Euthanasia

For example, if a person is suffering from a horrible disease it would be as if they were living dead. As the article pros and Cons of Assisted Suicide says, ” Choosing how we die is a basic human freedom. If an individual’s quality of life is terrible, they should h eve the right to stop suffering. ” Many people live unhappy knowing that what they have is Inc arable. If assisted suicide is legal they can choose to do it and die in a peaceful way instead of w attaining their final day to come while they still suffer.

People may also agree with this topic do to the “Pain and anguish of the Patti it’s family and friends” which can be lessened, and they can say their final goodbyes. ” ( Miserly) It is just sad for the family to see one of their loved ones just lying down and suffering. It is not easy for them because they do not know when the “day’ to leave this world will come. This leads to the fact that many of the nurses and doctors taking care of this patient can have a more valuable time with a patient that can and wants to fight their pain. By doing this, these nurse sees and doctors can save more lives.

Also, people may argue that getting assisted suicide may save other lives do to the fact that some of the organs in the patients’ body can help other patients as said by Miserly. Lastly, a third pro would be that without physician assistance people may co omit suicide in messy, horrifying or traumatic ways. This is worst for the families to get eve r. Imagine walking in, to see something like this and especially if they were suffering so b Daly that they took that decision. Families would feel guilty. People are pushed to do this be cause they are cornered since they are hurting bad and they can’t get help.

Assisted suicide also has many cons. One of them would be that it would decreed ease the value of human life. This means that people wouldn’t really care if someone did sees or lives. People would take this as a normal thing. Just like what Miserly says, “For each dead h, we have 12 days of ceremonies, elaborate burials, and months of mourning. ” It would me an that anyone could take the life of someone else making life something of no value. This re son is because people would just take it from you just like they would take any object of no v alee.

A second con is that doctors are given too much power and can be wrong or unethical says, Joe Miserly. He also says, “Imagine a doctor who believes there is too m such of a shortage in medical staff & resources to pour extra time & money into elderly people. He may always lean towards the side of “no hope” when the odds are sketchy. ” We always rely on doctors and on their opinions but we got to know that doctors aren’t always accurate on what they say . We trust them so much, but who knows that instead of three months of life you have 6? Also, what if that virus is just temporarily or even that they messed up the results.

By legalizing t his assisted suicide away it would be like giving doctors the right to choose who they want alive. The last con is that Miracle cures can occur. One can get well from one day to the next. Also, the science is advancing so fast that doctors can make a medicine that c an cure whatever you have. Doctors should always try nothing but their best to keep their Patti ants alive. What if there is actually a cure and the doctors are still not quite aware of it? Miserly says, ‘You have to consider the constant medical and pharmaceutical advances that just might el ad to a miracle recovery.

We should never get to a point where we spend more time looking f r a way out of life than for a way to sustain life. ” Through this quote we see that it is always beet err to fight for life to keep going and assisted suicide should not be an option In conclusion, people should never give up and take the easy path. Even thou GHz a lot of people suffer at the end maybe everything can be worth it. It won’t be an easy thing to keep living in pain but giving up and giving the right for someone to kill you not be consider an option. As a result, assisted suicide should not be legalized because no one SSH loud be able to take someone else’s life away.

The word euthanasia is of Greek origin, which literally translates to mean “happy or good death. ” However, since the beginning of the 19th century, euthanasia has become associated with speeding up the process of dying or the destruction of so-called useless lives. No longer true to its literal meaning, it is now a practice of deliberating causing or assisting in someone”s death. Because it constitutes murder and is immoral, euthanasia should not be legalized in the United States.

Almost everyone who attempts suicide or asks for assistance in their death do so as a subconscious cry for help (What”s Wrong With Making Assisting Suicide Legal? ). These people want to hear they are loved, not that someone is actually willing to assist in their death (Johansen). Many of these people have emotional and psychological pressures, which can cause them to choose euthanasia as a way to solve problems. Many are either depressed or dependent and are incapable of making well-informed decisions in that state of mind (Euthanasia:Answers to Frequently Asked Questions).

The main concern for those who ask for euthanasia practice should be to give them emotional and spiritual support for their problems (Euthanasia : Answers To … ). Tis type of counseling and assistance has proven to be successful. A study done on 886 people who had attempted suicide and been helped showed that only 3. 84 percent had gone on to kill themselves 5 years later. Another study showed that after 36 years, only 10. 9 percent had killed themselves (What”s Wrong With… ). If euthanasia became legalized, it would be administered for those who are mentally unable to choose what is best, when they could instead be helped.

Many who are in favor of euthanasia may say that a request to be killed is only justified when a doctor thinks a patient does not have a “worthwhile life” (Gormally). However, no one can judge the worth of a person”s life. “As a society, we are coming to understand that mere preservation of the flesh is not the highest value”. Many times it is the family of a patient who determines whether or not they live a worthwhile life depending on if they can participate in “normal” human relationships (Euthanasia Opposing Viewpoints 103, 117).

Those who support euthanasia strongly believe everyone should have control over their own life and death and many who give “requests for euthanasia may indicate… they are positively asserting their desire to control events” (The Case For… ). However, the religious aspects to this issue support a different view. Religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam hold life as sacred and believe it is a gift from God (“Euthanasia” Funk&Wagnalls). If the gift of life is from God, then only God can decide when that life should end, not someone else assisting in a death.

