Persuasive Essay On Right To Die
Right to Die
PHI 103
Professor Ian McDougall
September 2, 2012
Right to Die
Physician- assisted suicide is a controversial issue, which can revolve around whether it is right or wrong. Death can be expected or sudden. When a person becomes ill, treatment can be used to prolong the inevitable. Patients who are terminally ill should have options available for them to end their suffering. Physicians should play a part in assisting a patient with death if this is what the patient request. I will discuss why this should be legal, and look at both sides. Patients should have the right to die with dignity. Although this is a controversial issue, this is an endless debate on human suffering rights.
The effects of an illness can be unbearable for a person who has lived a life full of vitality. When a patient is told that they only have a certain amount of time left to live, can be unsettling to many. Having the right to die should be a choice given to ill patients, to prevent from suffering for long or short periods of time. A person should not have to suffer if they are competent to make the decision to end their life. During the dying process many effects of the illness can take place, causing discomfort to the person. According to a study done …show more content…
on motivation for a hastened death, participants faced the reality of loss. Of those losses the desire to lose control and maintain control over future events was seen in 21 of 35 cases.
A person should have the constitutional right to decide whether they want to live or die and how it’s done. When a person lives a full life and is told that they can no longer function in everyday life, this can be devastating. If given the option to end their suffering, rather than die a slow, painful death they should be able to choose. The death of a loved one can cause scars for family members, who have to sit and watch their loved one waste away. PAS should be legalized to allow a person to die with dignity. Morals, religious beliefs, perception and education all play a part in the view of PAS being legalized. By having these be a part of how PAS is looked at gives citizens a position on the for or against side.
In the study of motivation to a hastened death, 3 cases showed a burden on the family. Although this isn’t a big number out of the 35 cases, it did show that this plays a part in the way a person lives with an illness. The effects of the illness can involve symptoms that are unbearable such as diarrhea, vomiting, loss of appetite, etc,. Among the effects, loss of function, sense of self, and fears about the future can burden the dying person. Nobody should have to endure the thought of how their life will be until their last breath, so if there is a way for those to prepare by requesting PAS, then this should be.
Today there are health care programs called hospice that assist in the process of preparing for end of life. This service involves healthcare staff of physicians, nurses, counselors, religious staff, and family members to assist with the process. During this process many would argue that it can be days, weeks, months, or even years before the person dies; this is true. While this process is taking place the person dying goes through changes that their family has to watch and endure all the while they are suffering. Hospice was put in place to help manage pain, and when all other treatment options have failed. Now usually before hospice, palliative care is put in place and a range of pain medications, and treatments are started.
Those that are against PAS, feel that it would be morally wrong, and unjustifiable.
Illness is a part of life and happens to us all, and in some cases can be worse than others. Medications and treatments can help with symptoms. But for a terminally ill patient they can endure excruciating pain and not want to stay alive. Even with medications and treatment plans a patient will still die, and this can happen sooner or later than what the physician has determined. According to an article, on June 26, 1997 a U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals do not have fundamental or constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. (Pretzer, 2000) By making this ruling it violates the right to die peacefully and in the manner that is requested. By allowing this law it would relieve unbearable suffering, and this is a right all people should have.
In 1994, residents in Oregon allowed a Death and Dignity Act, allowing individuals suffering with terminal illnesses with little time to live to die with dignity.
Euthanasia that is active is legal, in which the person actually causes the death of a terminally ill individual. People should be able to control their own lives. Hospice patients in Oregon made up 88.2% of patients who used the Oregon Death and dignity Act to end their lives during1998-2009. (Campbell& Cox, 2010) Patients that are put on hospice have to endure pain and are only given comfort measures until they die. The purpose of hospice is to ensure that a dying patient receives services to assist with the process of
death.
Another part of treatment and care for patients is Palliative care, in which a physician treats a patient with symptom and pain management. Some of the medications can be Methadone, Morphine, Oxycontin, Percocet, Hydrocodone and the list can go on. This option is given to patients so that they may be treated at home and dies peacefully. Many hospitals in the U.S. use Palliative care as a way to help patients maintain a terminal illness, which eventually will result in death. But when this option fails and a patient still endures pain and suffering other options should be put in place.
A patient should not have to suffer and if they are mentally capable of making a request to end their life, then they should have options other than hospice or palliative care. According to an article the right to intensive pain and symptom management for a dying patient, right to forgo life sustaining therapy, sedation to unconsciousness, and voluntarily stopping food and drinks. The last resort options other than physician-assisted death must become more standardized, available, and accountable. There is currently too much variation. Some patients may be denied access to them because clinicians or institutions are reluctant to use them, while at the same time, others are given last resort options when more standard palliative measures would have been more appropriate. (Quill, T. E.2008).
Having the right to end your life from pain and suffering can give a dying person’s family comfort in knowing that their loved one is at peace. The debate of whether it should be legalized will continue to be controversial. But when there are other ways of legalized death such as the execution of inmates, and active euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide should be looked at more carefully. If the state can end the life of a convicted felon for committing a murder, then a person dying from a terminal illness should have the right to choose their method and when they die. If a physician is unable to relieve the patient’s suffering in other ways acceptable to the patient and the only way to avoid such suffering is by death, then death may be brought about (Battin.)
