March 2002. < web Smith 7 Heifetz, Milton, and Charles Emanuel. The Right to Die: A Neurosurgeon Speaks on Death With Candor. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1975.
Keown, John. Euthanasia Examined: Ethical, Clinical, and Legal Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Free research essays on topics related to: terminally ill, gale group, life sustaining treatment, active euthanasia, decision making
Research essay sample on Life Sustaining Treatment Terminally Ill
