Euthanasia is a popular social justice issue that is a literal matter of life and death. Euthanasia is the act of killing a human being in a painless manner. Although this sounds horrible, there are circumstances in which this is the right decision.
Some hospitalized patients are in such extreme pain that they wish for be put out of their misery; their illnesses can be so painful that death seems like a more pleasant option. No one else should be able to tell them that their decision is irrational. If a person is going through such a horrible experience, that person should be able to have the largest say in the outcome. If someone is so miserable physically that they wish to end their pain medically, that person should be given the option. This can not only benefit that person but others as well. Medical funds are freed up for other patients if resources are not being depleted in patients that are so ill that recovery is not going to happen for them. If a person wishes to be put out of his or her misery, hospitals can do so and also save money for other patients who can be cured and wish to get better.
Euthanasia is not, however, always the best choice, and there are many arguments against it. Some say euthanasia devalues the lives of human beings, but human beings should be allowed to make choices for themselves freely. Another concern is that euthanasia can become a means of saving funds for health care. Doctors cannot force patients to choose this option, though, so patients are always in full control of if they choose to be put to rest or not. It can be seen as wrong for doctors, people who work to save lives, to be directly involved in killing people, but if a patient is beyond help and believes euthanasia is the best option, doctors should honor this last wish of their patients.
Overall, euthanasia should be legal for terminally ill patients with no other options to turn to. Although there are some concerns with the concept, there are more pros than cons and people should be allowed the freedom to choose for themselves as they are with other aspects of their lives.
I understand why legalizing euthanasia would help many patients, but I think the decision of whether or not to aid in one's death is a decision no person is fully capable of making.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I doubt there are many people who are sure they want to die, no matter how much pain they are in. There is always a question of whether or not they are going to get better. Second, leaving the decision to a family member would be an impossible choice to give them. Do they sit there and watch their loved one suffer? Or do they live with the fact they decided to let them die? Lastly, this would also be an impossible choice to bring upon a doctor. A doctor's main goal is to get their patient better, so letting doctors speed up their patient's death is almost as if they failed at their job.
You bring up that Euthanasia can save funds for health care. This seems rather selfish though, that in order to save funds for heath care some very ill patients must die to do so.
I think I am againt Euthanasia, because it could become very dangerous to give patients this alternative to being sick.
Euthanasia is such a heated debate in general because it involves the individual making the choice to end his/her life. Currently in my Spanish class I am writing a critical analysis on a movie debating this issue of euthanasia. I have always known about the social injustice of euthanasia solely within the Unites States, but after watching the movie, Mar Adentro, (“The Sea Inside”) it helped me to understand both the pro’s and con’s of euthanasia in regards to how this “assisted suicide” occuring in other countries. Mar Adentro is a non-fiction movie about a man named Ramon Sampedro who lived in Spain and became a quadriplegic after a diving accident which left him paralyzed. Since his accident, Ramon had pleaded to the Spanish courts asking for an “assisted suicide.” For almost three decades, he continued to fight for what he called his right to die with dignity. Ramon believed that life in general is not an obligation, but a right; people should be able to choose and act according to their free will. Before watching the movie I never realized that from the perspective of a quadriplegic how this would make sense unless you were a quadriplegic and was able to relate to Ramon’s condition. Ramon’s only wish was to have a voice in society and share his "story" with his country; he wanted to receive acceptance to end his life. Receiving backlash from his country, Ramon was not granted an “assisted suicide” and after almost three decades of petitioning to the courts he received help from a friend who had given him potassium cyanide as a means for ending his life. As Laura implies, it is wrong for a loved one to sit there and watch another loved one suffer. Although I do understand how people believe euthanasia can be viewed as wrong because it devalues the life of a human being, I believe that it is ultimately the person’s individual decision to make that choice.
