Physician Assisted Suicide
Life has been given as a gift to man from God and at times a moment comes where man is to decide whether he has the right to end life. Fundamentally there are two types of euthanasia. One is Active Euthanasia and the other is Passive Euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is seen in an example where a patient requiring dialysis, is not put on the dialysis machine and hence dies. Active euthanasia is seen where a patient is injected some poison to cause death. "In active euthanasia you directly and intentionally cause a person's death. In passive euthanasia you do not directly take their life but you permit them to die" (Dr. J.P. Moreland). In essence it can be said that in active euthanasia, something is done to cause the death while in passive euthanasia something is not done to cause the death of the patient. Although the end result of both types is the same people do make a moral distinction between the two types of euthanasia. The distinction being, the difference between killing someone and just letting someone die. However there are others who feel that this is one of the same things. Comparatively active euthanasia is morally a better option because the patient is relieved from suffering a slow death. His death is qui
ck and less painful compared to passive euthanasia and should be adopted in the terminally ill patients. Many people differentiate between physician assisted suicide and active euthanasia claiming that in physician assisted suicide the patient has to administer the lethal medication himself. What they fail to realize is that the difference in causation has no significant effect over the patient's situation. The action of the physician administering the lethal medication or giving the medication to the patient to take is not a factor that can claim the two actions to be entirely different. "At any point in the process, from the time that discussions of active euthanasia first occur to the moment when the physician gives the lethal injection, the patient is free to change her mind and call a halt to the proceedings." (Nicholas Dixon, p.25). Generally speaking however, euthanasia should not be considered as a legal option. There are many people who voice their opinion against euthanasia because they feel it is morally incorrect. Many advocates of euthanasia consider it to be a cost cutting measure. However, it was "declared groundless by Aroner who claimed that the measure would require the patient to initiate any discussion of assisted suicide" (Rita L. Marker). One of the most hallowed canons of medical ethics is that doctors must not kill. "The Hippocratic corpus enjoins the physician not only to avoid inflicting harm on patients, but positively to benefit them" (Robert M. Baird, et al, p.112). Keeping this in view how can then a doctor assist a patient in suicide? Such questions arise when one thinks and debates over whether Euthanasia should be allowed or not. Doctors are not killers and their aim is to save life by all means rather than end it. Medical killing can never be medically ethical and physicians should not cause death intentionally. The opposition for euthanasia claims that a doctor's aim should always be to try to save life to the best of his abilities and capabilities.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Susan Wolf, Pamela Miller, Hereafter According, Herbert Hendin, JP Moreland, Tania Salem, Department Health, James Drane, Neil Gorsuch, CONCLUSION Life, assisted suicide, physician assisted suicide, physician assisted, active euthanasia, suicide euthanasia, assisted suicide euthanasia, save life, advocates euthanasia, terminally ill, passive euthanasia, euthanasia physician assisted, euthanasia physician, cause death, euthanasia passive euthanasia, people oppose euthanasia,
Approximate Word count = 3868
Approximate Pages = 15 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