Euthanasia is also considered immoral by these religions because the 10 commandments prohibit murder, which is essentially what euthanasia has become (“Euthanasia” Britannica). When many are suffering from a disease, they would rather die a dignified death than suffer tragically from the disease (The Case For Voluntary Euthanasia). Euthanasia activists claim euthanasia is “death with dignity”, even though the methods in which the deaths are carried out are anything but dignified. This can be supported by the euthanasia cases of Dr. Kevorkian, the “Doctor of Death” (Johansen).

Dr. Kevorkian has used carbon monoxide to gas people to death, and has also had bodies dumped in empty vehicles in parking lots ( Euthanasia : Answers To… ). Another example of how euthanasia killings are not dignified can be shown by the first televisioned mercy killing, which aired in March 1995 in Great Britain that caused the spark for the euthanasia controversy. The man who allowed cameras to be present at his death was a 63 year old patient of Motor Neurone Disease. Over 13 million people watched as he received a lethal injection by his doctor (Pratt).

When these killings can be displayed for the public to see, they can not be considered dignified, especially by the means in which these deaths occur. If Euthanasia practices become legal, it would only legitimize these degrading practices. “Most elderly don”t fear death as much as they fear the pain and suffering… ” that may come along with it (Euthanasia Opposing Viewpoints 136). Because of this, some justify the euthanasia practice as a way to alleviate uncontrollable or intolerable pain that is placed on a patient. Even so, deaths by euthanasia are not always painless.

Even a passive act of euthanasia such as the withdrawal of life support, food and water, can cause a slow and painful death (Euthanasia : Opposing Viewpoints 39). Death is also not the only solution for pain control. In fact, pain control has been perfected in the science fields, so that most pain can be eliminated completely or greatly reduced. Even though doctors are supposed to help control pain, many have never had a course in pain management and don”t know what to do (Euthanasia : Answers To… ). Better education should be provided to health care professionals in order to help heal a patient, not harm them, or even kill them.

Though euthanasia is illegal in most countries, where it is widely practiced, such as in the Netherlands, it has sometimes become involuntary on the side of the patient. Euthanasia is held accountable for 15 percent of deaths in the Netherlands, where patients actually fear being checked into hospitals (Johansen). Many times involuntary euthanasia occurs because the patient is incompetent to make decisions. Even though the patient may have written in advance a living will, a will in the United States that allows a person to make decisions on the type of treatments they would want if they were ill, a proxy can override these decisions.

A proxy is usually a relative or friend of the patient that can make decisions for them if they are incapable of communicating on their own. This person could then cause the death of a patient, even if it is a passive act of euthanasia which is not doing something that is necessary to keep a person alive (Pratt). If euthanasia were practiced legally in the United States, it would become involuntary to the patient and possibly cause a larger percentage of deaths than it already does, as it has in the Netherlands where it is commonly practiced.

It is also said that euthanasia would be for those dying from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering (“Euthanasia” Funk&Wagnalls). However, there is no real definition for an incurable or terminal disease, especially since modern medicine has lengthened life ps. Some say a terminal disease is a disease that can cause a death within 6 months, while some who are claimed to be terminally ill may not die for several years (Euthanasia : Answers To… ). In 1976, the New Jersey Supreme Court gave permission to the parents of comatose Karen Ann Quinlan to remove her from the respirator that was keeping her alive.

Even though she was expected to die immediately, she began to breathe on her own and lived another 9 years (Euthanasia : Opposing Viewpoints). Because of cases such as this that show fault in the definition for terminally ill, euthanasia activists change the term terminally ill to hopelessly ill or desperately ill. The definition used for hopeless condition includes those with physical or psychological pain, physical or mental deterioration, or a quality of life unacceptable to the patient (Euthanasia : Answers To… ).

With such broad definitions for the term, hopelessly ill could include mostly everyone. The legalization of euthanasia would entirely contradict the medical practices that were established in the Hippocratic Oath, an oath over 2500 years old. Medical students, upon completion of medical school, must vow : I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgement, but never with a view to injury and wrongdoing. Neither will I administer poison to anybody and when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course (Euthanasia Opposing Viewpoints 97).

Even though neither the laws nor medical ethics say everything should be done to keep a person alive, the oath forces medical professionals to make a promise to help the sick (Maier). Doctors should be highly enough educated in order to make the best decision for each individual patient. Even if a person requests assistance in their death, it does not give the doctor enough reason to say euthanasia would be the best choice for that patient (Gormally).

“Poisons”, as stated in the Hippocratic Oath, are not to be administered even though many mercy killings now are committed with “double effect. These are high doses of medicine that may kill a person faster (The Case for… ). A high dose of a medicine is as much of a “poison” to a body as carbon monoxide, another means of carrying out the death, is. If euthanasia became accepted in the medical professions, it would be an immoral practice that would contradict its origins. For those who are pro-euthanasia, the laws pertaining to euthanasia are considered to be government mandated suffering.

The other side to this argument is that these laws are not intended to make anyone suffer, but are instead created to prevent abuse and protect patients from bad doctors (Euthanasia :Answers To… ). There is no actual provision in the legal systems for euthanasia. It is either considered murder or suicide in the United States (“Euthanasia” Brittanica). It can be a tough situation because on one hand doctors who force treatment against wishes can be charged with assault (Pratt), while if nothing is done to prolong life or if life-support is withdrawn, criminal charges can be also be brought on (“Euthanasia” Britannica).

In the Netherlands, doctors can assist in a euthanasia death even though it is illegal without the possibility of prosecution and there, euthanasia has become out of hand (Pratt). With the legalization of euthanasia in the U. S. , laws and policies would be changed so that rights that would be given to others in order to intentionally cause the end of a life (Euthanasia :Answers To… ). It would become an uncontrollable practice. Instead of legalization, laws on euthanasia should become stricter. Euthanasia has become a problem in the United States that would only become worse if it were legalized.