ReplyDeleteA few years ago, CBS News interviewed a man who was going to Switzerland in order to perform an assisted suicide. The website for CBS News says that, “While assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, euthanasia is not. The difference is that with euthanasia, the doctor takes your life by administering a lethal drug. With assisted suicide, you have to be able to physically carry out that final act on your own.” Even when reading this blog, I always thought that euthanasia and assisted suicide were the same thing. I could see assisted suicide being legal because it is the individual's choice about their own body and they are performing whatever act ends their life. The only way I can see euthanasia being legal is if their were doctors who were willing to administer the drugs. Just like in assisted suicides, it would be the patient's choice what to do with their body, but since another human has to physically administer a drug, more ethical concerns are added to the process. In conclusion, I cannot formally choose if it should be legal or not legal.
ReplyDeleteTerminally ill patients should have the option that allows them to put an end to their suffering. Before making this tough choice, patients should be certain that there is no chance of recuperation, if there is they should keep fighting to get better. I personally believe that this topic should revolve more around individual rights than what benefits it may have for the economy. As citizens of this country we are granted many rights like freedom of speech, shouldn't decisions about your own body be considered a right to? Shouldn't have the right to decide when to end your OWN life? I honestly think so, unless you are the actual patient you cannot imagine what they are going thorugh or what they feel therefore enabling form being able to decide if the patient should live or not. The decision to end a terminally ill patients life should be determined by the patient and hi/her loved ones, the ones who will be most affected. While i completely agree that the decision to live or die should be granted to terminally ill patients i am not sure if having doctors administer the lethal drug, as mentioned by Diane, is the best choice. Having doctors administer the lethal drugs makes them more accountable can generate consequences for the doctors. I had never heard about this topic before so i decided to look up some of the pros and cons, and i stumbled upon a con presented by buzzle.com that reads,"It’s a homicide and murdering another human cannot be rationalized under any circumstances." while the choice to die should be solely reserved to the patient having physicians actually commit the act may cause conflicts for them in the future. Overall i do believe that terminally ill parents shuld have the right to chose to live or die but i am not completely sure if euthanasia (physician assisted death) is the best way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author; I am for euthanasia under certain circumstances and strict safe guards. I think the choice should be up to the individual but there needs to be regulations put in place ensuring that the individual is capable of making a rational decision. I think that people know what is best for them. One country that currently allows euthanasia is Belgium. They have laws in place to make sure that the patient is legally allowed to make the decision and it is a conscious and voluntary request. They also require that the patient is in mental or physical pain that cannot be treated (The Belgian Act of Euthanasia of May 28th, 2002). I think this Belgian law is reasonable; a person should not have to suffer when there is nothing else that can be done to help them. However, one thing that could be missing from the law is that maybe there should be a group of people that oversees the decision made by the patient with his or her doctor. This would ensure that the person’s choice is reasonable for their condition. In conclusion, I believe that euthanasia should be legal.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this entry, I immediately thought of a movie I watched in Spanish class my junior year of high school about euthanasia--and saw that Kristen thought of that too! Watching that movie definitely made a huge impact on how I view the debate about legalizing euthanasia. It's very easy to say that you should always stay living if you have the choice when you're able-bodied and have the world at your feet. However, the people begging for the right to die in these situations are not able-bodied with the hope of fulfilling, healthy lives ahead of them. They are paralyzed, terminally ill, suffering individuals and I don't see why they shouldn't have the power to decide their own fates. Of course, suicide should be a last resort and I think psychiatric evaluation should be performed before a patient can decide to die. If they do not have a psychiatric illness and their will to die is purely because it is physically and emotionally easier than living in a state of extremely poor health, then I don't see why they should be denied that choice. If we all have the right to live, then I think we should all have the right to die under such special circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI feel that as a human being, we should have the right to decide whether or not we want to live. Therefore I agree with the author of this post. Though some feel it is wrong and possibly murder, the post makes very good and legible arguments about why it could be a better choice. It definately will save the patient's family money, by limiting the costs of medical bills and definately will free up the medical funds for other ill patients who possibly could be saved. I feel that if a person is dying and is in great pain, they should be given the option on whether or not they would like to prolong their life. If they feel that they will be better off just letting go and being put to death then they should be able to go through with it. It wouldn't be considered murder if the person and or family gives the doctors their concent. People shouldn't be forced to live in pain if the pain is only going to get worse and if they are going to eventually die. To me that is just plain torture and the individual should be given the option and should be able to make the choice themselves.
