Death

Medically Assisted Suicide Medically assisted suicide is an event in which a physician honors a patient’s request for a lethal dose of medication. It has become a very emotional and controversial issue for many in the United States. The only state legally allowing medically assisted suicide is Oregon since 1997. Although some feel it is unethical and morally wrong, medically assisted suicide should be legalized to patients who are terminally ill because it would relieve them from constant and unbearable physical and psychological pain in a respectable and painless way.

Individuals in the United States have the freedom to make decisions concerning their life such as where they live, what they wear, who they marry, and occupation. Every individual is able to make a decision about his or her life whether good or bad. Everyone is ultimately in full control of his or her own life. By allowing someone to make choices freely regarding their life, the same should be allowed when regarding their death. Some patients passively aggressively choose to end their lives by not continuing treatment or therapy for their disease.

This emphasizes the theory that people can and should control their own lives. Patients choose to end their lives for various reasons: they fear the loss of their independence, which later results in becoming a burden to their family or friends; they want to die in a dignified way, and they also fear the thought of dying alone. Society should understand why an individual wouldn’t want to have to rely on a family member to take care of them.

Knowing that eventually they won’t be able to do even the easiest daily tasks such as showering, eating, or walking alone, does put a heavy burden on whoever would be taking care of them. It is also reasonable to understand that patients don’t want to be remembered by how they were in their sick state. No one should have to go through seeing their loved one whither away to what isn’t even the person they were to begin with. It would provide much relief to families and loved ones to remember the patient in a healthy and normal condition.

Medically assisted suicide shouldn’t be viewed as a selfish act like regular suicide, but as a dignified and painless way to end a life that would end in the near future regardless. Whether suicides are legal or not, they will occur, and it would be much better if they were brought into the open. Suffering is different then pain. Suffering normally encompasses physical and psychological deterioration for which there is no cure. While many believe taking a life away in any circumstances is immoral, death is a compassionate way to relieve unbearable suffering.

When physicians are asked to help a patient into death, they have many responsibilities that come along with that request. Among these responsibilities are: providing valid information as to the terminal illness the patient is suffering, educating the patient as to what their final options may be, making the decision of whether or not to help the patient into death, and also if they do decide to help, providing the lethal dose of medication that will end the patient’s life. Medically assisted suicide became very familiar to the public in 1990 when Dr.

Jack Kevorkian helped to assist his first patient to death. Dr. Kevorkian had invented a machine that consisted of three bottles that were connected to an IV. When the patients were ready to start the process of dying, they turned on the machine in which a sedative was administed first to make them drift off to sleep. Following the sedative was the fatal ingredient potassium chloride. According to Kathlyn Gay, Dr. Kevorkian claimed that he had caused no death; he just helped with his patient’s last civil rights.

He believes that doctors that don’t help assist their patients are like the Nazi doctors during World War 2, those who used experiments on the Jewish people (50-51). Dr. Kevorkian aided 43 patients to their death. He agreed to assist patients after thoroughly interviewing each patient and realizing there weren’t any other alternative methods for the patient to deter suffering. It was reported that Kevorkian’s male patients had severe terminal illnesses that left them incapable of living, while the female patients suffered from breast cancer and other illnesses that are curable (Keenan 16).

Kevorkian’s medical license was suspended and eventually taken away, and he stood trial for murder charges. Dr. Kevorkian was later placed in jail and then released by Judge Richard C. Kaufman who ruled the state’s ban of medically assisted suicide as unconstitutional. It was determined that Dr. Kevorkian’s charges be dismissed due to the basis of the quality of the patient’s life, saying that the patient’s life was “significantly impaired by a medical condition that was extremely unlikely to improve. ” Kaufman also said that people have a constitutional right to commit suicide. Worsnop, 405). According to Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, “‘Terminal disease” means an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgement, produce death within six (6) months” (2). The physician is also responsible for letting the patient know of any experimental drugs and any other treatments that may benefit the patient in any way. Another responsibility of the physician is to educate the patient as to what their final options may be.

