Euthanasia

Matthew Donnelly was a man who had loved life, but Matthew Donnelly became a man that wanted to die. For the past thirty years, Matthew had conducted research on the use of X-rays. Now, skin cancer was consuming his tortured body. He had lost his nose, his left hand, two fingers on his right hand, and part of his jaw. He was left blind and was slowly deteriorating. The pain was unrelenting. Doctors estimated that he had a year to live. Lying in bed with teeth clenched from the excruciating pain, he pleaded to be put out of his misery.

His pleas, however, went unanswered because of existing law in the state of Texas. One day, Matthew’s brother Harold, who could no longer ignore Matthew’s repeated cry for mercy, removed a . 30 caliber pistol from his dresser drawer, walked into the hospital and shot and killed his brother. Harold was tried for murder. (Santa Clara University article) Had assisted been legal in Texas, as it is in Oregon, Harold would not be in the position he is in today. Oregon was the first State to pass the law. In 1997 the Death with Dignity Act was implemented.

This piece of legislation enables a competent adult who desires to end their life access to a lethal dose of medication which they administer themselves. In order for a person to qualify for assisted suicide in Oregon, they must be a legal adult and be capable of understanding the consequences of their decision. They must also have a prognosis of six months or less to live due to a terminal illness and have the backing of a registered physician (Volker, 2007). We have a moral obligation to relieve the suffering of our fellow human beings and to respect their right to die with dignity.

Throughout most of our country today, terminally ill patients lie with incurable diseases and without the means to end their own suffering because the government tells them they can’t. These patients can only look forward to lives filled with yet more suffering and degradation. When such people beg for a merciful end to their pain and indignity, it is cruel and inhumane to refuse their will. Compassion demands that we give these people the choice they currently don’t have. Despite the clear need for a national death with dignity law, assisted suicide remains a controversial topic in today’s society.

Opponents of the right to die act have many arguments against euthanasia as the right of all citizens. Some argue that only God is the true owner of when a person should come to their natural end. Others make the case that someone in seat of a terminally ill patient would not have the capacity to make a rational decision and could be negatively influenced by an immoral or poor physician. In response to the critics, I say this. We live in the land of the free and nobody should be able to violate an individual’s freedom by forcing their personal beliefs or spiritual beliefs on others (just as it is written in the Constitution! . Furthermore, as a proponent for assisted suicide I would argue that it is well within an individual’s rights to decide when and how they want to die. Why I understand the concern for patients being taken advantage of, I consider this a problem to be solved as opposed to an impassable wall. Let us come together to create a system, like Oregon, that protects terminally ill patients from being taken advantage of when they are most vulnerable while preserving the rights of those same citizens to choose in what manner they will meet their end.

Harold’s story has proved that making it illegal to die when you choose to can lead to desperate acts by either the patient themselves or in this instance, a close family member. We should have the freedom to choose how we live our lives. Whether or not we want to end our lives early or let an illness take its course and let us die naturally are highly personal decisions and an instance where individual opinions are not welcome as law. People deserve to leave this earth with their dignity intact. How that is accomplished should be a personal choice, not subject to public opinion.

Animal Euthanasia is looked at in many different aspects and can be seen as a beneficial act or completely evil. Some may need to euthanize their animal for health issues, while others are just euthanizing their animal because they can’t take care of them and nobody is willing to adopt. Euthanasia occurs daily, with innocent animals losing their lives because of our local animal shelters being over-crowded. Why is this? Well, many adopters are not responsible enough to take care of their animals in general, along with getting them spayed and neutered.

Approximately 5 to 7 millions animals enter animal shelters annually, and about 3 to 4 million end up euthanized. (ASPCA, n. d. ) This is a prime example of a huge issue that needs to be paid attention to. These animals are having to lose their lives not because they are cruel, dangerous animals, but simply that our shelters are not big enough, and our adoption rates aren’t high enough, and adoptive families aren’t being forced to get their pets spayed and neutered to slow down the animal population.

Spaying and neutering your pet will decrease the amount of euthanasia occurring in not only our hometown shelters, but throughout the United States as well. Adoptive families have the normal application along with reference checks and landlords if they are current renters. But is this enough to really know if someone is able to take care of an animal? Shouldn’t there be a much more guided policy with strict enforcement on who adopts along with a signature to make sure at the right age, if applicable, they spay or neuter their newest addition to the family?