Legalization of euthanasia can not be justified when there is no real determination for the definitions of many terms that play a major role in the euthanasia issue. The practice of euthanasia also carries out undignified deaths that are immoral. It has no benefit to the medical society and contradicts all medical ethics. Assisted suicide has also become involuntary, unsuccessful, and uncontrollable in other countries. For these many reasons, euthanasia should not become legal in the United States.

Utopia: Suicide and Euthanasia utopia by Sir Thomas More portrays similar and different ways the society of today manages suicide and euthanasia. Some of the similarities that will be considered are as follows: helping the terminally ill pass comfortably, encouraging the terminally ill to quit their suffering and move on, and having the ill cared for that can be cured. The difference that will be considered is that of how suicide is seen In the utopian society versus that of todafs society.

To start wth, todays society and the utopian society are slmllar by taking care of the sick. nd helping individuals become cured, Utopia society tried to help cure the sick, and kept them stable until they were healed. More states, “As I said before, the sick are carefully tended, and nothing Is neglected In the way of medicine or diet which might cure In todays society, there are doctor’s offices and hospitals that help do the same as the utopian society. Doctor’s prescribe medications, and statt at the hospital helps individuals until they are healthier.

Encouraging the terminally Ill to end their suffering and move on s practiced In both the utopian society and todays society. The Individuals In both societies still receive treatment and care. More states, “Everything possible is done to mitigate the pain of those who are suffering from Incurable diseases; and visitors do their best to console them by sitting and talking with Utopian society tried to encourage the terminally ill to end their suffering through priest and public officials.

More states, “But it the disease is not only incurable but excruciatingly and constantly painful, then the priest and public officials corne and urge the Invalid not to endure such agony any In todays society, doctors in the hospital and hospice o the same in encouraging terminally ill to move on and not sutter anymore. Doctor’s encourage Individuals to consider becoming DNR, or do not resuscitate This does not mean do not treat. The Individuals that choose the DNR status are stating that they want a natural death.

By being made a DNR status, the patient is making the declslon to mcwe on. Likewise, utopian society and todays society helped the Individual pass comfortably. The Individuals In the utopian society would “starve themselves to death or, having been put to sleep, are freed from life without any ensation ot utopian society believed in euthanasia as a way ot helping end suffering In the terminally Ill. In todays society, when a doctor sees that a patient Is at the end of life, and is suffering, the doctor will suggest comfort measures only.

Comfort measures only consist of keeping the patient comfortable at all times, and generally Include high doses of medications that Include antianxiety and narcotics. These patients tend to expire very peacefully second to the medication they receive intravenously. Utopian society and todays society views suicide differently. In topian society, when an individual decides to commit suicide, it is not taken kindly to, unless the individual did It due to the fact he was terminally Ill.

More states, ” under these circumstances. when death is advised by the authorities, they consider selt-destruction honorable. But the suicide, who takes his own lite without the thrown his body, unburied and disgraced, into a bog. ” (624). In todays society, suicide is not an appropriate means of expiration no matter the circumstances. Doctors in todays society try to seek help for individuals that have even thoughts of suicide, but ave not acted on those thought yet.

However, if one chooses to commit suicide, the body is not Just tossed aside, but is given to the family members to either bury or cremate. Todays society and the utopian society have similar and different ways euthanasia and suicide are managed. Sir Thomas More depicts this in his work Utopia. Both societies are similar in the way each encourages the terminally ill to move on, helping the terminally ill move on comfortably, and helping those curable become better. The difference is the way each views suicide, and the consequence of the suicidal act.

The book approached the ethical dilemmas faced by those physicians and staff involved n the key roles of the rescue effort at Memorial Medical Center, one of the many medical facilities that were devastated by this category 5 hurricane. The physicians who remained to care for the patients were put in the difficult position of deciding who was most appropriate for rescue, and what to do with those left behind. Staff members, nurses in particular, were put in the position of whether or not to obey seemingly unjustified orders.

The catastrophe was worsened by the backlash from the patients’ families, the community, and the nation regarding their decisions, including arrests and wrongful death lawsuits. This paper will focus on just this; was the aftermath of the disaster warranted? Should the physicians and nurses who put their lives at risk to care for these patients have been put through so much consternation? Had they not stayed, it is quite likely that many more deaths would have occurred.

Was there anyone to blame? And most importantly; what could be done to keep this situation from happening again? Sheer Fink’s descriptions of the disaster that took place at Memorial Medical Center after Hurricane Strain ravished New Orleans, shed light on some of the ethical dilemmas experienced by the physicians and nurses who stayed at he hospital to care for the patients in the wake of the storm. The unfortunate circumstances were beyond anyone’s imagination.

Because natural disasters and their aftermath cannot be predicted, those left in charge had no way of knowing how to respond to the situations that they were faced with. Being forced to care for patients without clean water, electricity, sanitation, and food, puts healthcare workers in an entirely different environment. Moreover, the pressure that comes with the unfortunate responsibility of deciding which patients should be rescued and which should not, is more than any person should ever have to experience.

Upon the administrative decision to evacuate “critical” patients last, the healthcare providers who were willing to risk their own lives by staying in the hospital were faced with the unfortunate responsibility to decide which patients should receive treatment, and which ones should be left to suffer until more resources became available. Ethically speaking, Dry. Pop and her staff should have divided resources equally to provide the most number of people with the best possible care.