Due to the Hippocratic Oath, the physician is bound to save lives, not assist in ending them. The original version of the Hippocratic Oath also prohibits doctors from performing many types of medical care that they are allowed to do now. So why were the revisions made, because the change was necessary. So if the Hippocratic Oath can be revised to allow for certain procedures to be done, why not allow the assistance of physician s in suicide. Patient’s are dying anyway due to terminal illnesses and are on several medications that only prolong death.
To allow the voice of the patient to ask for a physician to assist them in ending their pain and suffering should be allowed. If there is a patient who is eighty years old and has cancer, but can’t endure the pain and states they have seen it all and done it all they just want to die; should have this right. Now for those that are against physician-assisted suicide to become legal, it should be broke down in a way that each detail of the benefits be displayed. To watch a loved one suffer due to an incurable illness or disease is too much for any human. So if we as humans can vote for the execution of an inmate not knowing the facts or can even participate a watching an execution can be said to be inhumane.
I am for the law, as I have worked in healthcare for over ten years and have watched patients suffer with illnesses day after day, and am being treated with medications. They are tired and shouldn’t have to endure the pain knowing they only have a short while to die. So if the U.S. Supreme Court would rule that physician-assisted suicide be legal, it may cause an increase in the number of deaths and more controversy. But whether another issue may arise it may be accepted by many who have longed for the law to become legalized.
References
Battin, M. P. (2000). Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide (review). Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 25(2), 415-430. Duke University Press. Retrieved August 17, 2012, from Project MUSE database.
Campbell, C. S. & Cox, J. C. (2010). Hospice and Physician-Assisted Death: Collaboration, Compliance, and Complicity. Hastings Center Report 40(5), 26-35. The Hastings Center. Retrieved August 17, 2012, from Project MUSE database.
Quill, T. E. (2008). Physician-Assisted Death in the United States: Are the Existing "Last Resorts" Enough? Hastings Center Report 38(5), 17-22. The Hastings Center. Retrieved August 17, 2012, from Project MUSE database.
Pearlman, Robert A,M.D., M.P.H., Hsu, C., Starks, H., Back, A. L., M.D., Gordon, J. R., PhD., Bharucha, A. J., M.D., . . . Battin, M. P., PhD. (2005). Motivations for physician-assisted suicide. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20(3), 234-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40225.x
PHI 103
Professor Ian McDougall
September 2, 2012
Right to Die
Physician- assisted suicide is a controversial issue, which can revolve around whether it is right or wrong. Death can be expected or sudden. When a person becomes ill, treatment can be used to prolong the inevitable. Patients who are terminally ill should have options available for them to end their suffering. Physicians should play a part in assisting a patient with death if this is what the patient request. I will discuss why this should be legal, and look at both sides. Patients should have the right to die with dignity. Although this is a controversial issue, this is an endless debate on human suffering rights.
The effects of an illness can be unbearable for a person who has lived a life full of vitality. When a patient is told that they only have a certain amount of time left to live, can be unsettling to many. Having the right to die should be a choice given to ill patients, to prevent from suffering for long or short periods of time. A person should not have to suffer if they are competent to make the decision to end their life. During the dying process many effects of the illness can take place, causing discomfort to the person. According to a study done …show more content…
on motivation for a hastened death, participants faced the reality of loss. Of those losses the desire to lose control and maintain control over future events was seen in 21 of 35 cases.
A person should have the constitutional right to decide whether they want to live or die and how it’s done. When a person lives a full life and is told that they can no longer function in everyday life, this can be devastating. If given the option to end their suffering, rather than die a slow, painful death they should be able to choose. The death of a loved one can cause scars for family members, who have to sit and watch their loved one waste away. PAS should be legalized to allow a person to die with dignity. Morals, religious beliefs, perception and education all play a part in the view of PAS being legalized. By having these be a part of how PAS is looked at gives citizens a position on the for or against side.
In the study of motivation to a hastened death, 3 cases showed a burden on the family. Although this isn’t a big number out of the 35 cases, it did show that this plays a part in the way a person lives with an illness. The effects of the illness can involve symptoms that are unbearable such as diarrhea, vomiting, loss of appetite, etc,. Among the effects, loss of function, sense of self, and fears about the future can burden the dying person. Nobody should have to endure the thought of how their life will be until their last breath, so if there is a way for those to prepare by requesting PAS, then this should be.
Today there are health care programs called hospice that assist in the process of preparing for end of life. This service involves healthcare staff of physicians, nurses, counselors, religious staff, and family members to assist with the process. During this process many would argue that it can be days, weeks, months, or even years before the person dies; this is true. While this process is taking place the person dying goes through changes that their family has to watch and endure all the while they are suffering. Hospice was put in place to help manage pain, and when all other treatment options have failed. Now usually before hospice, palliative care is put in place and a range of pain medications, and treatments are started.
