Euthanasia

Free to Live, But Not Free to Die!

One of the few certainties of life is death, but in the twentieth century it is still a taboo subject. The “forbidden” nature of death adds to the unnamed fears and worries that most people feel when asked to confront the idea of their own death. Yet once people can overcome their reluctance to discuss the subject, most often what is revealed is not the fear of death itself, but the manner of dying.

The difficulty of thinking about “death with dignity” is that it implies that one day you, or someone you love, may be in a position to want that choice. Even if someone wanted to choose euthanasia as a way to end their existence, their wish may not be carried out, unless they live in the state of Oregon, or the Netherlands, where Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is protected under law.

I believe that the laws in most western nations that state euthanasia is illegal should be changed and the legalization of euthanasia, under certain restrictions, should be mandated throughout areas where the majority wishes to have the freedom to choose their method of dying.

The word euthanasia itself is a Greek word meaning “good death”. However, during World War II, what was once intended to be a kind and gentle end to a full life received a negative connotation as a result under the pretense of “research and experiments” carried out by Nazi doctors to cover up their systematic attempt at racial and ethnic genocide.

Some people fear that if euthanasia were legalized, that, in the words of Dr. James Dobsen, “We will eventually be killing those who aren’t sick, those who don’t ask to die, those who are young and depressed, those who someone considers to have a poor quality of life, and those who feel it is their obligation to ‘get out of the way‘.”

When aid-in-dying is legalized, lines will be drawn between individual rights and public safety and public laws will set legal anchors to insure against slides down Dr. Dobsen’s proposed “slippery slope”. Judge Reinhardt, of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, addressed the “slippery slope” argument:

This same nihilistic argument can be offered against any constitutionally-protected right or interest. Both before and after women were found to have a right to have an abortion, critics contended that legalizing that medical procedure would lead to its widespread use as a substitute for other forms of birth control or as a means of racial genocide.

Recognition of any right creates the possibility of abuse. The slippery slope fears the opponents of Roe v. Wade have, of course, not materialized. The legalization of abortion has not undermined our commitment to life generally; nor, as some predicted, has it led to widespread infanticide. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that legalizing assisted suicide with parameters will lead to the horrific consequences its opponents imply and suggest.

There is another argument the Judeo-Christian society exploits against the freedom to choose one’s destiny: God’s will. Those of this religious background argue that life is a gift from God and is thus only to be taken by God. Any intervention to end a human’s life by means of suicide is not only committing murder, but also “playing God“. This is the same argument that was used against surgery only a hundred years ago. Is open-heart surgery “playing God”? Is using artificial birth control or getting a blood transfusion “playing God” or God’s will?

From an impartial perspective, one would gather that these religious denominations use the Will of their God to justify their extreme positions of promoting life with disregard to the individual’s rights to life they are trying to control. Through their blind acceptance, they reject hat their God of Life is also God of Death, and that the reluctance to accept dying as part of life borders on hypocrisy!

Nancy Cruzan was a 32-year old Missouri woman who was in a persistent vegetative state for seven years after being in a severe auto accident. Her parents fought all the way up to the Supreme Court to finally win permission to shut off her artificial nutrition and hydration. When the day came to take her off artificial life support, nineteen people stormed the facility to try to put the tubes back in. They were arrested and placed in jail. Now that’s “playing God”!

Also, the religiously inclined extend their beliefs on others when they argue that God’s will is not being fulfilled through euthanasia. Should people belonging to different faiths follow the perceived “will of God” assertion of a different religion? Should the personal beliefs of the religious decide public policy for all adults, including religious liberals, Humanists, Atheists, or Agnostics? In the Declaration of Independence, it states “[t]hat all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . .”

Under these basic principles under which our country was founded, any free citizen has the right to determine their own fate. But a person who is terminally ill, in a hospital setting, or is disabled may not be able to exercise their “God-given” rights. A competent, terminally ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in choosing a dignified and humane death rather than being reduced at the end of his existence to a child-like state of helplessness, diapered, sedated, and incompetent.

Another reason this violation of human rights is often not recognized is the gradual nature of the increasing power of medical technology to maintain a semblance of life longer and longer. We are so pleased with great medical advances that we overlook their misuse and their painful side effects.

There are conditions such as cancer, strokes, acute arthritis, and more recently AIDS, to name a few, where all the medical skills in the world aren’t enough for a particular individual case. If that person, after undergoing all possible treatment, still feels enough is enough, they should have the right to be helped to die.