Rationally speaking, however, they had to make the decision to allocate the limited resources to those patients who had the best chance of surviving the disaster tit the greatest potential quality of life, rather than distributing them equally and risking the livelihoods of every patient left stranded at MAC. Due to the extreme circumstances of the situation, the decision was made to administer “lethal doses” of morphine to four black patients on the seventh floor, each of who had chosen to be designated as Do Not Resuscitate (DNA) patients.

The controversial events that took place on the seventh floor of Memorial Medical Center (MAC) in the midst of such chaos serves to illustrate the inconsistencies inherent within the context of rational and ethical decision- aging during disaster situations. Some argue that Dry. Pop chose to play the role of “God” in that moment of confusion and chaos, using involuntary euthanasia to preemptively end the lives of four patients who were not necessarily going to die.

Viewed in this way, her actions can be seen as murder; however, when viewed as an act of rational compassion, the administration of lethal doses of morphine can be seen as providing palliative care and “comfort to the end. ” Whether or not this was the best possible course of action, the decision made by Dry. Pop was one that few people have ever been faced with making.

Aside from illuminating the lack of precedence and procedural guidelines for action during times of disaster and mass- casualty, the controversy also sheds light on the failures of all levels of government to provide assistance, shelter, and care for people living in poverty who are unable to evacuate from their homes in the midst of impending destruction and chaos. Review of Literature To understand the ethical principles at odds, a review of the literature included on this situation is necessary for the reader to more fully comprehend the competing interpretations of Dry.

Pop’s decision to bring an ND to those four lives comfortably, rather than respecting their autonomy and leaving them to slowly deteriorate and presumably die on their own terms. Paternalism According to Dry. Gerald E. Drink, DO, professor of moral, political, and legal philosophy at the University of California, Davis, paternalism is defined as, “the interference of a state or individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm. We can see how the decision of Dry. Pop fits within this conceptual framework by interpreting her actions as a way o provide those four patients with a comfortable end to their lives, with the assumption that they were better off drifting peacefully into eternal sleep than being left and subjected to a slow and potentially painful death. Understanding her actions as an example of paternalism does not necessarily justify her assumption of the role of “God,” but it does explain why she believed she was acting in accordance with ethical principles.

Though arguably at odds with the ethical principal of malefaction, her actions must be judged within the context of the disaster at hand. Because resources ere limited, and because the primary provider for those patients on the seventh floor had seemingly left them for dead, she was faced with making a decision that would ultimately impact every single patient in the hospital.

When understood from this perspective, her neglect for patient autonomy and informed consent is superseded by the ethical principle Of paternalism, in the sense that it was her utilitarian duty to provide the most possible care for the most number of people and to reduce the overall suffering endured by patient population. By eliminating the potential suffering of four patients with elatedly low qualities of life, Dry. Pop was able to ensure that the resources available would be used in the most efficient way for the providence of care for those patients who had better chances of survival and higher qualities of life.

Decision-making can be a daunting task in any situation, but the decision that Dry. Pop was forced to make was undoubtedly harder than any of us have ever been faced with. It is easy to condemn her as a racist murderer, but it is just as easy to praise her as a hero as well. Regardless, we can rightfully assume that the decisions she made in the midst of such chaos and confusion ere the farthest things from being easy for her. She was put in a situation that none of us could possibly imagine, and she acted according to her moral and rational instincts with the best interests of the whole in mind.

Paternalism has been subordinated to the principle of self-determination within the medical community over the past century; however, without consistent protocols and enough resources during disaster situations, the principle of paternalism justifies the act of preemptively ending four low- quality lives in the interest of allocating limited resources to the rest of the tenets that had more life left to live and were more likely to survive the ordeal.

Leadership in this situation carries with it the burden of choosing who will live and who will die, which is not an easy thing for anyone to do. Dry. Pour in the absence of outside support and guidance, took it upon herself to make that decision so that nobody else had to. Informed Consent This section is dedicated to defining the ethical principle of informed consent, and discussing why Dry. Pop failed to adhere to this principle when she admit sisters morphine to those four DNA patients on the seventh floor of MAC.

The right to informed consent was included in the right to bodily integrity and patient consent by the federal court system in 1 972, with the reasoning that without informed consent, no meaningful and intelligent consent can be given. By only telling those patients that she was treating their pain, she actively disregarded the law. Limiting the scope to just those four people, Dry. Pop was most certainly in the wrong. She knew she was breaking the law, as evidenced by her vocal assumption of total responsibility.

Though she was aware of the implications of such actions, her disregard was fueled y her ethical responsibility to ensure the care of the remaining patients in need of treatment. When one expands the scope to include every person present that day, it becomes apparent that her failure to adhere to the law of informed consent was an act of civil disobedience. Due to the context of the situation, she was forced to break the law in order to provide the most care for the most number of people.

Disasters happen, people die, and tough decisions must be made; this is precisely what happened with Dry. Pop and the patients Of MAC in the wake of Hurricane Strain. Discussion In discussing the situation that Dry. Pop and the patients at MAC were facing in the aftermath of Hurricane Strain, various issues are brought to light. First off, the situation was an unprecedented one, and as such, left those in leadership positions with the task of forming the best possible course of action under disastrous circumstances.

This in itself points to the need for consistent protocols and better training for disaster preparedness. Another issue illuminated by Dry. Pop’s decision is the failure of all levels of government to ensure the livelihoods of people in poverty with no way to evacuate during incidents of natural disasters. Finally, by analyzing the various ethical principles at odds with each other, we can understand that certain situations force actors to promote certain ethical principles above the rest.

