Terminally Ill Patient Medication example essay topic

Euthanasia Euthanasia in today's society has run rampant, but whose choice is it really to end one's life in the case of excessive suffering? Euthanasia has become one of the most controversial issues in the medical field. There are many questions that must be considered when euthanasia is involved. For example: Whose right is it anyway? Do physicians have the right to perform assisted suicide? Is it morally right?

When is 'competent' not competent enough? Euthanasia is preceded the decision that a terminally ill patient's life will come to an end before natural death. Euthanasia can also be defined as any killing carried out by medical means or by medical personnel; whether intended for the termination of suffering or indignity of a life not worth living. A standard definition of euthanasia is the intentional putting to death of a person with an incurable or painful disease.

No matter how the term is defined, it is intentional suicide and it is wrong (Keown 75). When terminally ill patients are considering euthanasia, common questions arise such as: Whose right is it anyway? What do those rights entail? There are four basic rights that must be considered when euthanasia is involved.

These rights include the right to reject or terminate unwanted medical procedure, the right to commit suicide or the right to 'rational's suicide, the right to assisted suicide, and the right to active voluntary euthanasia. These rights, however, are not protected by law. In fact, assisted suicide is illegal in most states. For instance, the Jack Kevorkian case, a Michigan physician who believed in aiding patients in suicide. The patients of Dr. Kevorkian requested death because of their incurable suffering.

Did they not have the right to choose life or death? Well, Dr. Kevorkian felt that they had the right to choose, and he aided them with their choice. After ending the suffering of many terminally ill patients, Dr. Kevorkian was tried and indicted by the US District Court for violating laws banning physician-assisted suicide and was later tried for murder (Burnell 87). Was Dr. Kevorkian just showing compassion for his dying suffering clients, or did he have an ulterior motive? Dr. Kevorkian claims compassion, yet others question his moral. The more trying issue here is whose life is it?

Do we not have the right to choose whether we suffer or end our own suffering? These questions may never be answered (Hamel 234). Voluntary euthanasia is defined as one's decision to end one's life after her she has consciously and expressly approved of the decision. Involuntary euthanasia refers to the terminally ill patient's unknowing of the decision to use euthanasia when he or she has not consciously and expressly approved of it in advance. When voluntary euthanasia is approved or carried out, it is called active euthanasia. Active euthanasia is exactly what it sounds like: active, meaning characterized by motion or action, and euthanasia, meaning deliberate death.

Active euthanasia refers to someone's taking active steps to give a dying person, on his or her request, a lethal dosage of drugs to hasten death. Active euthanasia involves physically injecting or giving a terminally ill patient medication which ultimately results in death (Cauthen 112). Active euthanasia has become a very controversial issue because some feel that active euthanasia is a form of murder. However, some feel that passive euthanasia is morally acceptable (Mall 134). Passive euthanasia is the helping of a terminally ill patient to hasten death by withholding life-sustaining treatment, including food and water. Passive euthanasia is usually requested by the person dying, either verbally or through a written document.

By withholding intravenous feedings, medications, surgery, a pacemaker or respirator, the doctor can let the patient die. The doctor is indirectly killing the patient, but he himself is not administering the death. Some feel that this is morally acceptable because a doctor is not directly inducing death; they are just withholding treatment from the dying patient (Bayles 176). For many years, physicians have been faced with a trying question: should they participate in assisted suicide for terminally ill patients? There are many conflicting views on this question.

Some doctors see it as their duty to help suffering, hopeless people who request death. They say euthanasia would be an extension of the care they give to terminally ill patients to make the remainder of their lives more comfortable. Doctors should be able to help relieve suffering without being prosecuted. Many doctors believe that it is more ethical to permit the death of hopelessly ill patients than to prolong life by using all the technological tools at their disposal.

Patients who are terminally ill and wish to commit suicide do not want to suffer. They want to know how to die in the least painful and most effective way; so they consult their physicians who have the know-how and can aid them. Prohibition of physician-assisted suicide handcuffs doctors who want to show compassion to patients whose bodies are irreversibly falling apart. Dr. MarshallBrumer comments that, 'The doctor's responsibility is to do everything he can to sustain lives... to stand idly by and watch a person die, however, is intolerable' (Cauthen 234). In contrast, many physicians object to the idea of killing their patients.

They say that the special bond of trust between patients and their physicians would be destroyed if doctors performed active euthanasia. Other physicians who are against aiding their patients in death offer a more religious reason. Their reason involves the second commandment of 'thou shalt not kill'. Many doctors feel that they would be violating this commandment, and to them this action is morally wrong.

