Euthenasia
The debate over euthanasia has been a long and tiring one. One that will most likely continue for a long time. Euthanasia comes from the Greek word meaning “good death.” The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics defines euthanasia as “a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering.” The issue will continue to be debated in all levels of society along with medical, legal, and governmental bodies. In it's passive form, euthanasia occurs on a daily basis in hospitals around the world. If medical advances can keep someone who want to stay alive past their expected life expectancy, why should those that want to die have to keep living? The reality of it is, people's financial limits are a major consideration in modern health care. There has been ethical difficulty in interpreting a patient's right versus the duty of the doctor.
There are several different classifications to euthanasia. The main classifications depend on whether the person gives an informed consent or not. These are known as voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient makes an informed request for a life terminating event. Involuntary euthanasia is where someone make the decision for the termination of another party who cannot make the decision. Involuntary euthanasia is one of the main reasons euthanasia has not become legalized. Euthanasia can also be divided into active and passive forms. Active euthanasia is when deliberate steps are taken to end a patient's life, either by inducing a cardiac arrest or sometimes with the use of a euthanasia machine. Active euthanasia uses lethal substances or forces to end someone's life. Passive euthanasia is defined as withholding treatments that would keep someone alive, such as antibiotics or other treatments. In this way, the patient can die naturally and not have to hang on to life when they don't want to.
There are many good reasons for voluntary euthanasia. The fact that it is voluntary it emphasizes the choice of the patient. The pain that a person feels when they have a disease can be incomprehensible to someone who has never been through it. Even without the physical pain, a patient's loss of their independence can be overwhelming. There are even doctors who, after watching many people die after long battles with diseases, are convinced that the law should be changed to allow assisted death. There are many hospitals in many countries with a huge shortage of space. The doctors, nurses, and beds could be used for people's live that could be saved rather than being taken up by people who would rather die. Having the extra space would increase quality of care given and shorten waiting lists. It is a burden to a hospital to keep people alive when they don't want to be and it is also draining on hospital resources. If there is no law against healthy people committing suicides, why should those with terminal illnesses be prosecuted against? If voluntary euthanasia were to be made legal, patients could die with dignity and leave others with a positive memory and not what they had become. Some terminally-ill patients cannot refuse life-saving treatments. For these people, assistance from a physician is their only option. The terminally-ill had insufferable pain and agony, the doctor knows that their days are numbered, yet the patient had to suffer till the last moments instead of dying on their own order. Not only is the stress on the terminally-ill patient, but also on the family. By allowing euthanasia, the patient can say their final goodbyes to their loved ones and not leave the world in a sudden and unconscious state. Euthanasia and a physician assisted suicide, is a humane answer to excruciating pain.
****By keeping a terminally-ill patient alive, the patient must pay for any medical necessary procedures. These procedures can include x-rays, prescribed drugs, or any lab tests that needs to be performed. All of these procedures can run up a medical costs ranging from $50,000 to $100,000. Since the bills will continue to come for the patient, they will lose more of the money they would want to leave behind for their family. If the patient wants to end the suffering, the reason for racking up the bills and keeping the patient alive are lacking (13). Also, the costly treatment to keep the terminally-ill patient alive from medical funding cannot be used for other types of care, like prenatal, where it would save lives and improve long-term quality of life If PAS and euthanasia were legalized, more staff would have time to care for others and there would be an increase in the quality of care administered By keeping PAS and euthanasia illegal, each terminally-ill patient is being discriminated against because they are not able put this option into action. Those patients because of their disability do not have the same right as any other person in the United States.****
As with almost anything, there is an opposing side. Critics claim that voluntary euthanasia undermines the roles played by doctors and health care workers. Some doctors have taken the Hippocratic Oath where is promises, "to please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." In most religions, euthanasia is considered morally unacceptable. To them, euthanasia is treated as a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a kind of suicide. Some people believe that a cure will soon be found and it would be wasteful to give up. Another opposing view is that for the term “voluntary” to be considered, the patient must be mentally competent to make such a big decision. Any disease would put pressure on a patient and therefore decrease their rational understanding of their options and the consequences that their actions could have. Some patients may feel a psychological pressure at the thought of becoming a financial burden to their families.