Further, we can see how people view the concept of death and end-of- life care in a variety of ways, which allows us to understand how the administration of lethal doses of morphine to four unwitting patients, for the good of the whole, was interpreted by some as murderous, yet by others as heroic. Upon reading the provided literature, I have come to the conclusion that Dry. Pop’s actions are justified by the context in which they were made. In cases of disaster and mass-casualty, reality becomes temporarily altered and survival of the group takes precedence over the survival of individuals.

Surely Dry. Pop would not have decided to end those four lives if she did not believe that it would benefit the rest of the patients, as well as reduce the amount of suffering that the DNA patients would ultimately endure. Had their provider risked his life like Pop to care for the seventh floor, or had better training and protocols been in place, or had the government been more prepared and deadly available to provide shelter and care for the poverty-stricken population of New Orleans, those four patients may have survived the disaster.

To place the blame of this unfortunate incident on the shoulders of a single individual is to disregard the failures of government and the medical community at large that rendered the hospital incapable of ensuring everyone’s survival in the wake of Hurricane Strain. The controversy that arose should serve as a catalyst for increased preparedness and more consistent ethical and procedural guidelines in cases of natural disaster and mass-casualty. Moreover, it should not be used as a way to seek justice for those four lives by biblically indicting Dry.

Pop and her nurses. They did what they thought was best in an unprecedented situation, and were able to minimize the suffering endured while maximizing the overall benefit for the remaining patients. Summary and Recommendations The administration of lethal doses of morphine by Dry. Pop to those four patients in the aftermath of Hurricane Strain was an unfortunate result of a disastrous situation. With little or no precedence to provide guidance to those in charge of the hospital, Dry. Pop was forced to make a controversial decision.

Ultimately, she was able to reduce suffering and increase overall benefit for those seeking care. Unfortunately, it came at the cost of ending four lives. As appalling as this was for their families, the patients themselves were able to drift peacefully into eternity and escape the imminent suffering and difficulties of end-of-life existence that they would have themes been forced to endure. Understanding that they would die soon anyways, we can assume that those four people had come to terms with death.

Instead of allowing them to fight the inevitable while deteriorating and suffering further, he morphine that coursed through their veins in the final moments of life acted as an “Angel of Death,” liberating them from the imminent suffering caused by the blatant disregard of their doctor. It is impossible to tell whether or not this peaceful death was preferable to the alternative, but one can at least understand how Pop felt upon deciding to take this course of action.

Given the circumstances, she and her nurses did what was best for everyone, even if it did mean emotional suffering for the families of those four patients who were involuntarily euthanized. No one person can be blamed for what happened that day. It comes down to a failure of leadership and lack of foresight by the medical community and government alike. Though I believe Dry. Pop’s actions were aligned with the best interests of all involved parties, there are recommendations I would make to ensure controversial situations like this do not happen in the future. For one, Dry.

Pop could have tried to obtain informed consent from the patients and their families before administering palliative care. This could have saved her from legal implications, but it may have also forced her to allow the deteriorating patients to consume the limited resources as they anointed to approach death. The other recommendation I would make is that the leaders should have asked for volunteers to stay behind and allow the DNA patients to be transported elsewhere. Surely there would have been four people willing to give up their spots for the survival of those four DNA patients from the seventh floor.

Introduce the story behind the book and the decision making behind the evacuation process that led to such controversy after the rescue. The patients at Memorial Medical Center (MAC) were not given much choice in their fate, unlike the individuals that make the choice to die with dignity ND take their life into their own hands. Of the individuals who’s deaths were hastened through lethal injection at MAC, someone in their life, whether it be they or their family members, had made a decision for them to have a do not resuscitate (DNA) order on their chart.

Although a DNA order was in effect, the decision for dying with dignity had not officially been made by these individuals. They did not choose to end their own life and take their fate into their own hands. The decision was made for them. The physicians, who were in charge of the care of each individual that underwent lethal injection, took n oath to do no harm. The decisions they were faced with in the circumstances that followed hurricane Strain were by no means easy ones.

On one hand, harm was caused by lethally injecting the patients; on the other hand leaving these dependent individuals to fend for themselves in the aftermath of a catastrophe would have caused, very potential, pain and suffering. One might say ethical euthanasia took place in these cases; others will disagree. Only those who faced the storm head on will ever truly know the full capacity of the decisions that were made.  Theories are b Define and discuss the use of paternalism in the decision making process at the end of the evacuation process.

Informed Consent Define and discuss the lack of informed consent as the DNA patients were given morphine to hasten their impeding deaths Discussion Detailed discussion surrounding the events leading up to the decision to use morphine and other sedatives to hasten the deaths of the DNA patients that were not going to be evacuated and instead be left behind to die a potentially horrendous death. Summary and Recommendations Summary and Recommendation Should have used informed consent with all cases where the patient and/or Emily members were available to discuss.

Since the evolution of man, infants have been born with severe illnesses. These infants may be able to survive due to advancing technologies, but are left with possible and probable defects. Many infants will die even though they are being treated because they are not equipped to sustain life. These circumstances have led to the debatable issue of infant euthanasia, or mercy killing, to allow these babies an end to their suffering, and die peacefully.

While many people feel that euthanasia is murder, infant euthanasia should be legalized to spare terminally ill newborns of long, painful deaths, and to spare them of possible life-long disabilities. Euthanasia is said to be morally wrong by pro-life groups. They point out that infant’s may not be suffering while they are dying. They also emphasize that advances in pain management make it possible to relieve all or almost all pain. These people say that children should be saved at all costs, no matter how great the disability may be.

