Marmar Tavasol
Word Count: 815
The Right to End Suffering Mrs. Brown, a patient with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) should have the option to end her life prematurely or to stay alive and suffer tremendously from a disease that is bound to kill her. Based on the readings and lecture in class, it has become apparent to me that choosing to die by withdrawing medication and choosing to die by taking medication follow very similar reasoning. On the paper Story of Teresa & Terrence - The Established Medical/Legal View, a parallel description of the reasoning that is followed for each case is shown, making clear the logical differences of each patient. In my opinion, the differences in the two cases of Teresa and Terrence are trivial at best. Both patients are choosing to die and taking deliberate measures to do so by changing the routine(s) of their treatment. If the means to die by stopping medication are permissible, the means to die by taking medication ought to be permissible. The advent of technology has made many contributions to sustain life. However, before this technology, many people would die without years of suffering. Today, people with critical illnesses are given the option to stop treatment in order to hasten death. However, those in similar conditions, except being on life-sustaining medicine, do not have the
…show more content…
Quill discusses how helping one of his patients to face death with dignity taught him that with knowing patients enough to know their true intentions for wanting to end their lives, he can provide the doctor care that he intends to. Dr. Quill had a working relationship with his patient, Diane who was diagnosed with myelomonocytic leukemia, a terminal disease that does not have any proven treatment or cure. By providing an indirect way for Diane to end her life, Dr. Quill allowed her to end her life prematurely, but with dignity and before being in a state that nobody would ever want to be
In Culture of Death, Wesley J. Smith is very clear about his opinions on where the future of healthcare is headed. In my essay, I will be discussing Smiths’ statements regarding assisted suicide, euthanasia and removal of food and fluid and why he believes the government should put an end to legalizing these practices. I will also discuss the important cases of Annette Corriveau, Robert Latimer, and others. Wesley Smith is a bioethicist and human rights activist that advocates for the illegalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
The last argument that this paper will look at is the argument of double effect. In the context of terminal illness physician assisted suicide could instead be seen as a vital form of care for someone who is suffering, instead of the failure of medicine. Physician assisted suicide seems to oppose the pro-life view, but on closer examination, its purpose is instead to relieve suffering in imminently terminal cases where it is thought that no other treatment could reasonably hope to do the same. Even though traditionally the role of the doctor is seen as extending life, that role may also encompass the assistance in PAS.
Huttmann’s argues in this essay that the person should have the right to choose to live or die if they are suffering from a fatal illness. And the author’s purpose within this essay is both personal and social. The essay starts with one of the audience of the Phil Donahue show shouting “ murderer” after Huttmann shares her story about mac , a cancer patient. Huttmann wrote this interesting introduction so she could draw the audience and show the effect of feeling of justification throughout the latter portion of this essay. That introduction leaves the readers curiosity about why are the people calling her mean names.
“The cessation of the employment of extraordinary means to prolong the life of the body when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent is the decision of the
Death is inevitable, it is something all living creatures must endure on this side of eternity. There is a multitude who will not be able to determine or choose when that time happens, life circumstances are usually out of the controlling grips of humanity. Despite that truth, as of 2015 there are five states in the U.S.A. where terminally ill persons eighteen or older with no more than six months to live are allowed to take their life with the assistance of a physician. California, Montana, Vermont, Washington, and Oregon, have all legalized the practice of physician assisted suicide (USA Today, PAS Dignity 2015). The act is generally committed by way of a prescribed lethal dose of medications intended to speed up the process of the patient 's
In order for a patient to receive the prescription for medication, a physician must declare the patient to be terminally ill, which means they have an incurable and irreversible illness, and they must have no more than six months to live. Also, a second doctor must agree with the first doctor. In addition, the terminally ill patient has to be mentally competent and able to administer the medication themself (“Threat” A12). These rules act as safeguards to ensure that the patient requesting aid in dying is making an informed decision and is acting voluntarily (Gopal
The possible legalization of euthanasia can cause a great disturbance in how people view life and death and the simplicity of how they would treat it. "There are many fairly severely handicapped people for whom a simple, affectionate life is possible." (Foot, p. 94) As demonstrated, the decision of terminating a person 's life is a very fragile and difficult one, emotionally and mentally. Nevertheless, it’s a choice we can make if it is passive euthanasia being expressed.
The Right to Die 1) Introduction a) Thesis statement: Physician assisted suicide offers patients a choice of getting out of their pain and misery, presents a way to help those who are already dead mentally because of how much a disease has taken over them, proves to be a great option in many states its legal in, and puts the family at ease knowing their love one is out of pain. i) The use of physician assisted death is used in many different countries and some states. ii) Many people who chose this option are fighting a terminal illness.
Lately, we have experienced a lot of situations as Mac and Huttmann situation. This problem is really controversial and, of course, everyone can relate to it. Barbara Huttmann is trying to show the audience that she is innocent by illustrating her struggle with Mac. Huttmann argues in this essay that the person should have the right to choose to live or die, only if they are suffering from a fatal illness. Huttmann illustrates her experiences with Mac in order to justify her act and convince people that mercy killing should be legal and she uses her compassionate tone and her vivid imagery to prove it.
The documentary, A Death of One’s Own, explores the end of life complexities that many terminal disease patients have to undergo in deciding on dying and dignity. It features three patients, their families, and caregivers debating the issue of physician-assisted suicide or pain relief than may speed up death. One character, Jim Witcher has ALS and knows the kind of death he is facing and wants to control its timing. Kitty Rayl is suffering from terminal cancer and wants to take advantage of her state’s Death with Dignity Act and take medication to terminate her life. Ricky Tackett, on the other hand, has liver failure and together with his family and caregiver agrees on terminal sedation to relieve his delirium and pain.
Dr. Fletcher focuses his “formidable energy” on promoting physician-assisted death. In fact. Dr. Fletcher had his own experience with contemplating the idea of physician-assisted suicide. He was in an accident in 1996 that left him himself considering putting an end to his life. After receiving emotional support from his family and medical professionals, he decided to continue his life.
Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated.
INTRODUCTION “There is a certain right by which we many deprive a man of life, but none by which we may deprive him of death; this is mere cruelty.” - Friedrich Nietzsche Right to die is a upright principle based on the belief that a human being is qualified to commit suicide or to endure volitional control of this right. It is often understood to mean that a person with a hindmost bug should be allowed to commit suicide or assisted suicide or to decline life-prolonging treatment, where a disease would otherwise protract their suffering to an selfsame result. The question of who, if anyone, should be accredit to make these decisions is often central to debate.
Life or Death Who chooses death over life? Sometimes we have to make this decision over a loved one when there is no hope for their recovery. It would be incredibly hard to make this life or death decision on another human being and twice as hard when it is someone we love. The author discusses the argument of this controversial topic of sustaining life at any cost or dying peacefully as an ethical issue. An ethicist, a person who specializes in or writes on ethics, can provide valuable discernment with respect to right and wrong motives or actions.
Furthermore, some patients who are fully-conscious may say that they want to go to the ends of the earth to find treatment. They may be very clear that they do not want to die and will do anything to survive. The depressing part of this situation comes when the patient receives news that they are at the end of their treatment and that no other options that could benefit them exist. Basically, that patient must make the decision if they want to die peacefully without treatment or be hooked onto life-support for the remainder of what little time is left in their life. The sad truth is, sometimes patients can fight to the bitter end, but still end up losing.