****Against voluntary euthanasia
Many physicians and medical staff have numerous reasons for prohibiting the legalization of PAS and euthanasia. A main reason against PAS is the violation of the Hippocratic oath that some doctors take. The Hippocratic oath states “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan,”.[33] By being a part of PAS and prescribing a lethal dosage of a drug could weaken the doctor-patient relationship because of the oath some doctors take (13).
Another reason for prohibiting PAS and euthanasia is the option of abusing PAS if it were to become legal. Poor or uninsured patients may not have the money or no access to proper care will have limited options, and they could be pressured towards assisted death.[33] For emotionally and physiologically disturbed patients, they could abuse the PAS option and those patients could convince their doctor to help end their life. By keeping PAS and euthanasia illegal, doctors have opportunity to right their wrong diagnoses and prevent leaning towards suicide of a redeemable person (13). By having more time with the terminally-ill patient, the doctor is giving them constant care and medical attention. Many people believe that the unbearable pain can be controlled to tolerable levels if given proper care from the hospital staff.[35]****
****Legal status
Involuntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries in the world, and is only practiced in the Netherlands (see Groningen Protocol) under an agreement between physicians and district attorneys that was ratified by the Dutch National Association of Pediatricians.[4]
Involuntary euthanasia is sometimes used as a reason for not changing laws relating to other forms of euthanasia.[5][6]
[edit] Slippery slope debate
Involuntary euthanasia is often cited as the end-point in the slippery slope argument against legalising any form of euthanasia,[7][8] although recent studies show that the available evidence suggests that the legalisation of physician-assisted suicide might actually decrease the prevalence of involuntary euthanasia.[9]
The topic is discussed in literature. 'Quality of Mercy' in The Prosecution Rests is a fable exploring the facets of aging, Alzheimer's disease, and euthanasia.[7] The story line makes no judgment but frees the reader to decide. In the book The Giver euthanasia is a form of punishment.
Euthanasia opponent Ian Dowbiggin linked the Nazi atrocities to the resistance in the West to involuntary euthanasia. He believes that the revulsion inspired by the Nazis led to some of the early advocates of euthanasia in all its forms in the U.S. and U.K. removing involuntary euthanasia from their proposed platforms.[10][11]
****
There are several different classifications to euthanasia. The main classifications depend on whether the person gives an informed consent or not. These are known as voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is when the patient makes an informed request for a life terminating event. Involuntary euthanasia is where someone make the decision for the termination of another party who cannot make the decision. Involuntary euthanasia is one of the main reasons euthanasia has not become legalized. Euthanasia can also be divided into active and passive forms. Active euthanasia is when deliberate steps are taken to end a patient's life, either by inducing a cardiac arrest or sometimes with the use of a euthanasia machine. Active euthanasia uses lethal substances or forces to end someone's life. Passive euthanasia is defined as withholding treatments that would keep someone alive, such as antibiotics or other treatments. In this way, the patient can die naturally and not have to hang on to life when they don't want to.
There are many good reasons for voluntary euthanasia. The fact that it is voluntary it emphasizes the choice of the patient. The pain that a person feels when they have a disease can be incomprehensible to someone who has never been through it. Even without the physical pain, a patient's loss of their independence can be overwhelming. There are even doctors who, after watching many people die after long battles with diseases, are convinced that the law should be changed to allow assisted death. There are many hospitals in many countries with a huge shortage of space. The doctors, nurses, and beds could be used for people's live that could be saved rather than being taken up by people who would rather die. Having the extra space would increase quality of care given and shorten waiting lists. It is a burden to a hospital to keep people alive when they don't want to be and it is also draining on hospital resources. If there is no law against healthy people committing suicides, why should those with terminal illnesses be prosecuted against? If voluntary euthanasia were to be made legal, patients could die with dignity and leave others with a positive memory and not what they had become. Some terminally-ill patients cannot refuse life-saving treatments. For these people, assistance from a physician is their only option. The terminally-ill had insufferable pain and agony, the doctor knows that their days are numbered, yet the patient had to suffer till the last moments instead of dying on their own order. Not only is the stress on the terminally-ill patient, but also on the family. By allowing euthanasia, the patient can say their final goodbyes to their loved ones and not leave the world in a sudden and unconscious state. Euthanasia and a physician assisted suicide, is a humane answer to excruciating pain.