We need to make a stand against how many animals go in and out of shelters and homes, then end up being killed because of a humans actions. It just isn’t fair. Animal euthanasia occurs nationwide. Do you have an animal at home? Do you consider your pet a family member, or companion that you would be ashamed to lose? If you feel that way, its best to Decreasing Animal Euthanasia Page 3 be sure you spay and neuter your loved pets because if not, their liters could end up in the hands of wrong families, maybe not intentionally, but to families that may end up realizing they can’t handle that pet, and bringing it to the shelter.

Though it’s only recommended that orphan animals stay a minimum of 5 days, before or after those 5 days that animal could be euthanized solely because of the caretaker, not that the animal was harmful or ill. (How Long.. Sleep? , n. d. ) According to the ASPCA, 60% of animals entering shelters in the United States are euthanized and around 4 million are euthanized simply because of shelter overcrowding. (Shelter, September, 2011. ) We have a huge issue here. This is the same as the homeless people we have on the streets today, its only going to progress!

We need to take a stand and make shelter for these animals. We need to expand our shelters, and if not, maybe start spay and neuter clinics for a very low cost so more people can willingly come get their animals fixed to slow down the population of animals born each day. With almost 5,000,000 pets being destroyed annually, 13,700 daily, 570 hourly, and 10 animals each minute, within the time it took just to read part of this paper, multiple animals have been euthaniased. Animal League, n. d. ) Now think, if majority of those animals or at least half had been spayed and neutered, that would have led those numbers to be split in half, all because of a simple spay and neuter process that adoptive families are slacking to accomplish out of lack of concern. If the plan is to not spay or neuter your animal, plan to treat that animal as your own blood. When that animal ends up pregnant, the responsbility comes back on you. Same as the pregnancies today.

Females take a birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies, thats the pet owners responsibility to keep their animal from pregnancy as they can’t go to the vet and pay to get it done themselves! After doing some research I have found that there are other supporters other than myself trying to make an end to this animal euthanasia for innocent animals. Fosterspot. com is a website that was Decreasing Animal Euthanasia Page 4 designed for stopping euthanasia to healthy animals and making this website a nation-wide network of fostering families.

I thought this was a great idea because of the fact that some adoptive families are picky for what type of cat or dog for example they are looking for. On this website, people not only from our hometown would know what we have at our local shelters, but anyone interested in certain types of animals could see where they were available! Not only can we just simply adopt to stop euthanasia and its daily occurrences, we could also try to have a local fundraiser or charity fund to expand our local shelter. We would speak to the president of the animal shelter and work together with the shelter on this.

If expansion wasn’t a possibility, we could also help by spreading the word of adoption, along with being a volunteer at your local shelter if time permits. Any help in the humane society field would help! Also, helping fund/collect animal food so the shelter can put more money towards expansion or other plans that are more costly. Another big issue and something to promote, is getting adoptive families to spay and neuter their animals. Yes, its true that spay and neutering your animals is not cheap, though many people don’t know that there are alternatives and ways to receive low-cost spaying and neutering.

The Humane Society of The United States promotes a low cost alternative on their website where you can enter your zip code to find places close to you. (Humane Society of The United States, n. d) Luckily, our community of Waterville in Maine has our local humane society that offers low-cost spaying and neutering prices! If we could get the word out there on how crucial it is for families to bring their pets in for this procedure, not only would this help euthanasia statistics, but also the adoptive families in the long run of dealing with a pregnant female dog or cat in their household!

They then would have to deal with a liter and getting rid of them, which isn’t always as easy as people presume it to be! Spaying and neutering household pets not only keeps away from unwanted pregnancies, but has Decreasing Animal Euthanasia Page 5 other benefits as well! This keeps animals alive longer, have a healthier life, along with saving the adoptive family from frustration as well. Things like breast cancer or dangerous uterine infections in females or testicular cancer in males can be reduced or eliminated all together.

