The topic that I have chosen last week was “Hastening Death” and I presented an insight of both the pros and cons to the controversy. However, this week’s critical thinking analysis, I am choosing the pros of Hastening Death because of many reasons that are forth the positions. First of all, making decision is something that one should definitely make on their own because at the end of the day, your decision is going to matter the most. Even, if there are people who are going to disagree with what you decide on, it depends on what you want at the end. So, having the options to hasten your own death should be available. An empirical article that I came upon that talks about “Hastening Death and the Boundaries of the Self” by Lynn A. Jansen portrayed a …show more content…
This is significant because this supports the fact that this is not an instance of killing to the patient, but by withdrawing the artificial support for the patients, it “allows for the patient’s disease to complete its natural course” (Jansen, 106). In addition, one’s dignity of being worthy of honor or respect can be an important feeling of one’s self. Susan Behuniak portrayed the point involving dignity to the pros of hastening death by mentioning a statement from a patient in the Montana constitutional that depict the terminally ill point of view. This patient had mention that if there comes a point where his suffering is unbearable then there should be an option for him to die peacefully by taking a pill for that purpose (Behuniak). He also mention that it is his life and decision so having “the right and responsibility to make that critical choice” should be available for him (Behuniak). This illustrates the dignity of one’s self to feel the need of having that option based on their values and beliefs if they do decide to end their life. There is no wrong to this decision when it comes to one’s
The last argument that this paper will look at is the argument of double effect. In the context of terminal illness physician assisted suicide could instead be seen as a vital form of care for someone who is suffering, instead of the failure of medicine. Physician assisted suicide seems to oppose the pro-life view, but on closer examination, its purpose is instead to relieve suffering in imminently terminal cases where it is thought that no other treatment could reasonably hope to do the same. Even though traditionally the role of the doctor is seen as extending life, that role may also encompass the assistance in PAS.
In claiming that the procedure allows patients to have dignity at death is flawed because the purpose of the medical profession is to ensure a dignified life. In accordance with the physician’s code of ethics or Hippocratic oath, physicians are not allowed to do harm to their patients because their role is to provide a dignified life with health to the community. Instead of helping people kill themselves, we should offer them premium medical care and solace human presence.
Embracing Death: A Rhetorical Look at Clendinen’s “The Good Short Life” How does one want to die? That might be a question too harsh for some to think about. So, maybe the correct question would be, how can one embrace death?
Terminal illnesses can strip even the most advocate life loving people, rendering them a depressed shell and unwilling to continue any further into the deep pits of despair that life has allocated to themselves. The cruel and unusual punishment to such enthusiastic people leaves them, “…permanently incapable of functioning in any dignified human fashion” (Andre, Velasquez 2). In the case of Matthew Donnelly who had, “… lost his nose, his left hand, two fingers on his right hand, and part of his jaw” to cancer, hope of relief was nowhere to be found, high nor low (1). The extreme pain had stripped every bit of joy from Donnelly who typically, “loved life” (1). Donner suffered, “lying in bed with teeth clenched from the excruciating pain,
The possible legalization of euthanasia can cause a great disturbance in how people view life and death and the simplicity of how they would treat it. "There are many fairly severely handicapped people for whom a simple, affectionate life is possible." (Foot, p. 94) As demonstrated, the decision of terminating a person 's life is a very fragile and difficult one, emotionally and mentally. Nevertheless, it’s a choice we can make if it is passive euthanasia being expressed.
The Right to Die 1) Introduction a) Thesis statement: Physician assisted suicide offers patients a choice of getting out of their pain and misery, presents a way to help those who are already dead mentally because of how much a disease has taken over them, proves to be a great option in many states its legal in, and puts the family at ease knowing their love one is out of pain. i) The use of physician assisted death is used in many different countries and some states. ii) Many people who chose this option are fighting a terminal illness.
