Euthanasia Essay - 2750 Words

Euthanasia (Coursework Sample) Content: EUTHANASIANameInstitutionAbstractEuthanasia elicits significant debate because of the ethical and moral challenges of ending the life of a fatally ill patient intentionally and prematurely. The Hippocratic Oath bars doctors from carrying out euthanasia. However, ancient Greek and Roman doctors did not follow the oath strictly on matters related to euthanasia. Ancient societies practiced various forms of euthanasia. Illegality of euthanasia is based on ethics and morality of medical practice. Views against euthanasia are also influenced by religious beliefs, which consider euthanasia to be a form of murder. While the goals of euthanasia are noble, experience in countries where the practice is legal suggest that without a comprehensive legal framework, abuse can occur. The biggest fear is the extension euthanasia to persons who are not fatally ill, but suffering from equally debilitating conditions. The crux of discussion on the matter is whether mere existence is good enough or people should just live when they are in charge of all their faculties. Both sides of the argument are persuasive and the concerns raised are valid. As the debate continues, developing capacity of caregivers to alleviate suffering should be the priority.Introduction  Euthanasia can be well defined as the intentional killing byomission or act of a dependent being for his or her purported benefit. The key term here, clearly, is "intentional." If the demise is not intentional, then it is not an act of euthanasia. Euthanasia can benon-voluntary as well asvoluntary. The latest case we have heard of in the news about euthanasia is the case of Terri Schiavo. In this case, the point that doctors took out her suckling tube was a non-voluntary act of euthanasia. Instead of having her own consensus, her husband made the choice, hence making it non-voluntary. The husband believed it was the best decision for her since she was in a lazed state for more than fifteen years. Howeve r, many people do not agree with the husband decision. They argue against legalizing euthanasia in itself. They reject the argument of dignified death insisting that the same can be achieved through palliative care. Euthanasia is an enormously controversial problem-dividing professional in both thelegal and medical fields. Some maintain that death is a choice and persons have a right to die. Those against euthanasia claim that, death occurs since a fatal pathological disorder is permitted to take its natural course. Relatively, their intention is to stop imposing a burden on the patient and discontinue doing something useless. This paper discusses euthanasia from the viewpoints of those who oppose it. The paper provides arguments against euthanasia; euthanasia should be unethical and immoral and should be bannedRelevant Research on EuthanasiaTheBelgium, Netherlands, and the Northern Regions in Australia are amongst some of the nations that recognize Euthanasia as lawful. Euthanasia in the Netherlands accounts more than 5% of the country's deaths(Mak, Elwyn, 2005). In 1997, theSupreme Court of United States conceded theact of Death with Dignity in Oregon, which indicated that physician helped suicide, is unconstitutional right, but that individual conditions are free to prohibit or permit it. Since then,some other states have considered physician-assisted suicide to be lawful(Emanuel, 2002). Each human life is significant, hence; euthanasia should not be lawful since it devalues human life, dishonors psychological theories, and not free from complications. According to Hyde (2001),doctor-assisted suicide devalues human being life. In certain morals, human life is not valued, and they frequently celebrate theirdaughters and sons beingmurdered and blown up for the good of their individuals. Nevertheless, one thing that groups the western hemisphere directly above the rest is ourrespect and appreciation for every human life. Ending any life is a decision that sho uld never have to be made. Presenting it as an option to patients is forcing them to decide to end their suffering prematurely and for the wrong reasons. Before accepting the request for the lethal drugs, physicians must ask a series of provisional questions. Doctors must make certain the patient completely understands his or her disease prognosis, and other treatment alternatives. ''Whether or not the patient has recently experienced family drama or a spiritual crisis must also be analyzed.'' If the distribution of the fatal treatment must continue, the general practitioner should look more intensely into the patient's life and examine the reasons for their choicebetter. Although those minor provisions are taken, the physician still has slight actual proof concerning the mental state of the patient at the time the choice is being made(Griffiths, Weyers, Adams, 2008). It is not compulsory that the physician recommend alternate opportunities for treatment. Nevertheless, it is proven that in 30 % of cases intrusions such as hospice referral and pain control changed the patient's thoughts about suicide(Hurst, Mauron, 2003). The physicians should be more cautious before agreeing to distribute the medication because human life is irreplaceable, and if there is any chance of recovery or pain management it should be the only option presented to the patient. The legal option of euthanasia also creates temptation for dying people and their families to think they can "manage death away",(Keown, J. 2002). Death should also only be decided by nature, and no matter how serious the fate of the ill, family members should not be allowed to decline their loved ones right to life. Human life is invaluable, and doctors should not be involved directly in causing death. The trust a patient has in their doctor is unlike any other bond because the patient trusts the physician with their life. In order to become a doctor, physicians must recite the Hippocratic Oath, which begins wi th the words, "First, do no harm.