There are also many of those who, having lost their independence and a sense of self-determination, feel that withholding the option of euthanasia, causes an unacceptable loss of personal dignity. They believe that their quality of life is nonexistent, and, therefore, see no benefits in draining money for their unending care from either their loved ones or their care provider.

In an age when total medical funding is restricted and being continually reduced, is it ethical to engage in extremely expensive treatment of terminally ill people in order to extend their lives by a few weeks, if it is against their will? The resources used in this way are not available for prenatal care, infant care, etc. where it would save lives and significantly improve the long-term quality of life for others. As callous as it may seem, there are also financial benefits for people that could use the money in better ways than to use it to go against the wishes of the dying.

Acceptance of death often leads to an increased quality of the life the terminally ill has remaining. A terminally ill person lives better knowing that he may gain control over the physical pain, the psychological agony and the financial devastation of dying.

Terminally ill persons who have had control over their living expect to have control over their dying. They are being denied this last choice. The denial to fulfill their wishes is not yet well recognized as being a violation of human rights. This may be because the motive is good. The general idea of preserving life is good, but carrying it out to an extreme is not. Following one’s religion is good, but imposing it on another is not.

Each person has autonomy over his life. Persons whose quality of life is nonexistent should have the right to decide to commit suicide, and to seek assistance if necessary. To deny a person control over his or her own life is immoral. It is an abuse of human rights, and should be illegal.

In ”Active and Passive Euthanasia, “ James Rachels argues that there is no moral difference between actively terminating an individual’s life and terminating it by “allowing” him to die as a result of a disease or other circumstance in all cases. His focus is on cases of euthanasia in which the goal is to end an individual’s suffering brought on by a painful disease. Rachels regrets that the contemporary consensus in the medical community on the morals of active versus passive euthanasia; i.e. that actively terminating a patient‘s life by administering a fatal drug is morally worse than allowing a patient to die by withholding treatment. Rachels first contends that active euthanasia is often more humane than passive in that it results in less pain. If the passive euthanasia route is selected, the patient will suffer in agony for days before dying.

Rachels employs an example of children born with Down’s syndrome and an occasionally accompanying congenital defect in the intestinal tract, which needs to be operated on so that the child may live Allowing them to die means that they will suffer of dehydration and infection. The alternative of active euthanasia will terminate their lives quickly and (presumably) relatively painlessly. It is then asserted that the moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia ”leads to decisions concerning life and death made on irrelevant grounds”. Using the above example of Down’s syndrome children with the intestinal tract defect, Rachels argues that, if the decision were to be made to allow the baby to die by not operating on the intestines, then the purpose would be to minimize suffering due to the Down’s syndrome, not the intestinal blockage.

Therefore, life and death would be differentiated on irrelevant grounds. He then posits that there is no moral difference between killing and allowing someone to die. He cites an example of a man who kills a child in order to gain a large inheritance and another man who allows a child to die, in a situation wherein he can intervene and save the child, in order to gain a large inheritance In either case, both individuals’ actions are morally indefensible. Allowing someone to die is an action (unjust or otherwise) just the same as actively and directly killing someone is.

Finally, Rachels addresses a number of arguments that contradict his position. One major argument in favor of a moral distinction between active and passive euthanasia is that, in a medical situation, if a patient is allowed to die, it would be the disease that is doing the killing, whereas if the doctor actively terminates the patient’s life, it is his responsibility. Going back to his third contention, Rachels argues that allowing a patient to die is an action made by the doctorjust the same. He concedes that this distinction may be useful within the contemporary legal paradigm, but there is no moral difference regardless.

St. Pope John Paul II proclaims the word of God about the topic of protecting the gift of life and cherishing it at all times. “The Gospel of Life” is a discussion still relevant in today’s society to people of every age and culture. Since the beginning of Jesus Christ’s teachings, his disciples spread the message that each one of us has purpose. With St. Pope John Paul II writing, future generations will be salvished against common sin that keeps us away from God. All people have human dignity and deserve justice and as God’s children, we must defend and promote this encyclical. As a society, we are called to solve the world’s problems not through human reason alone, but through human reason and the Divine Law. God’s grace lightens up the world and fulfills our human and political community with love. St. Pope John Paul II proclaims in his encyclical that if an individual follows the process, he or she will be enlightened by the promise and renewed by the gift of divine life, which will reach its full realization in the Kingdom of God.