Also, messy heat cycles in female animals aren’t a very joyous experience. Yet many people complain of the cost of getting animals spayed and neutered but getting pets spayed and neutered will eliminate that extra expence for food or vet services in the event of an unexpected liter of kittens or puppies. So whats more worth it? Finding a low cost clinic and getting pets spayed and neutered or waiting for pregnancy to happen which in turn can be ten times the amount of a simple spay and neuter procedure!

Following spaying and neutering household pets, its also important to make sure the animal can be identified because sometimes animals stray away and end up not coming home, which in turn either the foster family looks for the animal and calls local shelters if the animal has been found, or they just aren’t concerned. This in turn also causes overcrowding in shelters, due to lack of care on the families end. Making sure that these pets are wearing an identification tag, including the foster families name, address and phone number would eliminate that part of the animals being put in shelters.

Also, don’t assume that indfoor pets don’t need tags because many strays in shelters actually are told to be indoor animals that escaped. (Animal Shelter Euthanasia) One thing that I think I will always wonder if why animal euthanasia is legal, but human euthanasia is not. We don’t take our homeless population and kill them because there is no place for them to go. Euthanizing an animal who is suffering and should be put out of misery is fine, but a human is not?

If someone is suffering so much no matter from what the circumstances may be, we are either drugging the patient up to not feel the pain as much, or just letting them deal with it everyday. Euthanasia in humans is not permitted, even in the most extreme cases, though animals are being euthanized for simply having no place to stay, or being cramped in a kennel. It makes me think of Decreasing Animal Euthanasia Page 6 something like suicide and how people have to suffer to end their lives, or suffer simply in a hospital bed getting infused with all kinds of drugs.

Whats the point of life when you’ve reached those limits? If animal euthanasia is permitted, I believe human euthanasia should too. Working in the medical field and pursuing my degree as a registered nurse, I see many patients suffer and their lives being just a miserable mess, along with the family dealing with seeing their loved ones suffer. Sure, some people have to suffer in order to get better, and then they can be back to normal some day, though others may not ever be able to communicate again, to walk again.

I think with our freedom we have today, we should have the right to be euthanized if we are in severe sufferage and prefer to just go on to the after life. We are the voice for these animals though. We are their protectors and we are the ones who have to make their decisions. Euthanizing an animal simply because it would cause crowding in shelters, or because of adoptive families not following through on getting the pet spayed and neutered is just disturbing. I think that if we take these steps together, along with having others proceed on this issue with us, there will be more awareness and more information put out there.

It truly is the only way to really get something across is to spread the word, and never give up on your beliefs and your goals and achievements. These innocent animals deserve a life just as you or I do. We all have one precious life, and once its taken, we never can get it back. People may not look at animals as an importance, but they are here for reasons, just as we as humans are. Animal euthanasia is immoral and wrong and I know that if you feel as strongly about animals as I do, you will do whats in your will power to help decrease animal euthanasia in your community.

Wither you can make a big impact, or small, it really all balances out and everyone matters. It’s about coming together and making a change for the better. So today is the day to take a stand and make a change. Go and get your pet spayed and neutered along with spreading the word and letting others know the importance of this matter. In the end it benefits more than just the Decreasing Animal Euthanasia Page 7 animal, but also yourself as you can be rest assured you made your impact on this issue.

Active euthanasia or physician’s assisted suicide should be legal in the ethical process that the organization, Dignitas performs it. The process in summation, consists of a person who is terminally ill and in excruciating pain, contacting the organization, becoming a member by fee, and submitting medical documents with diagnosis from a medical professional including those from a therapist, to a Dignitas physician. The elected physician then decides whether or not the member is qualified for active euthanasia and a prescription for the drug sodium pentobarbital is written for the patient/member and administered in Zurich, Switzerland.

Any controversy or disagreements with the outlined process arise mostly from misconceptions by the public. Ludwig Minelli, founder of Dignitas states, “The whole issue is not in the public field. It is covered by a taboo, and we should speak about it. ” The topic of Active euthanasia should be further explored and dissected by those who disagree with it. Active euthanasia should be legalized because it gives those in unimaginable pain the chance to end their suffering, we are exposed to legal substances that already induce death, and the right to life should also mean the right to decide when to end that life.