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ Participating in a patient's suicide would obviously break this oath. This occurred during a case in 1999 when Jack Kevorkian was sentenced to a ten to twenty-five tear prison term for giving fatal medication to a patient (Verhagen, Sauer, 2005). Even though it is unlawful in most states, in some cases euthanasia can be done non-voluntarily. The non-voluntary option presents doctors with too much power; a life should not be taken because it is no longer convenient or cost efficient. The power then given to the doctors would provide the insurance companies with an opportunity to put undue pressure on the physicians to avoid heroic measures, and end life prematurely simply to save money or avoid hassles. Euthanasia is suicide and should not be legal because it devalues human life. Psychologists agree those making the decision to commit suicide are not insane mental places. Technically the law states that, every individual ofelderly year s has a right to choose what will be done with his own body (Keown, J. 2002). Nevertheless, if Euthanasia suicide and become lawful rights, the presumption that persons trying suicide arein need of psychological help and deranged would be reversed. Over ninety-four percent of those committing suicide suffer from identifiable mental disorders. Meaning almost everyone choosing to end his or her life has some mental problem. In most cases the condition, such as bipolar disorder or depression, is treatable and can be easily managed with medication. Extreme illness causes physical and emotional exhaustion ''which impairs basic cognition,'' creates unwarranted self-blame, and lowers overall self-esteem, all of which easily lead to distorted judgments and regrettable decisions. Those factors all play a part in any patient's decision to choose euthanasia. None of those factors however is looked into when a physician is deciding whether to distribute medication. Psychological experts agreeth at, it is nearly difficult for a mentally sane person to be seated and make a ''cool sane'' decision to commit suicide (Keown, J. 2002). Since psychologist's theories prove it is nearly impossible for the decision to commit suicide to be done for logical, thought out purposes, euthanasia should not be legal. Euthanasia also makes it appear as though suicide is not serious or that a life is less valuable because of the suffering endured. Those who try suicide are treated for their mental problems almost instantly, yet euthanasia is irrationally becoming an established part of today's medical system. Interestingly, a significant amount of Americans expresses more judgments that are negative about suicide than euthanasia. Even though the situations leading to the decision to end life are different, ''the overall outcomes'' are identical. Legally, euthanasia is not being taken seriously. For instance, it used to be justified for the terminally ill, but now there are exceptions for othe r, less drastic, problems as well it is even allowed to occur non-voluntarily. Another reason, regarding mental illness, euthanasia should be illegal is that almost all who attempt suicide will survive, recover, and never attempt again. Anyone attempting to end their life has a serious mental issue, which means even those making the decision become victims of euthanasia most likely are not of sound mind(Baumann, 2010). Those with mental health issues deserve to be treated fully, and it is not fair to those who attempt suicide not to be taken, as seriously because physician assisted suicide is becoming a normal part of society. Normalizing suicide in today's world also influences those who need help legally and for insurance purposes. Experts state that, accepting a right to suicide would generate a lawful presumption of rationality, preventing proper mental health treatment (Hurst, Mauron, 2003). The psychological theories regarding the mental state of those committing suicide s... Euthanasia Essay - 2750 Words Euthanasia (Essay Sample) Content: Name:Course:Instructor:Date:EuthanasiaEuthanasia is the act of ending someoneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s life deliberately to relive the person from suffering. Normally, termination of someoneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s life occurs when the patients do not seem to get well or when they are suffering from incurable disease. Euthanasia is common in the United States among other countries. However, the act of euthanasia has always caused debate in the United States. While some people are for euthanasia, others disagree with the act of ending someoneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s life deliberately. Euthanasia has raised controversy in the United States because of different views on societal, cultural, and religious ethics (Fletcher, 7). There are two main types of euthanasia; active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia refers to ending life of the affected person deliberately through any active process like injecting them with an overdose of sedatives. Contrary, passive euthanasia is the process where t he patient withdraws from the medication that helps them to cope with the disease leading to death. The patient or the family of the patients are the ones who decide on the type of euthanasia to go through. Euthanasia usually has different effects to the family including disputes in the family, financial pressure and regrets among others. Arguably, instead of carrying out euthanasia on a patient, there is application of other alternatives to save the life of the patient. One of the main alternatives is ease of pain. Instead of terminating the personà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s life, the doctors should offer medications to reduce pain of the patients. Secondly, there is the depression treatment mechanism. Normally, a patient might opt for euthanasia simply because they are going through depression. Treating depression will help on such situation, since the patient will cope with the sickness (Carrick, 4).This paper highlights the issue of euthanasia tackling the impacts of euthanasia, effects of eut hanasia and the alternatives for euthanasia.The Effects of Euthanasia on FamilyEuthanasia has various effects on the family of the affected patients. Normally, the effects of euthanasia are negative as highlighted below.Firstly, there is family conflict. Family conflict refers to a situation where there is misunderstanding within a family. Euthanasia like many other issues too causes family conflict. Despite the fact that the patient themselves might suggest for euthanasia, the family members will have different opinions on the issue. While some family members will support it, others will be against the whole act of euthanasia. Regarding this, family conflict will develop within the patientà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s family (Fletcher, 15). After the death of the patient, those who were against the euthanasia act will start to blame those who supported the termination of the patientà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s life. This conflict might be between the children of the family, parents, brothers and sisters or any oth er close member. In the process of family conflict, hatred is developed and this might cause breakups among the family members. In a situation where a father supports euthanasia against one of the children of the family who is suffering while the mother is against is the best example. Focusing on this, the mother will remain