They are required to inform the patient about their diagnosis, the results of taking any medication that could be given, all alternatives that could be used to treat the patient, and also having the patient contact another physician to confirm the diagnosis (The Oregon Death with Dignity Act 3, hereafter known as The Oregon). It should be agreed that when a patient is left with no other alternatives or methods of survival, they should be allowed to decide if they want to end their own life.

Physicians who aid in a patient’s request for aid shouldn’t be judged as immoral, but only as someone who has the means and education to help patients with their last request in life. It should also be taken into consideration that everyone has the freedom of choice. “Since there is no absolute legal, medical, or moral answer to the question of what constitutes a good or correct death in the face of a terminal illness, the power to make the decision about how someone dies can rest with only one individual–the person living in that particular body” (Shavelson 153).

When patients are already faced with death due to a terminal illness, medically assisted suicide should be allowed so that they don’t have to go through any pain. Many terminal illnesses involve the decomposition of the brain, vital organs, and physical appearance. Patients normally tend to lose their mental activity such as memory and thinking also. It isn’t fair for a patient to have to go through that if they are not willing to. Not only for their mental and physical state of mind, but because of the cost. Patients shouldn’t be required to pay for medical treatment that only prolongs a life with poor quality.

Society also shouldn’t blame a patient for not wanting to lie in a hospital bed and rely on a machine to do their breathing. That patient should be entitled to choose an easy and peaceful death. Patients who make the decision to end their life shouldn’t be viewed as doing something wrong because they are choosing to do something to help them. Decisions regarding time and circumstances are personal to each individual. A competent person should be able to choose. While many view the interest in preserving a life, the interest should deteriorate when the individual has a strong desire to end their life.

In conclusion, medically assisted suicide should not be viewed as ethically wrong. It should be viewed as a humane and graceful way for patients with no other alternatives to die. It prevents an individual who is terminally ill from feeling severe pain and deciding when and how they want to end their life. The suffering a patient goes through is incomprehensible to people who haven’t gone through it. Therefore it shouldn’t be decided by anyone but the individual going through it how long and how much suffering they endure. Bibliography Gay, Kathlyn.

The Right To Die: Public Controversy, Private Matter. Brookfield, Connecticut: The Millbrook Press, 1993. Keenan, James F. The Case for Physician-Assisted Suicide? America. November 14, 1998. 14-19. Shavelson, Lonny. A Chosen Death: The Dying Confront Assisted Suicide. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995. “The Oregon Death with Dignity Act. ” Yahoo. January 16, 2000, http://www. islandnet. com/~deathnet/ergo_orlaw. html. Worsnop, Richard L. Assisted Suicide. C Q Researcher. Vol. 2, No. 7, p. 145-168. Washington D. C. : Congressional Quarterly, Inc. , 1992.

Medicine has evolved since the days of bloodletting, but from the perspective of a waiting recipient on the organ donor list, we still live in the dark ages. With a list of 110,941 hopeful candidates for organ transplant, the status of organ donation as a taboo subject in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) has left an average of 20 people dead each day. (1) The high demand and low supply has led to creative solutions from both medical and government sectors, but what’s the answer? Is government intervention necessary, or should the fed keep their laws off my liver?

While the fourth annual National Donor Designation Report Card prepared by Donate Life America shows 94. 7 million people were enrolled in state donor registries at the end of 2010,(2) it still doesn’t address the need that exists today. The shortage of organ donors in the U. S. is a problem. There are many factors that lie behind the reasons for shortage. From socioeconomic and demographic factors to religious beliefs, candidates just aren’t surfacing like they could. (3) “All the doctors and nurses I know are donors,” says Dr. Joshua Gitter, a practicing M. D. at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek, California. “We can’t be the only ones providing organs here, ya know? The general public needs to step up. ” The reason organs are in chronically short supply is partly due to the U. S. policy that requires voluntary giving.