They accentuate that the infants may be saved due to advancing technology, and that there are also therapy treatments for their possible disabilities. However, in considering whether or not to treat a newborn, the main goal should be to spare infants of long, painful deaths. Most experts believe that the primary answer to this issue is to follow what’s in the child’s best interests. If his mental and physical handicaps are overwhelming and it would be inhumane to prolong his life, then treatment should be withheld or withdrawn. After all, saving an infant for a life of suffering is hardly a humane and loving act.

An infant was born with a skin condition similar to third-degree burns over almost all of its body for which there was no cure. The baby’s mother was young, unwed, and indigent. Providing basic nursing care caused tearing away of the skin. The infant could not be fed orally because of blistering in the mouth and throat. Any movement of the infant seemed to cause it pain. Even with intensive care its life expectancy, at most, was believed to be days. It would have been reasonable, merciful, and justifiable to have shortened the baby’s dying by an intended direct action chosen by the parent and the neonatologists.

In cases relevantly like this, it is not immoral or morally wrong to intend and effect a merciful end to a life that, all things considered, will be meaningless to the one who lives it and an unwarranted burden for others to support. Among the women who work in the Stanford intensive care nursery, several said that if they were to have an extremely premature baby, they would not want it to be treated aggressively. One woman said that if she knew what was about to happen she would stay away from a hospital with a sophisticated intensive care unit.

Others say they would make sure they were under the care of a doctor who would not press the extremes on survival. Many parents would make a similar choice but are not given the opportunity. It has been called a violation of God’s commandment not to kill. “… in effect, the demand that physicians fight death at all costs is a demand that they play God. It is a demand that they conquer nature, thereby declaring themselves more powerful than God’s order. ” Perhaps the ideal of conquest will be replaced by the ideal of living in agreement with nature. The most benign technology works in harmony with natural causes rather than intruding on them.

The “Baby Doe” rule is a list of guidelines stating that a baby should be treated aggressively with very few exceptions. These exceptions to the rule are when “the infant is chronically and irreversibly comatose”, when the treatment would merely prolong dying, not be effective in ameliorating or correcting all of the infant’s life-threatening conditions, or otherwise be futile in terms of the survival of the infant”, and when “treatment would be virtually futile in terms of the survival of the infant and the treatment itself under such circumstances would be inhumane…

This policy rather loudly states that parents and professionals may not consider the salvageable infant’s life prospects no matter how harmful they may appear. A graphic illustration of the potential harm in the treatment of a handicapped infant is provided by Robert and Peggy Stinson’s account of their son Andrew who was born at a gestational age of 24 1/2 weeks and a weight of 800 grams. He was placed on a respirator against his parents’ wishes and without their consent, and remained dependent on the respirator for five months, until he was finally permitted to die.

The seemingly endless list of Andrew’s afflictions, almost all of which were iatrogenic, reveals how disastrous this hospitalization was. Baby Andrew was, in effect saved by the respirator to die five ling, painful, and expensive months later of the respirator’s side effects. “… the physicians who treated him violated an ancient and honored Hippocratic principle of professional ethics,`Primum non nocere’, First do no harm.

As shown in the examples above, infants that are treated aggressively will die more slowly and painfully than if they were allowed a quick and peaceful death. By using aggressive treatment on severely ill infants, many are “saved” to live with life-long disabilities. To demand that physicians use intensive care technology beyond the point when it is likely to assist with a patient’s problems, as the Baby Doe regulations require, is to demand that they violate their professional commitment to do no harm.

To argue that infants must be treated aggressively, no matter how great their disabilities, is to insist that the nursery become a torture chamber and that infants unequipped to live be deprived of their natural right to die. Helen Harrison, author of “The Premature Baby Book: a Parent’s Guide to Coping and Caring in the First Years”, wrote about how families are at the mercy of an accelerating life-support technology and of their physicians’ personal philosophies and motives concerning its use.

She wrote after interviewing numerous parents and physicians in heartbreaking situations of delivery-room and nursery crises, “I sympathize with physicians’ concerns when parents request that there be no heroic measures. However, I sympathize infinitely more with families forced to live with the consequences of decisions made by others. Above all, I sympathize with infants saved for a lifetime of suffering. ” The decisions involving the care of hopelessly ill and disabled newborns should be left to the traditional processes, to parents and physicians who do the best they can under difficult circumstances.

B. D. Cohen, author of “Hard Choices” wrote, “Until such time as society is willing to pay the bill for truly humane institutions of twenty-four-hour home care for all such infants, to offer than death or living death, shouldn’t these decisions be left to those who will have to live with them? ” There is a disease called Spina Bifida which affects between six thousand and eleven thousand newborns in the United States each year. The children are alive but require urgent surgery to prevent their handicap to intensify and bring about death.

Paralysis, bladder and bowel incontinence, hydrocephalus or water on the brain are all part of the child’s future. Severe mental retardation, requiring total custodial care, is the likely fate of 10% of the 15% of the children. Some 10% of the children will die prior to reaching the first grade, in spite of aggressive medical care. These infants, incapable of making their own decisions, deserve to be spared the pain and suffering of such severe diseases and illnesses.

Although some claim that euthanasia is the killing of a human, infant euthanasia should be legalized to spare severely ill babies of drawn-out, excruciating deaths, and to spare them of the possible defects from their illnesses. Infants continue to be born with such disabling illnesses daily. Many parents are left burdened throughout their lifetimes. They may not be prepared to provide the round-the-clock treatment that is needed. New York State should bring about peace by legalizing euthanasia, and end the suffering for all people intimately involved in situations described previously.

