The Controversy Between Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide

The right to assisted suicide is a heavily controversial and debated over topic that concerns people all around the United States. The arguments go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to end their life with the assistance of a doctor or physician. Some people are against it because of moral and religious reasons. Others are for it because of their compassions and respect for unhappy patients waiting to die naturally. Assisted suicide is prohibited by common law or criminal statute in all 50 U.S. states; medical aid in dying is specifically authorized in 5 states: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, and California.

Legalization of physician-assisted suicide has been in discussion throughout the years in the United States. While many state and federal lawmakers have this up in discussion, the state of Oregon is the only U.S state were physician-assisted suicide is legal. Not only is assisted suicide illegal, the use of euthanasia is also an illegal substance being prescribed to patients. There are four distinguished types of euthanasia, all with different meanings that are mentioned later on in the text. Over the last forty years and counting, Pakes had informed that the views of physician-assisted suicide have been changing, and it is still ongoing today.

There is a contradiction of cultural and religious beliefs in Oregon and Utah. Oregon recognizes euthanasia as a peaceful way to end one’s life. Utah,

The patients should be allowed to have a physicians assisted suicide because of how much the patient suffers. A patient undergoes physical, emotional and psychological pain during treatments. Cathleen Kaveny from Gale database says, “The term euthanasia in general refers to a situation in which one party adopts a course of action with the intention of causing the death of a second party to alleviate suffering.” Euthanasia or assisted suicide is a way for a person who is suffering to end their suffering which is causing them emotional trauma. Some people believe in letting one naturally end their life but assisted suicide is a way to get rid of the pain in an easy way.

On the contrary, in Oregon, assisted suicide is legal if physicians write deadly prescriptions in appeal of the patient. According to Encyclopedia.com, the guidelines in order for the prescription to be legal include: “requiring a second opinion to verify the diagnosis; referral of the patient to be a mental health professional if the doctors suspect the patient has a psychiatric or psychological condition that causes ‘impaired judgment’; a fifteen day waiting period between request and prescription; and, reporting the assisted suicide to the Oregon Department of Health.” Meanwhile, in most of the United States, euthanasia is considered illegal and a felony somewhat similar to manslaughter. Doctors waste precious time distributing death notes, when the clear solution suggests to spend more time writing prescriptions to nurse as many patients as they can. According to the Atlantic, Dr. Jack Kevorkian (1928-2011) invented a gruesome contraption that allowed more than 100 patients end their lives.

A life full of dishonor, can only lead to an honorable death. Assisted suicide is the act of a physician supplying a patient that is death’s door lethal drugs to take their lives. Often the patient has cancer or an incurable disease. Terminally ill patients should be allowed to assist their death. Assisted suicide laws that are thoroughly crafted will not increase risk and the approach of one’s death is their undisputable right.

"It is as important to choose the way we die as it is to choose the way we live" (Gredicack, 2017). Assisted suicide allows terminal ill patients to die with the assistance of a physician. This is a much discussed topic in the United States. Some people see it as helping a dying patient die painlessly. Others identify it as, unethical and morally indefensible.

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.

The idea of assisted suicide has been going on for a long time, since the 17th century. Many people see if a doctor helps a patient suicide, it goes against morals. The purpose of a doctor is to save lives and to prolong a person’s life. Yet when it comes to suicide, they are not preserving a person’s life, they are ending one. Ending a life would go against the idea of medicine.

Whereas, others disagree with the idea of euthanasia because they believe the patient should have a chance to be treated and regain their health instead of choosing the “instant death” route and it may increase the number of assisted suicides. Euthanasia has been made legal in several places around the world such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, India, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Germany, Japan and Canada. The only U.S. states that have legalized euthanasia are Washington, Oregon, Colorado, California, Washington D.C., Vermont and Montana (“Legality of

Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, is the act of permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured patients. This is never suggested by the caretaker rather than requested by the patient or their family. Few areas such as the Netherlands have already legalized this practice. This debate, as split as a fork in the road, is over whether or not this approach should be legalized worldwide on stances regarding religion, ethics, and self choice.     I see this as being extremely unethical on both religious and social morality levels.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide is an issue all over the world, and each country has to answer the difficult question time and time again: Should it be Legalized? Though Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are different practices, they both achieve the same purpose. Euthanasia is defined as “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma” using a lethal injection, while assisted suicide is a prescribed medicine. Euthanasia was first urged in the United States around 1930.

It is also about cultural history and history in the laws. Washington was the first state in USA to legalize assisted suicide, but they have a long history that says suicide is illegal. To assist a suicide, whether it is a doctor who assists or someone else, use to be seen as a

INTRODUCTION Euthanasia alludes to the act of deliberately close a life keeping in mind the end goal to assuage torment and enduring. There are different euthanasia laws in each country. The British 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".[1] In the Netherlands, euthanasia is understood as "termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient"". Euthanasia is sorted in diverse ways, which incorporate voluntary, non-voluntary, or automatic.

THE EUTHANASIA CONTROVERSY Summary Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.