Dr. Gitter says most organs for transplant come from accident victims, who become brain dead after serious head injuries. These victims are typically put on life-support, and the next of kin’s consent is required to turn off the machine and donate the organs. Dr. Gitter says there are usually good chances of receiving donations from the families of accident victims, but each case changes on a family by family basis. Studies have shown the chances of donation from families who had prior knowledge of the patients’ wishes regarding donation have a higher rate of donation from the ICU,(4) but how often does mortality come up in a healthy conversation with family? Craig Gammel, a San Jose resident says he never had a conversation with his family members on the topic of organ donation, so when his father suffered a brain aneurism in the summer of 2009, Mr.

Gammel possessed no pre determined ideas of donating his fathers organs during his drive to the ICU where his father waited in a coma. “You’re never ready for a call like that. ” Says Mr. Gammel, reflecting on the day he got the call about his father’s aneurism. “We didn’t wait long before the doctors confirmed my father was brain dead. ” Craig made the decision to take his father off life support after hearing the news, and agreed to donate his fathers hazel eyes to a waiting recipient. When the nurse initially approached Mr. Gammel with the request for eye donation, she did so in a tentative and reserved manner. Craig says he appreciated the way the topic was introduced, and grateful for the opportunity to assist another person in need. “Of course I wanted his death to at least help someone. ” He said.

“The old man would have wanted the same, I think. ” Craig says he wouldn’t have thought about organ donation at the time if the nurse hadn’t asked him. Since organ transplant candidates cannot rely solely on these cases, the concept of mandated choice was proposed by the American Medical Association in 1994. 5) Mandated choice would make it so people are required by law to state in advance whether or not they will be an organ donor. The American Medical Association’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs supports mandated choice. In a 1994 report, the council said: “Requiring a decision regarding donation would overcome a major obstacle to organ donation – the reluctance of individuals to contemplate their own deaths and the disposition of their bodies. ”(6) “Frankly, I’m shocked that people need the government to tell them plan for their mortality.

I wouldn’t want to be brain dead and have my family refuse organ donation because I never told them I wanted to donate. It’s tantamount to being buried with your money. Donate it for Christ sakes. ” Concluded Craig. However, everyone does not share this belief of Craig’s. “I would never allow my daughters body to be chopped up and shared like a joint at a doobie brothers concert. ” Said Santa Barbara resident David Martin when asked if he would donate the organs of a family member in the unlikely event of their sudden or accidental death. David’s cited his strict belief in Christian Science as support.

His decision to abstain from all medical practices and remedies is a cornerstone in the religion, making the concept of organ donation implausible. While David’s beliefs are of a minority opinion, it still reflects a refusal to donate healthy organs to dying people. With factors influencing donation ranging from family or patient attitudes and beliefs to deaths from trauma being the decision factors, it’s hard to come up with a method for determining the right time to approach a family. “We have been trained to approach the subject with as much care and tact as possible. ” Says Hillary Gitter, a practicing nurse at John Muir Medical Center. You’d be surprised how many people are open to the request if you approach them at the right time and in the right tone. ” Because Hillary interacts with patients that are waiting for organ transplants, she firmly believes the need trumps any social awkwardness that arises when asking for organ donations. “How would you look someone in the eyes and say their chance of finding a donor is slim to none? You’ve sealed their fate and dashed all hope with that fact, so you do what you can to help people get donors. I think even false hope is better than a death sentence. ” Said Hilary.

I will discuss whether or not censorship is a good or bad thing and what affect it has on the people and whether this influence is helpful to society. The media needs censorship because discretion in viewers or censorship is necessary; it reduces the risk of exposing children of easily influenced ages to adult content as well as inappropriate content that should not be exposed to all.

Media exposure is a powerful factor in influencing the values and opinions of children; for this reason, the need to control all that they see and hear from the media. An example of this are rap songs, which usually contain swear words, say if a young child was in the room and heard this and then began to repeat the word, this is why some word in songs are censored. On the other hand there are cons to censorship. It compromises freedom of speech.

Also not censoring can be a good thing as shock tactics are the best way to help children/teenagers to stay safe, for instance if a teenager saw a picture of a girl dead from a drug overdose it would help them to see that it is dangerous making sure that they stay away from it. Everyone should be able to choose whether censoring is better or not, seeing things like the example above will help children to think twice leading them to make the right choices rather than being reckless and irresponsible with their decisions.