Euthanasia has gained a bad reputation within the public eye due to negative media encircling assisted suicide; euthanasia has a purpose and a goal, it should be seen as humanely releasing the soul of a human being from an emptiness created occasionally by our merciless society. This paper will delineate whether Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide are morally right or ethically wrong. Euthanasia is often confused with and linked to assisted suicide, definitions of the two are vital. Two viewpoints are located within the body of this paper.

The first viewpoint will support euthanasia or the “right to ii,” the second viewpoint will support anti-euthanasia or the “right to live”. Each perspective shall attempt to clarify the legal, moral and ethical ramifications of euthanasia and assisted suicide as well as include a personal example of each to detail the ending results.

The term euthanasia has many definitions. The Pro-Life Alliance defines euthanasia as ‘Any action or omission intended to end the life of a patient on the grounds that his or her life is not worth living. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society refers to the word’s Greek origins – ‘e’ and ‘thanks’-, which together mean ‘a good death. An updated and loosely modern definition is ‘A good death brought on by a doctor providing methods or an injection to bring a peaceful end to the ultimate process of passing on. There are three different sub-classifications of euthanasia passive euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia although not all groups would acknowledge them as valid terms (BBC News, 1999).

There are two main types of patients that euthanasia may aid specifically, (1 ) patients that are in a persistent vegetative state, that are awake but are not aware of one’s self or of their surroundings. Such patients eave no higher brain activity and are maintained by artificial life support: respirators, heart-lung machine, and intra-venous nutrition.

These types of methods do nothing more than prolong the inevitable and sustain a person in a never-ending life that will never go anywhere beyond these machines. 2) Patients in which are bound by a terminal illness that causes them a lot of pain, psychological suffering and loss of their dignity. This patient may or may not be on life-support depending on the severity of their illness. However, there are many different types of Euthanasia that can be examined when it moms to helping someone rid him or herself of a life of unnecessary pain. Here are the different types and their definitions among society: Euthanasia generally refers to an easy or painless death, in other words merciful.

Voluntary Euthanasia includes a request by the dying patient or that person’s legal representative, proving their approval to continue. Passive or Negative Euthanasia involves not doing something to prevent the patience requested death, which is, allowing someone to die. Assisted suicide, a distant cousin of euthanasia, is when a person wishes to commit suicide but feels unable to execute the act alone because of a physical disability or lack of knowledge on what would be the most effective means in doing so.

An individual, who assists in an assisted suicide and helps the suicide victim in accomplishing their goal, may or may not be an accessory or be held responsible for the death, depending on local laws. Without a doubt, today’s dying methods has become fearsome. Physicians are now in possession of the technologies and the skills needed to avert natural death almost indefinitely. More often then not, the terminally ill suffer unnecessary pain and are kept alive without any ell hope or expectations of surviving, as families stand watch waiting for the inevitable while still holding hope at the same time.

U. S. District Judge Barbara Rottenest wrote is no more profoundly personal decision, nor one which is closer to the heart of personal liberty, than the choice which a terminally ill person makes to end his or her own suffering Shilling, ’94). The pro-euthanasia or “right to die” movement has received extensive support with the passage of laws in 40 states by 1990; this has allowed competent patience the legal privilege of making a “living will. These living wills give doctors the authority to withhold life-support, should the patient request it if the individual becomes terminally ill.

Having choices, including having the legal right for help to die is a pinnacle of hope within itself. This allows people to take control Of their lives and accomplish things on their terms; this is a very important part of being human and of living. The issue of euthanasia is, by its very nature, a very difficult and private choice. Therefore, euthanasia should remain exactly that, a choice and a private one at that. It is a choice that should not be legislated or restricted by opposing forces or opinions.

Euthanasia is a matter that should stay between the patient, the family, the doctor and God. Life is a precious gift received from the Creator with gratefulness and appreciation; individuals should cherish, preserve, and enhance life in every way possible. However, when the possibility for a meaningful, joyful, desirable life has been thoroughly depleted and every effort has been made to avoid the inevitable, then the United States should make it legal for the merciful to show mercy to the dying ho request help and understanding to end their torment.

My father on my husband’s side, who had cancer, received euthanasia 6 years ago. He had chemotherapy radiation; the side effects that he endured were loss of appetite, becoming lethargic, fatigue, loss of color in skin, fever, chills, weight loss, night sweats and extreme pain. They told him that it was not going into remission and that it had spread throughout his body. According to the doctors, my father in law had maybe a year at most and even then, he would have to be hospitalized due to the pain and having chemotherapy done.

After achieving this information, my father opted for euthanasia instead of having to endure a year of pain and suffering with his family watching him deteriorate. So he said his goodbyes, took care of necessary business and arranged things financially for his family before the process was performed. He then had his wife and children in with him during the procedure as he received a huge dose of painkillers and then a drug, that I am not familiar with, that led him to his death painlessly.

Having the opportunity to have this type of say and control over his death, think, made the process a little mother and easier to endure. He got to accomplish what many do not get the chance to accomplish, he was able to set his finances straight, make sure his loved ones were taken care of and say his goodbyes to the ones he loved. To me this was a huge relief in knowing that he was allowed to have this type of help and closure before he left this world.

I also believe that this method not only helped my father in-law but it also helped his immediate and non immediate family except the inevitable and have time to process it, so as to handle the grieving process. To some, Euthanasia is nothing less than cold- blooded killing; others would consider it premeditated murder and consider those assisting in it an accessory to murder. In addition, they believe Euthanasia steals away the one thing that gives us a reason for existence, a life in which we choose to live. It also depreciates life, much like the enormous issue of abortion.