bitter with the father of the family and might even opt to divorce him just because of that. This is why it is important to consult all the family members and agree before carrying out euthanasia on a member of the family.Secondly, there is financial conflict. Financial conflict is a situation whereby a person is struggling to cope up with the bills due to lack of enough money. Euthanasia too might effect to financial pressure on the family on different point of views. Firstly, when euthanasia is performed on a family member who was the breadwinner, the family might start to suffer financial crisis. In most American families, the father acts as the main provide r of the family. This implies that he is the one who provides basic needs for the children and the family as a whole. However, the provider might fall in with an incurable illness leading to euthanasia. Despite the fact that the will have saved him from pain and suffering, the family will start to suffer. The children might even drop out of school and the family go for days without anything to eat just because the main provider is gone. Additionally, the family might spend money to as to perform euthanasia on the patient. In recent research, health services in America are becoming more expensive. This affects euthanasia too since the family will have to spend lump sum amount to pay the doctors fee before they carry out euthanasia (Carrick, 17). After performing euthanasia, the family will remain with financial constraints that might affect them for some time before they cope up again. Contrary, financial pressure might also bring a positive point on euthanasia. Normally, keeping som eone alive on their last days is much expensive especially when they are under intensive care unit. This implies that performing euthanasia will save them from financial pressure since it is much cheaper.Thirdly, a family regret is another effect of euthanasia on the family. This is the effect where the members of the family believe they made a wrong choice. In some cases, a person suffers for a long period making the family to settle for euthanasia when the patient comes up with the idea or any other close member. On such occasion, the family members regret later on when they start missing the deceased. Despite the fact that the patient might be suffering, they had better be alive since they bring some fulfilment and hope in the family. However, when you settle for euthanasia, they leave the family and cause emptiness among some family members. This emptiness causes regrets. Additionally, regrets might occur amongst the family members when the deceased was carrying out ideal duties in the family. The best example is when the deceased was a breadwinner as noted above. Basing on that, the family might start to face financial constraints leading to regrets. In order to avoid family regrets, it is advisable the family members take their time and be so sure they are ready to perform euthanasia on a member of the family.Impact of Euthanasia on SocietyFirstly, there is personal autonomy. A better way to ease the depression and the pain is to respect the personà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s right to choose the best course of action for their life and their death. Those who are pro-choice, as reported on Villanovaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s internet page, believe "the decision how and when to die is one of the most intimate and personal choices a person can make in a lifetime, a choice central to personal formality and autonomy (McDougall, pg 37)." The acceptance for suicide that developed during the ancient classical period to some extent reflected a disdain for weakness, illness and the inability t o contribute to society past a certain age. At the same time, however, it also reflected a concern for a "worthy and good life," something that was elusive in the existence of extensive physical decline (Fletcher, 23). In old times, the Greeks and the Romans succeeded in moving suicide out of a dark as well as mysterious realm into the field of public dialogue and discussion. Normally, one would expect euthanasia to be prosecuted as first-degree murder, because there is intent to cause death, which is the definition of murder, and the act is most often planned and deliberate, which is the definition of first-degree murder. However, there is influence on charges of euthanasia principally by other criteria. The fact that the main intension is to relieve suffering; the unpredictable attitude of judges; and technical difficulties in proving the exact cause of death when a person is in any case close to death and taking considerable pain medication. Charges vary from administering a l ethal substance, to killing, to homicide. Notably, people fear that if permitted, other people will control on their choice to die. Arguably, maybe this is true, but it is cynical. The issues are more realistic and involve our societyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s morals as well as the legal consequences involved in choosing death. Existing wills are also a big part in the legitimate phases of euthanasia. A living will can express a patientà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s considerations towards his future medical treatment. Living wills are legal in forty states. They permit everybody capable of making decisions to tell the doctor earlier that they do not wish to be on the intensive care unit.Secondly, medical research is another impact. Notably, because of advances in medical treatment, people are now able to live longer and delay death. However, the ability to live longer often entails a diminished quality of life for those who suffer from progressive or incurable ailments. A number of factors have fuelled the wish to accomplish greater control over decisions relating to life and death, including; the desire to be spared from persistent suffering; the increased incidence of seriously debilitating diseases such as AIDS and Alzheimerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s disease; and a better understanding of how medical technology can prolong life and affect the dying process. These factors fostered an interest in euthanasia and cessation of medical treatment. More recently, the focus seems to have moved to quality end-of-life care, but that is a health care issue beyond the scope of this paper. Just as there are the euthanasia advocates, there are the detractors of euthanasia that believe that it is giving the right to kill to doctors. Doctors and other medical care personnel take oaths to uphold the values of life. Allowing them to create death would devalue the oath of which they are supposed to uphold. Those who are "anti-euthanasia" believe that allowing euthanasia to continue will be the be...