In conclusion I believe that censorship is good because it protects the privacy of the people. We should all have a choice, some may rather prefer content be censored like if they live in a family environment with children around. Whereas others would choose not censoring for example if they live on their own and are an adult, listening to swear words would not cause any harm or have any impact as most likely they already know these certain words.

Every human being has the power to make decisions throughout the course of his or her life. People make choices every day, and it is the control that people have over their own lives that allows them to do so. This ability to have options and be able to make decisions should not cease to exist as a patient approaches the end of life. People have the right to believe strongly in personal autonomy and have the determination to control the end of their lives as wished (DeSpelder 238). Toward the end of life, people should still be given the chance to make decisions, in order to allow them some form of control in a life.

The option for Physician Assisted Suicide allows for those, who are approaching death, to end their lives without losing any dignity. Physician Assisted Suicide is when a physician intentionally assists a person in committing his or her own suicide by providing drugs for self administration at a voluntary and competent request (Oliver 2006). With Physician Assisted Suicide, the physician provides the patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, and counseling on the doses and the methods the patient must follow through with to complete the act (Sanders 2007).

The physician may be present while the patient self-administers the medication, although this is not legally required. Also, the physician, or any other person, cannot assist the patient in administering the medication (Darr 2007). Physician Assisted Suicide should not be confused with Euthanasia. In the practice of Physician Assisted Suicide, it is the patient who makes the final administration of the lethal medication. As far as Euthanasia is concerned, it is a deliberate action done with the intention to hasten or cause the death of an individual (Sanders 2007).

Physician Assisted Suicide is only legal in the state of Oregon, while Euthanasia is illegal across the United States. Even though Euthanasia is illegal, it was performed casually by a physician by the name of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Dr. Kevorkian would typically start an IV running saline, and allow the patient to then initiate the flow of barbituates and potassium chloride which would result in death (Darr 2007). After having assisted in the deaths of nearly 130 people over the course of ten years, Dr.

Kevorkian was found guilty of having given a man a lethal injection which caused the man’s death, and Dr. Kevorkian was sentenced to prison. Although some may see Dr. Kevorkian’s work as wrong and immoral, others support him and his symbol as the public debate on ethical and legal issues surrounding Physician Assisted Suicide (DeSpelder 238). There are many different types or forms of Euthanasia. These types of Euthanasia are: passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, active voluntary euthanasia, and active involuntary euthanasia.

Passive euthanasia is the occurrence of a natural death through the discontinuation of life-support equipment or the cessation of life-sustaining medical procedures. Active euthanasia is a deliberate action to end the life of an individual. Voluntary active euthanasia is the intervention of lethal injection to end the life of a mentally competent, suffering individual who has requested to have his or her life put to an end. The last form of Euthanasia is active voluntary euthanasia in which a physician has intervened in such a way to cause the patient’s death, but without the consent from the patient (Scherer 13).

One may wish to experience Euthanasia to end his or her life for many reasons. Many patients wish for control and influence over the manner and timing of his or her own death. He or she may also wish to maintain his or her dignity and wish to have relief of severe pain that may be caused by a terminal illness. Other thoughts that may affect the choice for Euthanasia involve wanting to avoid the potential for abuse from his or her doctor, family, health care insurance, and society (Scherer vii).

On the other hand, a patient may wish to pursue Physician Assisted Suicide, or a hastened death, because of an illness related experience such as agonizing symptoms, functional losses, and the effects of pain medications on his or her body. The patient may also feel that the mystery of death is a threat to his or her sense of self, and wish for some sort of control over the matter. Also, patients may fear for the future as far as the quality of life is concerned. A negative past experience with death, and the fear of becoming a burden on amily and friends, can greatly influence a person’s choice to seek Physician Assisted Suicide. As the end of life is approached, care can become much more involved, placing strain on those who are responsible for caring for the dying (Quill 93). In caring for the terminally ill and those near death, certain medications may be prescribed to reduce pain and a patient’s experience with suffering. When administering such medications in an attempt to control symptoms, a physician or nurse may inadvertently cause a person’s death. This occurrence is known as ‘double effect’ (Oliver 2006).

