Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide ( speech)
Euthanasia and Physician assisted suicide is the most controversial issues of the legal and medical profession. Euthanasia (“a good death by Greek definition) is the painless ending of a person’s life for reasons of mercy.[1]Physician assisted suicide is the act in which a physician provides the means for suicide, usually a prescription for a lethal dose of drugs, to someone who is terminally or incurably ill. The patient must take the final action that causes his or her death such as swallowing the drugs[2]. But what about euthanasia constitutes a good death? Is it a good and painless death when the life in someone’s body is squeezed from them due to lethal drugs? Many feel that euthanasia is a great alternative to end the suffering in one’s last day. Other’s feel the euthanasia is a sin, that it directly violates the rights of the patient, as well as their religious beliefs. Yet many feel as I do, that euthanasia if legalized is immoral, unconstitutional, and would harm society.This form is considered homicide in all states excluding Oregon who passed the “Death with Dignity Act” in 1994. ( read Power point presentation) slides 1-8
The Act legalizes physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill people under certain conditions, this law required that the Oregon Health Division was to collect information about the patients and physician’s who participate in legal physician assisted suicide and publish an annual –statistical report. Yet on the other hand Washington state as well as many other states passed laws that banned all forms of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide as illegal.
This would entail removing life support, stopping medical procedures, medications, and not performing CPR basically allowing the person to die. This is usually carried out on the terminally ill or those who are in a persistent vegetative state i.e. massive brain damage, as well as those who are in a coma. Many people are in favor of passive euthanasia because it simply allows the person to die naturally.Yet there are people who feel that it is a violation of the right to live. In this case a patient should have a living will stating how they would like to be treated in such cases. (read slides from (10-13))
An advance directive is any of several types of legal documents that competent adults may is to state their wishes about health care decisions to be made on their behalf if they become incompetent. And a living will is a legal document in which a competent adult specifies medical treatments to be given or withheld if he or she becomes incompetent, in other words a form of an Advance directive. Those documents are ignored and the right of the patient is violated. The primary cause of death in both forms of euthanasia is lethal dosages of morphine through and intravenous drip.
What is the reasoning that people use when they decide that their life should be ended promptly? Some might decide because they are and have been depressed over a long period of time, chronic pain because of a terminal illness and they feel that it’s better to die quickly than waste way and last many realize that they will die soon and want control over the process. But what about euthanasia and PAS is moral? I firmly and whole heartedly believe that it’s immoral illegal and would harm society
For example take passive Involuntary euthanasia the patient has expressed his/her will to live through various legal documents such as a living will and advance directives. Yet the doctor and family members stop all forms of life support and violate the patients expressed will to live at all costs. Secondly euthanasia directly violates medical ethics. A prime example would be the very well known Hippocratic Oath, which is supposed to have been written by the Greek physician Hippocrates who lived during the fourth century it is still considered a major statement of medical ethics and physicians often recite it when graduating from medical school. The Hippocratic Oath states: “I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment…I will not give poison to anyone asked for it now will I make a suggestion to that effect.”[3] Meaning that in all forms of euthanasia active passive voluntary and involuntary is a direct violation of this oath which is the standard of all medical ethics.
Now weather euthanasia is constitutional and should be legalized is an issue that courts in the U.S. face constantly.
Further more in Quill v. Vacco Chief justice Rehnquist explained how PAS is legally and morally different from medical practices of letting die both in the intention of the actors and the causality of their actions. In the case of Nancy Cruzan the justices decided that homicide and suicide are excluded from medical practice. From the perspectives of the Supreme Court all of the justice’s feel and believe like that of the country the Euthanasia and PAS is unconstitutional because it is a direct violation of the patient’s rights.
In all actuality the legalization of assisted suicide would have a enormous impact on those who can not speak for them selves and those who have an interest in the demise of the patient would benefit. For example who is to protect the poor child without insurance from being killed by his doctor because he is a burden to the state and hospital? Even the Rich man who can afford the high cast of health insurance but because the cost of an extended stay in the hospital the his insurance company tells the doctor who is being paid by the insurance company end his patient ‘s life despite his will to live in a sense the insurance company become active lobbyist who dictate how the lives of a patients and the care of the patient is carried out. And trust me the Insurance companies are going for what ever is cheaper and the Doctor’s will listen to who ever is shelling out the most money.Not only will the lives of the innocent but the privileged will be at risk all who are created equal under the declaration of independence but because of the social standing one is favored over the other and in fact nether of the patients who both deserve the same treatment are even given a chance to heal and become will. And isn’t it the Job of the doctor to help and heal a patient with whatever cost or mean not to aid in their demise. And no one ever thought that it is shown thought hasty that there has been mass genocides such as the Nazi extermination of Jews the genocide of affricans in the Sudan all of these and more are considered extreme forms of euthanasia and yet if the law states that a fetus passed the third trimester is a viable tissue and that the killing of the fetus is homicide than so is the termination of the life of one who has organs blood and can think which is way past the third trimester Then the killing of a human who is fully alive to some extent is absolutely considered homicide.
In closing the truth about euthanasia and Physician assisted suicide is that in all actually, if killing a childs is homicide then so is the untimely murder of an adult or child. Plus who is to distinguish the difference between PAS and murder of a family member for the benefits of insurance .Lastly the right to live and the will to live and the will to love is a strong urge than that of the dying. But in all actuality it is the doctor’s job to preserve life not to take it. As the Hippocratic Oath states … I will use treatement to help the sick according to my ability and judgment … I will not give poison to anyone who asked for it nor will I make a suggestion to that effect. Then that is how true wholesome medicine should be practiced.
[1] The American Heritage Dictionary 4th edition, Pg 279
[2] Euthanasia contempory issues 2002
[3] Physician Assisted suicide, “physician assisted suicide is immoral” issue 5, Suimasy Daniel p.