Our human lives are precious and St. Pope John Paul II proclaims the good news to remind us of our value and dignity, while emphasizing the culture of death, and the renewed culture of God.As poverty, hunger, endemic diseases, violence and war increase, weak and defenseless lives are being constantly threatened in today’s society. Communities attempt to justify crimes against life with public opinions. Although certain legislatures have legalized crimes such as abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty in the name of individual freedom, it is not morally right to act upon these selfless situations. Not only innocent lives are being thrown away, but our conscience is being darkened as people cannot distinguish the difference between their right and wrong decisions.

On behalf of the church, St. Pope John Paul II speaks out for those who do not have a voice and cannot defend themselves. Throughout human history, the consequences of Original Sin has been affecting our society. The tragic destruction of human lives and violence is compared to the first murder in the Book of Genesis. Death came into the world as a result of the devil’s envy and the sin of our first parents. And death entered it in a violent way, through the killing of Abel by his brother Cain: ‘And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him’ (Gen 4:8). The sixth commandment states “You shall not kill,” and abortion violates this basic human right. Even if a fetus has yet to be born, he or she is still a human being and deserves to have the same rights as any other civilian. Physical limitations do not make those with disabilities less human.

By the time a baby is conceived, he or she is recognized by God, as demonstrated in Jeremiah 1:5: ‘Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.’ Abortion is not only murder, but also causes psychological damage and pollutes the society into believing that it is an excusable act. Women who abort their child increase their risk of developing depression and have significantly higher anxiety. Society needs to take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences. Having sexual intercourse risks a pregnancy and an unborn baby should not be punished for a mistake made by adults who are aware of the consequences. St. John Paul II teaches society that there are other options a woman could do, such as adoption, rather than aborting their child.

Life begins at conception, which means that unborn babies have a fundamental right to life just as much as we do and we must protect the ones who are unable to defend themselves no matter the circumstance. Euthanasia opens up another topic that threatens the gift of life. It is a violation of God’s law because it is the morally unacceptable way of killing a person. Euthanasia gives an individual a certain attitude which leads people into thinking they can control one’s life or death; a right that only God can obtain. ‘It is I who bring both death and life’ (Dt 32:39) Due to advanced medicine, when an individual feels as if they no longer hold any value, he or she can choose whether they want to end their life in ahastyway. Euthanasia is another form of suicide, which represents a rejection of God’s sovereignty over life and death, as proclaimed in the prayer of the ancient sage of Israel: ‘You have power over life and death; you lead men down to the gates of Hades and back again’

Assisted suicide also violates God’s law. A relatives’ duty is to treat a family member with patience and love and doctors are meant to care for the sick person even during their most painful terminal changes. Saint Augustine writes, ‘it is never licit to kill another: even if he should wish it, indeed if he request it because, hanging between life and death, he begs for help in freeing the soul struggling against the bonds of the body and longing to be released; nor is it licit even when a sick person is no longer able to live’ Doctors go through extensive training to provide health services for the ill. A patient should not have to worry if their doctor is thinking about whether they are valuable enough to keep alive. Euthanasia destroys a societies trust in the medical profession and sends a message that life is not worth living.

Many opponents of abortion argue as follows: All human right beings have a right to life, the foetus is a human being, therefore the foetus has a right to life. Abortion, as a denial of this right, is accordingly morally wrong. Those who support abortion maintain, however, that the foetus is not a human being but a clump of cells, and that, even if it were a human being, its right to life may be outweighed by certain other rights possessed by a mother. These rights are the woman’s right to self-defence and her right to control her body. When exactly does human life begin?

There have been many divergent opinions. In the past there was a strong support for the view that life begins at birth. However, this view became increasingly unpopular as our knowledge of foetal development has increased and the more the distinction between the born and the unborn has been blurred by the advances in foetal photography. Others found greater significance in ‘quickening’, the moment when the mothers feel her baby move; but this event, although doubtless of great emotional significance for the mother, is not regarded as significance for the growth of the foetus.

A more common argument is to say that human life begins at conception. It is held that, since the development from the foetus to baby is continuous, it is purely arbitrary to choose any point other than the conception as the moment when one becomes a person. However this conclusion does not follow. One could say the same thing about the development from acorn to oak, but this does not mean that acorns are oaks: a distinction can be made between them. Similarly, a fertilized egg is unlike a person that, to suppose otherwise, is to stretch the meaning of ‘person’ beyond all the normal usage.