The doctrine of double effect states that ‘a harmful effect of treatment, even if it results in death, is permissible if the harm is not intended and occurs as a side effect of a beneficial action’ (DeSpelder 238). Because the dosage of medications may need to be adjusted to relieve pain at specific periods of end-of-life, it is likely that respiratory distress may occur soon afterward, leading to death. This has become known as ‘terminal sedation’, yet the Supreme Court has ruled that such instances do not account for Euthanasia or Physician Assisted Suicide because the main intent was to relieve pain (DeSpelder 239).

It may appear at times as though the law and medical profession hold strong views that oppose assisting death, but in many ways, they have also shown that under certain circumstances, hastening death can be justified. Hastening death through interventions which do not take place in the context of clinical complications, errors, negligence, or deliberate killing have been demonstrated by the legal and professional acceptance of particular cases.

Both the law and medical profession allow for the right of a competent adult to refuse any type of treatment, including one which may save his or her life. Doctors are given the right to withdraw or withhold any treatments that he or she sees as futile or not in the patient’s best interest; this includes life saving and life prolonging treatments. As mentioned previously, Doctors are legally also given the right to use their discretion in administering high-dose opiates in the context of palliative care (Sanders 2007).

In looking at such scenarios, it is difficult to understand why Physician Assisted Suicide is illegal in all states aside from Oregon, yet similar procedures and actions, that end in the same outcome, are legal in all states. The only state in which Physician Assisted Suicide is legal is the state of Oregon. Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act in 1997 which allowed the terminally ill to end their lives voluntarily through the self administration of lethal medications, prescribed by a physician, for this exact purpose (Death).

Any physicians, who are against aiding someone in ending his or her life, may refuse to prescribe the lethal medications, but each is given the ability and choice to participate (DeSpelder 237). Although Oregon is the only state in which Physician Assisted Suicide is legal, California, Vermont and Washington all hope to follow in Oregon’s footsteps in legalizing this practice (Ball 2006). Since Physician Assisted Suicide is legal in the state of Oregon, it may be feared that too many people will take advantage of such a utility and that it has potential for abuse (Quill 6).

This is not necessarily true. In Oregon, an average of 50 people take full advantage of Physician Assisted Suicide each year; yet many more than this actually receive the lethal medications and choose not to use them (Oliver 2006). Perhaps it is the feeling of having these medications to fall back on that gives people comfort. People who receive a prescription from their physicians for these lethal medications know that if they ever get to the point where they feel as if they cannot live any longer, they do not have to.

Some other facts about patients who choose to follow through with Physician Assisted Suicide are that the majority of those who took the lethal medications were more likely to be divorced or never married rather than married or widowed, had levels of education higher than general education, and had either HIV and AIDS or malignant neoplasms (Darr 2007). Although Physician Assisted Suicide was made legal in Oregon, there have been many instances where the United States Supreme Court has attempted to give Physician Assisted Suicide a bad image.

In 1997, the Supreme Court compared two cases related to Physician Assisted Suicide. The cases were Washington vs. Glucksberg, and Vacco vs. Quill. In the comparison of these two cases, the Supreme Court looked at withholding and withdrawing treatments against Physician Assisted Suicide. The Court concluded that ‘the right to refuse treatment was based on the right to maintain one’s bodily integrity, not on a right to hasten death’ but when treatments are withdrawn or withheld, ‘the intent is to honor the patient’s wishes, not cause death, unlike PAS where the patient is “killed” by the lethal medication’ (DeSpelder 237).

After examination of such cases, the Supreme Court confirmed that states had the right to prohibit Physician Assisted Suicide, or allow it under some regulatory system. In order to be eligible for Physician Assisted Suicide, there are certain criteria that need to be met. First, the patient must be at least eighteen years old and a legal resident in the state of Oregon. The patient must be diagnosed with a terminal illness which is determined to provide the patient with less than six months to live.