Lately, we have experienced a lot of situations as Mac and Huttmann situation. This problem is really controversial and, of course, everyone can relate to it. Barbara Huttmann is trying to show the audience that she is innocent by illustrating her struggle with Mac. Huttmann argues in this essay that the person should have the right to choose to live or die, only if they are suffering from a fatal illness. Huttmann illustrates her experiences with Mac in order to justify her act and convince people that mercy killing should be legal and she uses her compassionate tone and her vivid imagery to prove it.
The Death with Dignity Act has two arguments: those who believe we have the right to choose how and when we die, and those who believe we do not possess that right; that we should not interfere with the natural order of life. Every year, people across America are diagnosed with a terminal illness. For some people there is time: time to hope for a cure, time to fight the disease, time to pray for a miracle. For others however, there is very little or no time. For these patients, their death is rapidly approaching and for the vast majority of them, it will be a slow and agonizing experience.
Embracing Death: A Rhetorical Look at Clendinen’s “The Good Short Life” How does one want to die? That might be a question too harsh for some to think about. So, maybe the correct question would be, how can one embrace death?
Beside my stand, others believes Physicians and other medical care people should not involve themselves indirectly causing death; however, if they will not be willing to provide a way to relieve extreme pain when a person 's quality of life is low, then what is the meaning of freedom of choice for citizen is when they cannot choose the right for themselves. Even though, the author had “dreamed of disconnecting” her patient’s respirator, yet every day she forced to “make her death impossible and her life unbearable” (Page 458). As the Physician she “ feel differently toward her than the father toward his son”, and that is why the author did not takes off the respirator; knowing, it would be an easy way for killing the women, since never have the same emotional connection as the father (page 458). Finally, the author never had the admiration feeling for women to be able to convict a murder just as the father has done for his infant. Risking one’s life for someone else is not supporting euthanasia, yet giving peace to those painful souls one’s should not have the guilt to live
In his article ‘A Right to Self-Termination?’ David Velleman brings up the topic of the right to die and elaborates his view on the subject. Two broad principles are stated by Velleman and he goes on to reject the first principle and accept the second principle. The first principle is that “a person has the right to make his own life shorter in order to make it better… ”the second principle is that there is “a presumption in favor of deferring to a person's judgment on the subject of his own good.
Showing Mercy: people in end-of-life situations are typically in great pain, and our obligation to be merciful and relieve suffering requires us to end their suffering through death if necessary. We routinely put animals out of their misery as an act of mercy and, in end-of-life situations, our obligation to relieve suffering demands that we do the same for humans. A criticism of this argument is that our obligation to relieve suffering is only one of many competing moral values that we have. For example, our moral tradition also acknowledges the virtue of fortitude, that is, the ability to endure difficult situations, the virtue to courageously face fear, and the obligation of self-preservation; these values may be contrary to active euthanasia. The obligation to relieve suffering should undoubtedly be shown towards dying patients, as is done in hospice programs, but showing mercy does not necessarily mean that we should actively put someone to
It is not easy to make the decision of death. Thus, when a person wants to die with dignity, we as a society should respect their
According to Paul Keating “Euthanasia is a Threshold Moment We Should Not Cross” from The Sydney Morning Herald, euthanasia is a negative form of treatment for patients with terminal illnesses and has negative effects on other aspects of society. Multiple studies are referenced and examples are given to support the authors claim that euthanasia is wrong and should be avoided. The use of euthanasia is related to assisted suicide or the intentional killing of a patient by physicians. The author also discusses the idea of safeguards that are said to be put in place to protect the patient from any consequences other than to put them out of their pain and misery.
"The right of a competent, terminally ill person to avoid excruciating pain and embrace a timely and dignified death bears the sanction of history and is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The exercise of this right is as central to personal autonomy and bodily integrity as rights safeguarded by this Court's decisions relating to marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment"(ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill, 1996). Pain is something that only the person being affected that feel. No one else but he /she can determine if the decision to end their suffering is the right one or not.