Euthanasia 13

A detailed Summary of Euthanasia 13

Medical advances have created ethical dilemmas, which no previous generation of doctors has ever faced. New life-sustaining techniques and practices are forcing doctors to ask questions that never needed to be asked before.

Foremost of these is: "How far do we go to save a life"?

Other questions challenge ethical traditions, which have been in place for centuries. "When suffering is immeasurable and a patient's condition terminal, should doctors be permitted to end a patient's life?"

"Should doctors take active role in hastening a patient's death?"

Today, more than ever, the push is on to "change the rules." Dr. Kevorkian, a leading doctor in the fight in legalizing Euthanasia, while deplored by most medical professionals for his methods, is heralded as a hero on many fronts for bringing this issue into the public square. By all accounts, a time of decision is upon us. "When a fully conscious person requests death, should a doctor assist the person in dying"?

It is the purpose of this speech to present a concise overview of the primary arguments for the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide.

My four primary arguments for legalizing euthanasia are as followed.

1. The mercy argument, which states that the immense pa

in and indignity of prolonged suffering, cannot be ignored. We are being inhumane to force people to continue suffering this way.

Caring for terminally ill patients requires a vast amount of money. In 1997, shortly after the senate voted to overturn the Northern Territory's euthanasia law, doctors from both sides of the euthanasia lobby united in calling for more funds for palliative care. There is a requirement for several hundred million dollars extra to really adequately provide for the needs of the dying, particularly in country areas. I put forth the questions to you, where is the government going to get the money from. The only way of course, would have to be to raise the taxes, or to cut funding from another specific area. Why waste precious resources on something we don't need to. Prolonging the life of a person, who can no longer live, is pointless and costly. Would it not be better to die a death with dignity, than to succumb to a bed for the rest of your life?

Lying in bed, alone in inconceivable pain. For many people the process of dying includes weeks, months even years of pain and suffering. For some, the pain may reach an intensity which even drugs cannot overcome. Even where pain largely can be controlled, distress is caused by loss of control over bodily functions, physical wasting away and mental disarray or incapacity. I ask of you, would you like to die this. For many, this is reality. Not being able to do anything or go anywhere restricted by their medical condition. The Netherlands, the only country where euthanasia is technically legal, has the same criteria

Some common words found in the essay are:
Dr Kevorkian, Northern Territory's, Australia Holland, South Australia, , Oxford Universities, Mark Oliphant, Territory Act, medical professionals, refuse medical treatment, terminally ill patients, patient empowerment, legalizing euthanasia, bodily functions, primary arguments, terminally ill, ill patients, life pain, death dignity, precious resources,

Approximate Word count = 1075
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: Politics