Those that are against PAS, feel that it would be morally wrong, and unjustifiable.
Illness is a part of life and happens to us all, and in some cases can be worse than others. Medications and treatments can help with symptoms. But for a terminally ill patient they can endure excruciating pain and not want to stay alive. Even with medications and treatment plans a patient will still die, and this can happen sooner or later than what the physician has determined. According to an article, on June 26, 1997 a U.S. Supreme Court ruled that individuals do not have fundamental or constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. (Pretzer, 2000) By making this ruling it violates the right to die peacefully and in the manner that is requested. By allowing this law it would relieve unbearable suffering, and this is a right all people should have.
In 1994, residents in Oregon allowed a Death and Dignity Act, allowing individuals suffering with terminal illnesses with little time to live to die with dignity.
Euthanasia that is active is legal, in which the person actually causes the death of a terminally ill individual. People should be able to control their own lives. Hospice patients in Oregon made up 88.2% of patients who used the Oregon Death and dignity Act to end their lives during1998-2009. (Campbell& Cox, 2010) Patients that are put on hospice have to endure pain and are only given comfort measures until they die. The purpose of hospice is to ensure that a dying patient receives services to assist with the process of
death.
Another part of treatment and care for patients is Palliative care, in which a physician treats a patient with symptom and pain management. Some of the medications can be Methadone, Morphine, Oxycontin, Percocet, Hydrocodone and the list can go on. This option is given to patients so that they may be treated at home and dies peacefully. Many hospitals in the U.S. use Palliative care as a way to help patients maintain a terminal illness, which eventually will result in death. But when this option fails and a patient still endures pain and suffering other options should be put in place.
A patient should not have to suffer and if they are mentally capable of making a request to end their life, then they should have options other than hospice or palliative care. According to an article the right to intensive pain and symptom management for a dying patient, right to forgo life sustaining therapy, sedation to unconsciousness, and voluntarily stopping food and drinks. The last resort options other than physician-assisted death must become more standardized, available, and accountable. There is currently too much variation. Some patients may be denied access to them because clinicians or institutions are reluctant to use them, while at the same time, others are given last resort options when more standard palliative measures would have been more appropriate. (Quill, T. E.2008).
Having the right to end your life from pain and suffering can give a dying person’s family comfort in knowing that their loved one is at peace. The debate of whether it should be legalized will continue to be controversial. But when there are other ways of legalized death such as the execution of inmates, and active euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide should be looked at more carefully. If the state can end the life of a convicted felon for committing a murder, then a person dying from a terminal illness should have the right to choose their method and when they die. If a physician is unable to relieve the patient’s suffering in other ways acceptable to the patient and the only way to avoid such suffering is by death, then death may be brought about (Battin.)
Due to the Hippocratic Oath, the physician is bound to save lives, not assist in ending them. The original version of the Hippocratic Oath also prohibits doctors from performing many types of medical care that they are allowed to do now. So why were the revisions made, because the change was necessary. So if the Hippocratic Oath can be revised to allow for certain procedures to be done, why not allow the assistance of physician s in suicide. Patient’s are dying anyway due to terminal illnesses and are on several medications that only prolong death.
To allow the voice of the patient to ask for a physician to assist them in ending their pain and suffering should be allowed. If there is a patient who is eighty years old and has cancer, but can’t endure the pain and states they have seen it all and done it all they just want to die; should have this right. Now for those that are against physician-assisted suicide to become legal, it should be broke down in a way that each detail of the benefits be displayed. To watch a loved one suffer due to an incurable illness or disease is too much for any human. So if we as humans can vote for the execution of an inmate not knowing the facts or can even participate a watching an execution can be said to be inhumane.
I am for the law, as I have worked in healthcare for over ten years and have watched patients suffer with illnesses day after day, and am being treated with medications. They are tired and shouldn’t have to endure the pain knowing they only have a short while to die. So if the U.S. Supreme Court would rule that physician-assisted suicide be legal, it may cause an increase in the number of deaths and more controversy. But whether another issue may arise it may be accepted by many who have longed for the law to become legalized.
References
Battin, M. P. (2000). Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide (review). Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 25(2), 415-430. Duke University Press. Retrieved August 17, 2012, from Project MUSE database.
Campbell, C. S. & Cox, J. C. (2010). Hospice and Physician-Assisted Death: Collaboration, Compliance, and Complicity. Hastings Center Report 40(5), 26-35. The Hastings Center. Retrieved August 17, 2012, from Project MUSE database.
Quill, T. E. (2008). Physician-Assisted Death in the United States: Are the Existing "Last Resorts" Enough? Hastings Center Report 38(5), 17-22. The Hastings Center. Retrieved August 17, 2012, from Project MUSE database.
Pearlman, Robert A,M.D., M.P.H., Hsu, C., Starks, H., Back, A. L., M.D., Gordon, J. R., PhD., Bharucha, A. J., M.D., . . . Battin, M. P., PhD. (2005). Motivations for physician-assisted suicide. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20(3), 234-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40225.x