People against Euthanasia, deem it as morally and ethically wrong and think the government should outlaw it in these United States. It is true that modern medicine has evolved excessively throughout the enervation, so much so that abolitionists’ believe that euthanasia in itself resets these medical advances back by years. Our Surgical Physicians alone are known as Administrators of Death; this is a side effect of the outcome of euthanasia. Some believe that euthanasia is unacceptable within our society because of a multitude of reasons.

Many who are against euthanasia being legalized are apprehensive because they dread that if it is then there will be many who die for needless reasons and they believe that there will be a rampage of “mercy killings” going on as an excuse for murder. Others believe that it is and always will be an immoral thing to take one’s life from them when we were not the ones to give it to them. Also many medical physicians also oppose euthanasia because they say that in assisting one in suicide is violating our dignity and ‘litotes one’s will to survive.

When it comes to doctors, there is also The Hippocratic Oath in which they need to take into consideration. The Oath of Hippocrates is believed to have originated in approximately the fifth century B. C. And, even then, it incorporated a specific ledge against physician-assisted suicide when it said, “l will give no deadly medicine to anyone, even if asked. ” It is recommended that a person suffering from an incurable or terminal illness is not completely in command of their mental capabilities and thereby incapable of such an extraordinary decision.

In addition, a degraded mental capacity within a patient rules out any realistic thinking concerning survivors. Euthanasia is a very contentious topic. People dispute whether a person who is terminally ill, or handicap, should have the right or not to ask their doctor, or relatives to die by euthanasia. People say that dying by euthanasia is to die with self-respect, instead of living an artificial life by prolonging death on respirators and other life support machines. My personal outlook on this matter is one of minority.

I believe that if a person is diagnosed terminally ill, and finds that there is nothing anyone can do for them, then why they should have to suffer and endure days, weeks, months or maybe even years in pain and agony is beyond me. Not only do they suffer but their family suffers alongside them also. They watch as their condition gets worse and continues to deteriorate, ND then they have to live with the vision of a person lying there helpless, not able to feed themselves, get out of bed, or talk to them for the rest of their lives.

When instead they could have lived remembering their loved one as they were before they were diagnosed as terminally ill and began to die slowly. Recently, my grandmother, who was suffering from Alchemist’s disease (AD), died in my Aunts guest bedroom where she had been staying and taken care of by my aunt and uncle for the last four years of her life. My grandmother lived in England, where she was born, raised and died, she did tot have the option of euthanasia nor did my aunt or uncle who struggled with her through the end.

My aunt and uncle went through the pain emotionally before it ever affects my grandmother physically. They took care of a shell for four years that use to house their mother; we lost my grandmother in 2007 spiritually however her physical body was still active and with us but empty. My grandmother could not remember any of her children or her grandchildren, nor could she remember family and friends in general. She would fight my aunt and uncle all the time thinking that they had detained her because she had no idea who they were or where she was.

She had caused harm to herself as well as family members that tried to help her or care for her. She eventually forgot how to do simple things that are second nature to us all, such as showering, brushing her teeth, combing her hair and dressing herself. She continued to deteriorate more and more over the years, to the point where she had forgotten how to do vital things such as walk, eat, drink, go to the bathroom and even communicate. She was not physically in pain until the point of forgetting the vital actions, then she began o dehydrate and starve, her body began to shut down due to this.

She was then attached to a feeding tube and life support, as by that point she had also just stop breathing occasionally and needed help in doing so. She stayed on life support for 6 months, until the decision was made to take her off and then she lasted for a week as her body withered away due to lack of water and food. We were reassured that she died with no pain but the look on her face showed differently and I could only imagine what she might have gone through and what We could have possibly spared her had We had the option f euthanasia.

With every example given of euthanasia, there are some people who agree, and some who are dead set against it. There are comprehensible and logical reasons why some people are against euthanasia. Most people want their loved ones with them until their day has actually come for them to die. It might give people an understanding that it is all right to kill oneself. While the patient is lying in bed, some clinic, or scientist, might find a cure for the very disease that said patient is dying from and be able to cure them.

For medical reasons they may be able to find out more about a retain disease to be able to further the search for the cure while someone has it. As many times, as you consider the idea of euthanasia you will find just as many pros as cons. Maybe we have to Start thinking like the people in the hospital beds, who are unable to walk, talk, feed themselves, think for themselves, or even breathe for themselves. On the other hand, even from the perspective of the family members who have to watch their own flesh and blood suffer and dwindle into nothing right before their eyes?

Despite that they are Sikh and it’s their own religion, allot of Sikhs would still argue that they shouldn’t bring it in. One Of the reasons is that they do not fully understand what it means and what it is used for, there for they would not weir it. Another reason being that they don’t have to bring a knife in to show that they are a part of their religion; they could wear a badge instead. This would show everyone that they are Sikhs without the hassle of bringing a knife. For-non Sikh Non Sikhs that would argue for it being allowed would usually say if its apart f their religion, let them wear it.

They also might argue that it is not sharp another to hurt anyone unless used with allot of force. And they say that Sikhs would not even get it out for it to be used. As well as not being used it is also not noticeable to anyone as it is usually hidden away under their cloths. Against-non Sikh Non Sikhs could argue that it is bad for Sikhs to bring a Korean in because it could scare other people. It could also be stolen and then used. Non Sikhs could argue that if Sikhs get to bring knives in for protection other people loud start bringing in knives too.

They also think that in schools there is a rule that no knives must be brought into school no matter what, a Korean is a knife Personal opinion personally think that the Korean should not be brought into school because it is a knife and knifes are not allowed in school. If they want to respect their religion they can wear a badge instead. People could also be afraid of the person using it and not want to get on their bad side. Also if it is stolen it could be used to hurt someone with.