Hence the most accepted view, particularly among physicians, is to focus upon some interim point at which the foetus becomes ‘viable’, that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. But this argument has its own weaknesses, the most glaring being that the date of viability changes: in English law it has been reduced from twenty-eight weeks to twenty-four, though some agreed for eighteen weeks. Many find it offensive that whether one counts as a person depends on the shifting state of medical research. Some philosophers accept that the foetus is a person at conception.

Anti-abortionists claim that it follows from this that the foetus, like all human beings, has the right to life, and that no other right can overweigh this right. However, there are in fact two rights which may override the right to life. The first is the woman’s right of self-defence, in which the mother may end the life of the foetus if it threatens her own: and the second is the right of ownership to her own body, according to which she has the right to use her body in the way she wants and which may or may not include carrying a foetus to term.

Unlike the right to self-defence, the right of ownership extends to cases where the mother’s life is in danger. For example, if the woman has taken no contraceptives precautions, she has assumed responsibility for the unborn foetus and ought not to withdraw support; but if she has taken all possible precautions, she cannot be held responsible and may thus legitimately deny the foetus the use of her body. To continue the pregnancy in these circumstances is an act of charity on her part, but not a duty, and one which she cannot reasonably be expected to perform if the disadvantages to herself considerable.

The right to life generates certain duties in others. Two in particular should be mentioned: the duty of non-interference and the duty to service. The duty to non-interference requires that no-one should interfere in another’s life in a way that may threaten it. My right to life allows me to claim certain duties from others, the duties to service, and these may be claimed of those who are in business of seeing that my life is sustained (doctors, firemen, lifesavers).

Both duties presuppose that being alive is in itself valuable and worth preserving, and that to save someone’s life, or at least not to shorten it, is to benefit them. Normally this is true; but not always. Death from a bullet is probably preferable to death by starvation, and it is unlikely that a prisoner being tortured to death would accept a life-prolonging drug. Saving or prolonging someone’s life is not therefore always to their advantage: in certain circumstances it might have been better if they had died earlier rather than later.

Or, to put the matter another way, to say someone has the right to life, while true, does not necessarily mean that exercising that right will bring them benefit or that those who safeguard it are their benefactors. What matters is the quality of their life and their attitude towards it, and both may challenge the duties of non-interference and service. For cases may arise in which not only should the duty of non-interference be withheld in the interests of certain individuals- their lives are deliberately terminated- but withheld by the very people who have the duty of services toward them.

Such cases introduce the problem of euthanasia. More recently it has come to mean ‘the action of inducing a gentle and easy death’ and so refers mainly to those actions, usually performed by a doctor, in which a person’s life is deliberately shortened or terminated. These actions are also known as ‘mercy killings’ since the death involved must in some way end sufferings and therefore be in the person’s own interest. This altruistic concern distinguishes these cases from the euthanasia programme introduced by Hitler in 1939 which gassed 275,000 people, mostly the physically or mentally sick elderly.

They were not killed to relieve their suffering but because they were no longer able to work. These sinister possibilities continue to haunt discussions of euthanasia. Many believe that, once this form of killing is legalized, it will lead to others, to infanticide or euthanasia for the socially maladjusted or politically deviant. Others point to the risk of abuse by the members of the family and by all those who stand to gain by the death of someone old or sick. For the members of the medical profession the problems are more immediate and acute.

Some doctors will have nothing to do with euthanasia, saying that their job is to save life and not to kill and pointing to the constant possibility of a wrong diagnosis or a new treatment. Others, meanwhile, have argued that, since medical science can prolong life almost indefinitely, what must now be protected is not so much a person’s right to life but his right to die, and that to subject a patient to unnaturally slow and often painful deterioration, simply because it is technically possible, is not only uncivilised and lacking in compassion for patient and family alike, but also an infringement of individual liberty.

This debate is further complicated by the fact that euthanasia applies to two different groups of person: those who can exercise their right to die and those who, because of their mental or physical conditions, cannot. Given the complexity of the issues involved, the court of human rights can’t decide whether or not to deprive the sufferers from their rights to die.