When people approach death, they often cling to the idea of a peaceful death. Unfortunately, not everyone experiences a peaceful death. It is a gamble of luck in most instances, but what about in the case of an ALS patient? The person’s body is slowly deteriorating, they lose the ability to speak, swallow, move their body, and eventually communicate. If an ALS patient is dying before our eyes, they may look peaceful, but how can we be sure they’re not suffering in pure agony if they can’t communicate?

For people like Craig Ewert, a 59 year old ALS victim, the option of euthanasia should be on the table. He pleads, “What may look peaceful from the outside does not necessarily reflect the internal mental state of the person. Let’s face it, when you’re completely paralyzed,can’t talk,can’t move your eyes, can’t move your arms, how do you let somebody know you’re suffering? They look at you, and you’re still. And usually, we associate suffering with people kind of rolling around and going “Ow,ow,ow. ”.. There’s none of that. Gee, it must be peaceful. ”

In the article “Confronting Physician- Assisted and Euthanasia: My Father’s death” by Susan Wolf, I would also be “forced to rethink my objections to legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia”. (Wolf, 2008) I have never been put in this type of a situation where someone’s life depended on it. Having to make the decision to help someone move toward death sooner to ease the pain and suffering they are dealing with, is not something that can be taken lightly.

Being left to make the final decision on ending someone’s life to help end their suffering can be completely hard to imagine doing. Watching someone suffer so much can also be very hard to endure. I have never been put in this type of situation and I hope I never have to but I am going to put myself in Susan Wolf’s place and give my point of view of the situation she was put in on such a big decision of a loved one. There are a lot of people who would rather end their life than continue to go on living with the pain and suffering they are dealing with.

About three or four years ago, my father in law was suffering from Pulmonary Fibrosis, a lung condition that the tissues deep in the lungs become thick or scarred over time and some people would describe the lungs looking like honeycombs. He was diagnosed in 2000 and was only given about three years to live but lived for six. There were times he would say he “wishes there was a switch to turn off because he cannot take anymore of the suffering. ” He was ready to end his life and the suffering but he kept going until November 15, 2008 when he passed away.

He made sure that there was a do not resuscitate in place because he did not want to continue to suffer. Susan’s father’s physical health was declining and it was affecting his mental capacity as well.. She describes him as “ a smart, savvy lawyer, the family patriarch. She could see his spark for life start to fade at the end when he could not even read or do the New York Times crossword puzzles he used to knock off in an hour, or even watch T. V. (Wolf, 2008) I would wonder how much worse this would become and how much longer he would have to live with the pain and the suffering of it all. It is not something I would want to endure myself. Susan’s father was ready to accelerate his departure and she wanted to consider the options and let him know his options as well.

I would have done the same thing. Discuss the options available to make sure he gets what he wants. She was watching her father’s health dwindle so fast that she could ot let him continue to suffer anymore. Her father was the man who insisted that “ he would want everything, even in a persistent vegetative state” (Wolf, 2008) was throwing in the towel and wanting to stop any more treatments and to further “accelerate” (Wolf, 2008) the process, had to be devastating reality that he had to face and something no one wants to face at all. There are a lot of people who think it is o. k. to assist with the ending of one’s life if the situation is right for it.

There really is no way to tell if anyone wants to end their suffering unless there is written proof that they want to do so and have it signed and notarized by the patient. Everyone should have a say when it comes to our bodies especially if we are dying and suffering really bad. It will take the people speaking up and having their concerns heard before something can ever take place for people who are suffering very badly and do not want to suffer anymore. What about someone on life support that is in a lot of pain but cannot speak for their self?

The decision is left to the families and sometimes the families opt to keep the person living even though that person may be in a world of pain but cannot speak for themselves. Then there are the ones that do take their loved one off of life support to stop the suffering. It is the same thing. Deciding what is right for the dying family member. It is a very tough decision to make just like it was for Susan Wolf in respecting her father and his wishes to just die and end the suffering.

I do not think Susan made a wrong decision she help decide for her father. He was able to go naturally which she justified on her own level of moral. Assisted suicide is not a wrong choice if someone can no longer live with the pain and suffering they are enduring. It would be better to have paper work to prove this is what the person wants rather than the person taking their own life. I for one suffer on a daily basis with chronic pain that I cannot get diagnosed.