ReplyDeleteMy senior year in high school I took a bioethics class and we talked a lot about euthanasia. I believe that euthanasia is okay as a last resort option. If the person is going to die and there is no hope for them to live and they are in a lot of pain and want to be put out of their pain, they should be able to. It is their life and their decision. They shouldn't be forced to suffer the pain if they don't want to and they are going to die anyways. However, in any other situation, I don't believe that euthanasia is acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI believe that euthanasia is a difficult topic to discuss because of the gruesome choice between life or death. In our imperfect world corruption is unfortunately prevalent and the issue of euthanasia is not immune to it. Doctors may use the privilege of euthansia to the extreme. What if the patient is not in the proper mindset, how then is it determined if they are able to be euthanized? Who would determine the proper mindset? The doctor. Insurance companies are also known for their value of money over human life in most circumstances. How would euthanasia be any different? A person using insurance to cover hospice care or other expensive medical bills to continue their life is a large drain on the insurance companies. Insurance companies may find ways to euthanize people who otherwise do not want it. I feel as if euthanasia is something that must be carefully considered beyond the moral debate for it to be seriously considered.
ReplyDeleteI agree that euthanasia should be allowed under certain circumstances. However, I think that only the person who is dying can decide whether or not he or she wants to be euthanized. This decision should not be put upon any family members or doctors. Having a family member decide whether or not to euthanize the person can become a very complicated situation especially if there is money involved. If the person were to die and his or her decendants would receive a substantial amount of money it can clearly be seen as a conflict of interest for the family members who would recieve the money to decide whether or not the person should live. Money aside having someone's life in your hands is a very serious situation that can dramatically change a person's life. The person would be in a way "playing God" and taking control of a situation that in reality should be controlled by nature and time. I also think that the person should have to undergo some sort of psychiatric evaluation to make sure that they are in the right state of mind. Also the doctor should not be required to euthanize a patient just because he or she asks. The doctor must want to willingly do it becasue it is a such a serious aciton and one that cannot be taken back. The doctor is responsible for doing what they think is best for theit patient and if they do not agree with their patient's decision in this paticular circumstance than the doctor should not have to euthanize the patient. It may be the patients decision to die, but the doctor is the one who has to actually perform the act of killing the patient. This could take a serious toll on a person, but if the docotr is willing like some doctors have been in the past I see no problem with euthanasia. If a person is in an extreme amount of pain who are we to say that they should just suck it up and deal with it. No one can understand the pain that these people are undergoing. If they feel that they can no longer deal with this pain than I believe that no one has the right to tell them otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIt can be concurred that euthanasia is a very contraversial topic. After studying the topic in my morality class junior, I am still somewhat undecided on the issue. I can see how euthanasia is a "way out" for some people and is "more humane" than going through excruciating pain whether it be mentally or physically. However, I do not see how that decision can be made. If a person feels the need for euthanasia they are at a point in their life where they are mentally stable to make that decision. Ideally it should be up to that person but they are not in a rational frame of mind a majority of the time. Then you have the family aspect. In this decision making process whos best interest are they looking out for? As a human characteristic it is usually #1. Therefore they either agree on euthanasia for reasons such as inheritance, lack of money to continue treatment, or lack of patience and energy to deal with the situation. Then there are those that wouldn't agree on euthanasia because of the sole reason that they aren't ready to let go of their sick loved one. Both outlooks are rather selfish and unfair. Then you're left with the doctor who has multiple perspectives as well and cannot make a legitimate decision. There are so many aspects of consideration that go into the topic of euthanasia. Mainly because, as previously stated above, it is a matter of life and death.
ReplyDelete