Furthermore, if the sufferers aren’t allowed to end their life, should the court of law give us the right to end the life of foetus, which scientifically is considered a human being. In conclusion, I think that euthanasia should be legalized and that abortion should be denied. This is because the use of contraceptives these days has made it easier for women to control their pregnancy. An exception to this conclusion would be for women who get raped and who haven’t got a control on what happens to them.

Euthanasia has been a debatable issue since one’s perception of this idea could depend on different factors such as religion, culture, and even personal life experiences. DRP. Jack Savoring witnessed how his mother suffered in agony with her disease, describing the pain as a toothache In all your bones. Just Imagine how painful that is. At that time, he cannot do anything to alleviate the pain his mother is going through. He felt lost. That’s how he felt responsible in aiding those people who are terminally ill.

For him, it’s not about killing someone. It’s understanding that Hess patients have gone through a lot, and listening to their wish to end the pain rather than continue living but you’re actually dying. Another point Is that he’s doing it free of charge. He used his own resources to “help” his patients. There is no personal gain to him, but it is rather an act of service. It may not be acceptable to many but he was doing It from the standpoint of a medical person, of a son who understood what It’s Like for someone to live fighting off a disease.

II. “Oh, the lingering of death. What a business. Keep death alive. Hospitals don’t make money otherwise. Drug companies either. If you’re rich and you have the money, you can pay to die. But the poor, they can only afford to suck It out and suffer. ” This quote from the movie truthfully states that the medical industry is also a business. Most people are in it to save lives or improve health. But there are others who see it as a moneymaking opportunity. To be honest, hospitals and drug companies don’t make money when no one Is sick.

These businesses “keep death alive”. A patient may still be alive but only because he/she Is still In the process of fighting off death. But the reality is that this person is actually dying compared to cost of us (since all of us are in one way or another living and dying at the same time). Rich people can afford the operation, treatment, hospitalizing bills, and drugs so their way of dying bearable compared to those who can’t. Ill. “To each person, their own way of death – with dignity. ” At this age, I now look at suicide as something sad and depressing.

We now know for a fact that some people commit suicide because of psychological depression thinking that this Is the only way out. We feel sad for them, and think on how could the people around them possibly changed their decision. I remember years back when we hear of someone omitting suicide, one of the many things that pop out of our heads is the question “Why? ‘ Followed by a questioning thought If this person will still go to heaven because he/she lived a good life, or if he/she will go to hell because to be straight forward, it’s murder of one’s self.

Euthanasia gives the patient liberty to decide for his/her own life. We can try, but the truth is, none of us can fully comprehend someone else’s thoughts. We will never understand how a person feels, or how much pain they’re going through so who are we to Judge? 1 OFF to use abundantly together with the freedom to decide on what to do it. It is human to choose pleasure, enjoyment, and happiness. But sometimes, life will not offer these choices. There will be pain, suffering and sadness.

The movie mentioned a religious dogma that makes euthanasia unethical: “God almighty who wills us to suffer” This teaching goes against the objective of euthanasia to relive the patient pain and suffering making it morally wrong. On the contrary, God gave us the freedom to decide. It is in dying that we can union with him. The belief is that we should always let nature take it’s own course V. Crime vs.. Civil Rights: “When a law is deemed immoral by you, you must disobey it. Medicine and Law are two of the most influential and powerful disciplines in the world.

It is studied to help serve humanity but sometimes they clash for their arguments come from diverse objectives. Civil rights is about personal liberty-? patients have the discretion to seek suicide assistance making euthanasia a result of one’s personal decision and freedom to decide for his life. But the law does not make it legal to kill someone even with the patient’s consent. Dying is always easier to comprehend and acceptable if it’s a natural death when no other human is held responsible.

Introduction/Rationale “No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given. ”, this is according to the Indiana Code of Criminal Law and Procedure. In ancient days, assisted suicide was frequently seen as a way to preserve one’s honor. For the past twenty-five years, on the other hand, the practice has been viewed as a response to the progress of modern medicine. New and often expensive medical technologies have been developed that prolong life.

However, the technologies also prolong the dying processes, leading some people to question whether modern medicine is forcing patients to live in unnecessary pain when there is no chance they will be cured. Despite the changes in modern medicine, the attitudes toward assisted suicide in America’s courts and legislatures have not altered considerably. Debate over assisted suicide nearly always centers on the “slippery slope” argument. This argument holds that permitting one behavior will lead to a series of increasingly dangerous behaviors.