****By keeping a terminally-ill patient alive, the patient must pay for any medical necessary procedures. These procedures can include x-rays, prescribed drugs, or any lab tests that needs to be performed. All of these procedures can run up a medical costs ranging from $50,000 to $100,000. Since the bills will continue to come for the patient, they will lose more of the money they would want to leave behind for their family. If the patient wants to end the suffering, the reason for racking up the bills and keeping the patient alive are lacking (13). Also, the costly treatment to keep the terminally-ill patient alive from medical funding cannot be used for other types of care, like prenatal, where it would save lives and improve long-term quality of life If PAS and euthanasia were legalized, more staff would have time to care for others and there would be an increase in the quality of care administered By keeping PAS and euthanasia illegal, each terminally-ill patient is being discriminated against because they are not able put this option into action. Those patients because of their disability do not have the same right as any other person in the United States.****
As with almost anything, there is an opposing side. Critics claim that voluntary euthanasia undermines the roles played by doctors and health care workers. Some doctors have taken the Hippocratic Oath where is promises, "to please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." In most religions, euthanasia is considered morally unacceptable. To them, euthanasia is treated as a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a kind of suicide. Some people believe that a cure will soon be found and it would be wasteful to give up. Another opposing view is that for the term “voluntary” to be considered, the patient must be mentally competent to make such a big decision. Any disease would put pressure on a patient and therefore decrease their rational understanding of their options and the consequences that their actions could have. Some patients may feel a psychological pressure at the thought of becoming a financial burden to their families.
****Against voluntary euthanasia
Many physicians and medical staff have numerous reasons for prohibiting the legalization of PAS and euthanasia. A main reason against PAS is the violation of the Hippocratic oath that some doctors take. The Hippocratic oath states “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan,”.[33] By being a part of PAS and prescribing a lethal dosage of a drug could weaken the doctor-patient relationship because of the oath some doctors take (13).
Another reason for prohibiting PAS and euthanasia is the option of abusing PAS if it were to become legal. Poor or uninsured patients may not have the money or no access to proper care will have limited options, and they could be pressured towards assisted death.[33] For emotionally and physiologically disturbed patients, they could abuse the PAS option and those patients could convince their doctor to help end their life. By keeping PAS and euthanasia illegal, doctors have opportunity to right their wrong diagnoses and prevent leaning towards suicide of a redeemable person (13). By having more time with the terminally-ill patient, the doctor is giving them constant care and medical attention. Many people believe that the unbearable pain can be controlled to tolerable levels if given proper care from the hospital staff.[35]****
****Legal status
Involuntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries in the world, and is only practiced in the Netherlands (see Groningen Protocol) under an agreement between physicians and district attorneys that was ratified by the Dutch National Association of Pediatricians.[4]
Involuntary euthanasia is sometimes used as a reason for not changing laws relating to other forms of euthanasia.[5][6]
[edit] Slippery slope debate
Involuntary euthanasia is often cited as the end-point in the slippery slope argument against legalising any form of euthanasia,[7][8] although recent studies show that the available evidence suggests that the legalisation of physician-assisted suicide might actually decrease the prevalence of involuntary euthanasia.[9]
The topic is discussed in literature. 'Quality of Mercy' in The Prosecution Rests is a fable exploring the facets of aging, Alzheimer's disease, and euthanasia.[7] The story line makes no judgment but frees the reader to decide. In the book The Giver euthanasia is a form of punishment.
Euthanasia opponent Ian Dowbiggin linked the Nazi atrocities to the resistance in the West to involuntary euthanasia. He believes that the revulsion inspired by the Nazis led to some of the early advocates of euthanasia in all its forms in the U.S. and U.K. removing involuntary euthanasia from their proposed platforms.[10][11]
****