This terminal diagnosis must be confirmed again by a consulting physician. The patient must also be able to communicate his or her health care decisions. A patient is determined to be mentally incompetent in making such decisions, as stated by the Mental Capacity Act of 2005, if he or she is unable to understand information that is relevant to the situation or decision, is unable to retain this information being provided, cannot use or weigh information as part of the natural decision making process, and cannot communicate his or her decision in any manner (Dimond 2006).

The request for Physician Assisted Suicide must be a voluntary request, with at least one written request, signed in the presence of at least two witnesses, and two verbal request, both of which must be at least fifteen days apart. If either the attending or consulting physician feels as though the patient may be depressed, a complete psychiatric examination is done. In addition to these criteria, the physician must also provide information to the patient about hospice care and other comfort measures that may serve as alternatives to Physician Assisted Suicide (Ball 2006).

It is important to explore all possibilities for pain management and palliative care to the fullest extent in order to set aside Physician Assisted Suicide as the final resort to ending pain and suffering (Scherer 118). The request for Physician Assisted Suicide is also a prime opportunity for health care providers to examine, explore and address a patient’s fears for the end-of-life (Darr 2007). It is important to hear the request and the feelings behind it, because this could also be a patient’s means for expressing a fear of being kept alive by technological treatments, or even a way of expressing depression.

A patient may feel as though it would be easier to put an end to his or her life rather than to deteriorate (Oliver 2006). Because these possibilities may be so, it is important to analyze a patient’s behavior and requests for death carefully. These requests may not be a true wish to die, but rather what is thought to be an easy way out, or a deep lying psychological issue. It is also recommended that the physician and patient have formed a previous relationship so that there is a clear understanding of the patient’s history and future medical treatment wishes.

There must be a discussion between the physician and patient. This discussion facilitates the physician’s understanding of the meaning of the request which will then allow him or her to respond to the patient’s request with both concern and compassion. If both concern and compassion can be developed within the physician-patient relationship, then it is more likely that the physician can accept the patient’s request without encouraging the patient’s decision to pursue Physician Assisted Suicide (Scherer 118). There are many arguments both for and against the use of Physician Assisted Suicide.

The argument for Physician Assisted Suicide is focused primarily on the support of a person’s autonomous decision to end his or her life. It is believed that any person who at the end of his or her life is experiencing unbearable symptoms or distress and feels as though he or she has a poor quality of life, should be able to request assistance in ending his of her life (Oliver 2006). If we are to respect a patient’s wishes, then it is thought that we too should respect a patient’s choice of when and how to die.

If a patient has the right to make informed decisions about medical treatment, then this right should naturally extend into his or her informed choice to choose a medically assisted death (Sanders 2007). Those who are against Physician Assisted Suicide believe that a patient’s autonomy should be limited when its exercise has a negative effect on others, and that it undermines a patient’s ability to trust a doctor as a healer (Sanders 2007). Many people also believe that ‘life is a gift from God and no human being has the right to take that gift away’ (Heintz 2007).

Fears or worries may arise with the legalization of Physician Assisted Suicide. As health care workers and providers, the job at hand is viewed as maintaining life and improving a patient’s physical condition while performing Physician Assisted Suicide may remove this image. If legalized, the public may find it fearsome that the health care system has become somewhat inconsistent. This is demonstrated when a patient is asked to trust a health care provider in maintaining or improving his or her health while that same provider may be assisting other patients in committing their own suicides (Darr 2007).

I chose the topic of Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia because it is something that I find interesting. There is a constant struggle going on as to whether or not these procedures and actions are ethical, and I thought that it would be interesting to learn more about the topics in order to better develop my own view on the matter. Through my research, my opinion of Physician Assisted Suicide did not change. I had originally viewed Physician Assisted Suicide as a person’s choice and right.

Now, I still have the same input on the topic, but I feel as though I could better argue my decision of being for Physician Assisted Suicide rather than against it. I have learned a lot about Physician Assisted Suicide. I find it most important that my sources of information were from both sides of the discussion. This made it helpful for me to understand both views on Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Upon completing my research, I developed stronger feelings for the case of Physician Assisted Suicide as being a patient’s choice.