Critics argue that if voluntary assisted suicide is legalized for competent, terminally ill adults, the acceptance of involuntary euthanasia for incompetent, elderly, or uninsured people will follow. Assisted-suicide advocates contend that the slippery-slope argument is fallacious. They argue that legalizing assisted suicide would not place patients’ right to life at risk because America is founded on democratic values that would ensure the rights of all citizens. Assisted Suicide is defined as an attempt to take one’s own life with the intentional assistance of another person.

It is a form of euthanasia in which a person wishes to commit suicide but feels unable to perform the act alone because of a physical disability or lack of knowledge about the most effective means. An individual who assists a suicide victim in accomplishing that goal may or may not be held responsible for the death, depending on local laws. The participation of health professionals, especially physicians, in assisted suicide is controversial. Nowadays, assisted suicide is still debatable if it will be legalized or not. However, in Philippines, since it is a religious country.

Assisted suicide remains prohibited for no one can take away one’s life except God and it is clearly stated in the Ten Commandments, ‘Thou shall not kill’. Assisted Suicide or Physician-assisted suicide has its proponents and its opponents. Among the opponents are some physicians who believe it violates the fundamental principle of medicine and believe that doctors should not assist in suicides because to do so is incompatible with the doctor’s role as a healer. Physician-assisted suicide is often abbreviated PAS. It is called doctor-assisted suicide in the UK.

The debate over whether assisted suicide should be legalized in the United States—a nation considerably larger and more diverse than the Netherlands—is not likely to be resolved in the near future. People on both sides of the issue will undoubtedly pay close attention to developments in Oregon, and perhaps other states, in an effort to bolster their side of the slippery-slope argument. Body Many have argued that it would be worse, morally speaking, for health care professionals to engage in assisted suicide, than others because it would weaken the basic values of the health professions.

Others argue that these values include providing relief from suffering and that there are rare times when death is the only means of achieving this goal. Germany actually accepts assisted suicide but is against euthanasia, largely because of the issue of patient control. If the patient is performing, the action that leads to death it is more likely that this was a voluntary choice for the patient. Thus, there is less risk of abuse. Many people thought that assisted suicide and euthanasia is the same but the truth is these two terms are completely different from the other.

The main difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia is that in assisted suicide the patient is in complete control of the process that leads to death because he/she is the person who performs the act of suicide. The other person simply helps for example, providing the means for carrying out the action. In the US, only the State of Oregon permits assisted suicide or physician-assisted suicide. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act allows terminally ill state residents to receive prescriptions for self-administered lethal medications from their physicians. It does not ermit euthanasia, in which a physician or other person directly administers a medication to a patient in order to end his or her life. The Oregon law allows adults with terminal diseases who are likely to die within 6 months to obtain lethal doses of drugs from their doctors. A relatively very small number of people sought lethal drugs under the law and even fewer people who actually used them. Many patients have said that what they want most is a choice about how their lives will end, “a finger on the remote control, as it were. ” Like for instance, the case of Diane, one of the patients of Dr.

Timothy Quill. She was diagnosed with acute myelomonocytic leukemia and she was under Dr. Quill for a period of 8 years. Dr. Quill informed her of the diagnosis, and of the possible treatments. The series of treatments include multiple sessions of chemotherapy and bone marrow transplant, accompanied by an array of ancillary treatments, in which the rate of survival is only 25% and it is very hard to find a bone marrow donor that will perfectly match her bone marrow type. Upon knowing, she decided to control the time of her death and informed Dr.

Quill so that she could avoid the loss of dignity and discomfort, which will proceed to her death. She called Dr. Quill for barbiturates complaining for her insomnia. Dr. Quill gave her a prescription of the amount to take to make her sleep and the amount she will take to commit suicide. Few days after, Diane called her friends including Dr. Quill and say goodbye. Two days after Diane took away her life after they met. This is an amazing example of a case study of an assisted suicide, which really shows the difference between assisted-suicide from euthanasia. Analysis/Author’s Discussion

Approaching the problem of suffering among the dying through the lens of assisted suicide is like looking through the wrong end of binoculars; it narrows and distorts the view. My focus is in reducing the conditions that make assisted suicide seem an attractive alternative to patients facing the prospect of living with an incurable illness and to society struggling to care for the dying. Success will not come with making assisted suicide legal, but rather with making them unnecessary. According to Dr. Ira Byock, as a doctor, his commitment is to do everything possible and anything that is necessary to alleviate a person’s suffering.

