Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide Case Study

This debate cuts across complex and dynamic aspects such as, legal, ethical, human rights, health, religious, economic, spiritual, social and cultural aspects of the civilized society. Here we argue this complex issue from both the supporters and opponents’ perspectives, and attempts to present the plight of the sufferers and their caregivers. The objective is to discuss the subject of euthanasia from the medical and human rights perspective. This study focusses on the two very absolute rights of every human being: “Right to Life” and “Right to Die” with dignity.

Keywords: [human rights, arguments, euthanasia, right to life, right to die]

Euthanasia: “Right to Life” vs “Right to Die”

The word Euthanasia, originated in Greece means a good death

It’s time to be gone.” For this terminally ill person, physician assisted death is how he will go.

Physician assisted death (PAD) is the law in 2 states, Oregon, 1994, and Washington State, 2008. A terminally ill patient residing in these states – competent and not clinically depressed – can ask for and receive from his doctor a prescription for medicine that, if ingested, ends life. PAD differs from euthanasia because in euthanasia the medical practitioner dispenses the lethal amount into the patient.

Although the popular term “right to die” has been used as a label to describe the debate over end of life decisions, the underlying issues include a variety of legal concepts. For instance, “right to die” could include issues of suicide, passive euthanasia – allowing a person to die by refusal or withdrawal of medical intervention, assisted suicide – providing a person the means of committing suicide, active euthanasia – killing another, and palliative care – providing comfort care which accelerates the death process. Therefore, physician assisted suicide appears to be a blend of assistive suicide or active euthanasia undertaken by a licensed

It could send a wrong message that it is better to be dead than sick or disabled. Euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. People who support euthanasia often say that it is already considered permissible to take human life under some circumstances such as self-defense – but they miss the point that when one kills for self-defense they are saving an innocent life – either their own or someone else’s whereas with euthanasia no one’s life is being taken – life is only taken.

• Euthanasia encourages vulnerable people to end their lives. The will power of a patient to fight through a fatal disease might decline if given an option of choosing death which might seem like a simpler solution at that moment. Patients who are ill or dependent often feel worthless and a burden to their family and loved ones. An overburdened health care system limits the quality of care and may create pressure on patients, making them choose death.

• Possible Recovery: It is very hard to predict whether the disease is not curable. Accepting euthanasia means ruling out the chance of a miracle happening in some cases where patients have fully recovered from deadly diseases.

• No Assurance of Voluntariness: Even if patients appear to authorize euthanasia we cannot be sure that their consent is truly voluntary as they might not be in the proper