There are days I am in more pain than I ever want to be and just want to end it for good but I am young and have four children and a husband I could not bear to leave behind. I deal with the pain and take medication to help keep it under control. I do hope that one day if it gets out of control, that I have the option to terminate my life if need be. The way I see it is no one should ever have to suffer. Everyone deserves to have peace and be peaceful in the end.

The highest value of a democratic society is human rights, which means first of all that a human being is the one who is in charge of his or her own life. The premise presupposes that a person has the right to take a decision about what to do with his or her life on the most global level – whether to go on living or stop living.

That is why the state, which aim is to provide the execution of citizens rights, should pay careful attention to such a burning issue as helping terminally ill patients to die. The solution to the problem is legalizing euthanasia as a way of defending human rights alongside taking into consideration the possible moral challenges.

Indeed, moral concerns have been the main factors which prevented the quick spread of euthanasia which could otherwise happen. It is first of all religious communities which oppress the adoption of the law, and the more religiously conservative the country is the stronger is the oppression to assisted suicide. Even if one doesn’t know which countries already have the relevant laws we can easily guess what they are by knowing their excessive tolerance to controversial issues like legalizing marijuana or gay marriages.

Among them are first of all Scandinavian countries and Holland, some of them having adopted the law others at the brink of adoption. It was in 1994 when Oregon approved Ballot Measure, which would have legalized physician-assisted suicide under limited condition but the vote met the oppression of Federal Government.

So, the United States seem to belong to the countries with the strongest moral and religious orthodoxy alongside with deeply Catholic countries as opposed to the tolerant Protestant European societies mentioned above. However, the statistics show it is not completely true. In 1999 Gallup organization held a national survey asking Americans the following question: “If you personally had a disease that could not be cured and were living in severe pain, would you consider committing suicide or not?”.

Forty percent answered “yes”, fifty one – “no” and nine were not sure. So, on the face of it, the community divided in halves, roughly speaking. But a there is crucially important detail which shouldn’t be missed: the respondents who took part are naturally not terminally ill and they don’t suffer severe pain. This fact distorts the real statistics which might arise in case they were suffering terrible tortures.

But the controversy is not only about the rights of the patients but also about doctors who help their patients to die. The much-talked-of case of Dr.Kevorkian is the evidence of how ambiguous the interpretation of this or that action can be. “He has been hailed as the champion of the right-to-die movement and denounced as a ghoulish cheerleader for suicide” (Lesenberry, 1994) Jack Kevorkian, who helped twenty people to die on their request, was given a name Dr Death. The case demonstrated the controversy, the current system of law has – there is no legal differentiation between killing out of hate and killing out of mercy.

There is a moral difference, however. And if we try to trace how the legal system has been historically formed, it becomes clear that it grew out of moral system of values, it was its reflection. Society has always been trying to match moral and law, and there have always been discrepancy between them which needed to be bridged. The historical process hasn’t stopped, and the gap needs to be overcome.

But looking at the problem closer makes it evident that it is not so much a matter of the motivation of killing because it is not so much the formal “killer” we are talking about. The focus is actually on the person who chooses death; a doctor is just an instrument for performing his or her will. Everyone should realize that making euthanasia a legal option is not defending suicide but defending choice.

Depriving people of the right to choose is a heavy violation of their human rights. The task of the state is to find a way how to protect the rights of one side without violating the rights of the other one. But the point is the right of all people are least protected when there is no legal definition of the issue at all.

One of the arguments against euthanasia is the claimed immorality of making the relatives of the terminally ill patients decide if to keep them living, especially in case the are not able to decide themselves, like those in coma. Indeed, the issue is very sensitive, which the survey confirmed.

The respondents were asked the question: “If a member of your family were terminally ill and wanted to die, would you be willing to help them?” Forty percent said yes, forty-six no, and fourteen percent were not sure. Indeed, this is a moral challenge for the relatives of the person but again it is a matter of having choice.

Of course, it is easier for the relatives to have no choice in such cases because indeed, it must be the hardest choice a person can face in his or her life. On the other hand, it is questionable what is more immoral – to challenge the relatives with the decision or to let them shift responsibility by making the state decide instead of them.