This is an individual’s choice, and for anyone to vote against such a procedure does not seem OK. Nobody has a say in what goes on in another person’s life. If this really is the case, then why should anyone be able to say that people who are suffering and nearing death cannot take a lethal dose of medication to kill themselves. It all comes down to Physician Assisted Suicide being a patient’s choice and right to have the opportunity in front of him or her if he or she deems it necessary. In conclusion, the ending of one’s life should be left in the hands of that one individual and nobody else.

It will always be said to people that “it is your life, do with it as you will”, but why should this phrase change when it is applied to someone’s death? People should be free to determine their own fates by their own autonomous choices, especially when it comes to private matters such as health (Quill 39). No one person’s life should be at the mercy of what other people believe would be best. Life or death and the way they will be carried out or ended, should be nobodies choice but the individual. Resources Ball, S. (2006).

Nurse-patient advocacy and the right to die. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing, 44, 36-42. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from the MEDLINE (through EBSCOhost) database. Darr, K. (2007). Assistance in dying: part II. Assisted suicide in the united states. Nexus. Ethics, Law, and Management, 85, 31-36. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from the MEDLINE (through EBSCOhost) database. Death with dignity act. OREGON. gov. Retrieved February 15, 2008 from http://oregon. gov/DHS/ph/pas . DeSpelder, L. , Strickland, A. (2005). The last dance: Encountering death and dying.

New York: McGraw-Hill. Dimond, B. (2006). Mental capacity requirements and a patient’s right to die. British Journal of Nursing, 15, 1130-1131. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from the MEDLINE (through EBSCOhost) database. Heintz, A. (2007). Quality of dying. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 28, 1-2. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from the MEDLINE (through EBSCOhost) database. Oliver, D. (2006). A perspective on euthanasia. British Journal of Cancer, 95, 953-954. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from the MEDLINE (through EBSCOhost) database.

Quill, T. , Battin, M. (2004). Physician assisted dying: The case for palliative care and patient choice. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Sanders, K. , Chaloner, C. (2007). Voluntary euthanasia: Ethical concepts and definitions. Art and Science Ethical Decision-Making, 21, 41-44. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from the MEDLINE (through EBSCOhost) database. Scherer, J. , Simon, R. (1999). Euthanasia and the right to die: A comparative view. United States of America: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Chronicle of a Death Foretold Chronicle of a Death Foretold is a perfect example of a novel that showcased cultural and contextual elements. The technique that was the most interesting in Garcia Marquez’ novel Chronicle of a Death Foretold, was his use of . One magical element in the book is the use of dreaming. Dreaming is a constant theme throughout the novel. Chronicle of a Death Foretold, presents the reader with characters that have dreams, as these dreams are the primary sources of events that come true.

is portrayed through dreams which are used in the novel to see the predicted future, as in most cases, the dreams that we are presented with come true. Although dreaming is not something that is seen to be unrealistic, its the way the author provides truth to all dreams. Garcia Marquez allows the characters dreams to come true, which is the true source of unrealism. Another aspects was describing the upbringing of Angela Vicario and her siblings. Women are not allowed to get jobs or follow their own dreams; their lives are bounded by tradition and the expectation to get married and have families.

A woman’s worthiness as a wife was measured by her beauty. In those days, I believe marriage wasn’t based on love. Through this book we are engulfed in the Colombian culture that Marquez demonstrates. Another theme we become aware of is honor. Chronicle of a Death Foretold consists of many different themes that can be recognized by the reader. It was interesting when Raza brought up “Machismo”. Machismo is a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness, sense of power, or the right to dominate. This theme in turn can be related to the theme of moral responsibility.

In this novel the power to dominate is aimed towards women. Machismo, throughout the book is exaggerated to show the dominance of the male sex, and I believe the author felt that the sense of having a dominant sex, is purely based on culture, because in those times, women were considered to be inferior to men. Women were looked at as possessions. Knowing that women were forever to just get married, Marquez shows rebellion of the opposite sex by Angela Vicario showcasing her independence and breaking the barrier of the life she HAD to live, by not being a virgin.