In the very rare situations in which physical distress is extreme, it is always possible to provide comfort through sedation. I firmly agree with Dr. Byock for the main role of a doctor is to save life and to heal the sick not to kill or take away people’s lives. The difference between what Dr. Byock do from euthanasia is that palliative care does whatever is necessary to alleviate the suffering while euthanasia is focused on eliminating the sufferer. As a Catholic, being a tool to take away one’s life is a mortal sin and assisted suicide was never accepted as a legal practice here in Philippines.

But for me, I disagree in the practice of assisted suicide and it will always be wrong to help in taking away people’s lives no matter what the reason it will be. Still assisted suicide remains debatable and still a lot of cases are still on-going. Conclusion Assisted suicide brings out some of the deepest feelings amongst human beings. It is a hard decision that nobody wishes to take, and is the power over life and death. Is killing a terminally ill patient justifiable? Who determines the worth of one’s life? God or human? The answer to this question varies, as there are many points of view to this controversial issue.

Thus, assisted suicide is a form of suicide, which involves a person other than the person taking his or her own life. And during which the other person assists in direct or indirect physical means in giving effect to the suicide or, in the event of a statutory definition, in a manner as set out in that statute. The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the world. The debates go back and forth, about whether a dying patient has the right to die with assistance of a physician or other person. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons.

Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Some physicians and Christians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying and killing. Those among us, who think we would want assisted suicide if we were sick, should ask ourselves whether that is also what we would want for our lover, sister, brother, or child who was incurably ill. Would we want them to die quickly, so that they would not become a burden to us? If not, we need to look deeply into what “success” would look like in this time of living we call dying.

Recommendations •I acclaim not to legalized assisted suicide for as a Christian, to help in taking away one’s life is always a mistake. Since our role as a steward of the earth is to preserve our lives. •We expect physicians to heal and preserve life, not to kill on request. I want to be able to trust my doctor to do what is best for me in every situation by not doing illegal stuffs like assisting suicide. • Since, assisted suicide is a moral issue, I recommend that it has to be resolved on the basis of principles we use to deal with every other question about right and wrong, not a special case. Depression, when present, should be treated. I endorse that patients should be given sufficient time and counseling to enable them to make sure their decision represents their deepest wishes. But at some point we have to decide whether patients are to be permitted to be the authors of their own destiny or not. •The option of “self – deliverance” should not be taken for granted for some might take advantage of it especially the mentally ill people who would grab the opportunity to decide when to end their lives.

Bibliography: http://medical-dictionary. thefreedictionary. com/assisted+suicide http://www. duhaime. org/LegalDictionary/A/AssistedSuicide. aspx Criminal Code of Canada, Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, Chapter C-46 http://www. dyingwell. org http://www. pages. drexel. edu/~cp28/euth1. htm http://www. oppapers. com/essays/Physician-Assisted-Suicide-Case-Study/38054 The Ethics of Assisted Death: When Life Becomes a Burden too Hard to Bear (Lima, OH: CSS Publishing Co. , 1999). http://www. enotes. com/assisted-suicide-article

Drugs: Should their sale and use be legalized?

I chose this as my casebook topic frankly because I found it interesting. From what I believe, drugs are volatile substances that destroy a person internally, at some cases physically, when abused since there are areas in the United States that sell Cannabis Sativa, more popularly known as Marijuana, as prescription drugs. There is an enormous difference between the drugs themselves. From what I think, those which are not chemically manipulated or produce are quite safer—with exception to drugs like valium since they are prescription drugs.

I would like to discuss the different kinds of drugs in order to give people an insight on the nature of these illegal substances. The legalization of the sale and use of these substances might depend on the nature of the drug itself—effects on the user, how much is the appropriate dosage, and the like. Personally, I believe that legalizing the substances which are certified safe for usage can be an economically wise decision mainly because some of these drugs come in abundance hence possibly cheap. As long as these “legalized” drugs are kept off from illegal or unlicensed sellers, then everything will turn out fine. I do not think that legalizing the safe drugs for sale over-the-counter would make any difference. Cigarettes can kill and yet they are legal, so why can’t these be legal as well? As long as they are certified safe, then they could be sold as prescription drugs.