Others who are against physician-assisted suicide argue that doctors who disconnect respirators know that the patient will die; therefore, they have taken a direct, deliberate action that produces death (Benton 79). Life preservers point out that doctors are human and make mistakes too. Some patients who die after refusing treatment might have unexpectedly recovered had they been kept alive. Doctor-assisted suicide should not be allowed because the doctors are 'playing God,' and they do not have that right. Many patients want doctor-assisted suicide because they are in extreme pain and can endure it no longer.

In the majority of these cases, the pain could have been relieved and other physical symptoms suffered by these patients could have been better controlled if the caregivers had expertise in palliative care techniques (Mall 113). Doctors, therefore, could have helped prolong their patients' lives, yet they chose not to. Those doctors took the easy way out, which was the wrong way. Euthanasia is a compelling issue to bring upon oneself. Some believe they have the right to choose to take their own lives, or to ask for help in doing so. They believe that it is their constitutional right to decide whether they live or die.

Since they are the ones suffering, they believe that they are the ones who should decide. Hopelessly ill patients may be in unbelievable pain, or their dependant condition may make them feel degraded and helpless. Because of this fact, many patients do not want their lives prolonged, especially by artificial means. They feel that they are prolonging death, not preventing it (Bayles 35). Many believe that patients who have a poor 'quality of life's should be allowed to choose for themselves whether medical technology is to be used to prolong their lives. Right-to-die advocates point out that it can be very expensive to maintain people on life support and can put financial burden on a spouse or relative, and patients do not want that (Benton 89).

The most powerful argument in favor of physician-assisted suicide comes from the families of those who have witnessed loved ones die very painful and agonizing deaths. Family members suffer such a sense of helplessness when they watch someone they love writhe in agony and pain that they hope for their loved ones a quick and easy death (Cauthen 53). Others who are pro-euthanasia argue that people should have the right to choose whether they wish to prolong what they consider a meaningless and demeaning existence. Since many have lived long, productive, and full lives they should have the right to decide, based on acquired wisdom, whether they want to endure the pain and misery of advanced age (Burnell 260).

Some terminally ill patients prefer to hasten death rather than go through deterioration of their physical and mental abilities. They feel that euthanasia is more humane than forcing a person into unmitigated suffering. According to this view, there is no moral difference in some circumstances between active euthanasia and the withholding of life-sustaining treatment (256). Euthanasia is acceptable when a patient is hopelessly ill with a severe disabling condition; neurological or otherwise, which greatly limits his or her quality of life, to the extent that the patient has no chance of recovery. If the patient is experiencing extreme suffering, either psychological or physical and there is no alternative means adequate to alleviate this suffering, then the patient should be allowed to choose whether he or she lives or dies (Hamel 105). Opponents of euthanasia stress the point that most physical pain can be relieved by analgesic medication.

Nevertheless, the fact that patients may or may not accept the responsibility for regulating pain medication should be taken into consideration. Others feel that because many physicians receive poor training in the management of pain is not a valid reason to favor euthanasia (Burnell 256). Others who oppose euthanasia say that even people who suffer can be very productive and share their insights with other people. They also claim that effective pain and symptom control can extend the time of being useful and productive until the end of life. Also, the time gained in terminal illness may allow the survivors to share precious moments together and provide memories that will later help with their grieving (131). Opponents of euthanasia feel that many people who opt for euthanasia maybe suicidally depressed.

Furthermore, they may not be loved by family members who wish to inherit the estate and who may encourage the terminally ill member to decide on euthanasia for 'the good of the family' (Hamel 236). Anti- maintained that selfish, not humanitarian, motives may too often motivate the individual who decides that another should die. Granting the right to terminate life under any circumstances may destroy the line dividing man and animals (Brody 132). Another issue involving euthanasia is the right of the family. Do they have the legal power to 'pull the plug' of an incompetent family member? After all, is that not what family is all about?

Families support and sometimes even think for relatives so sick that they themselves cannot decide. Family can make these decision because they best understand the patients' personal values and beliefs. Courts have now ruled that the family has the right to remove respirators from permanently unconscious patients. The patients' family naturally agrees with this because they say they are the closest people to the patient and are in the best position to say what the patient would have wanted (159). On the other hand, family should not have the right to 'pull the plug' on a family member because it is not their lives that they are deciding on. Many people who oppose euthanasia argue that family members should not be entrusted with the sole authority to make choices for incompetent patients because they cannot separate their own biases and interests from those of the patients.

Some believe that a family's complex emotional ties to a patient, and possible self-interest, would prevent them from making an objective decision (187). Sometimes terminally ill patients request death because they feel guilty for staying alive and causing financial burden on their families. Families may also be tempted to approve administered death because of their physical or financial stress. Many who are opposed to euthanasia feel that a terminally ill patient may be temporarily depressed or may change his or her mind. In such cases, they feel that since a patient is not competent enough to request death, then they should not be permitted to make that decision (58).

Another issue addressed when speaking of euthanasia is the morality of it. Those who participate in euthanasia deem it morally acceptable. They feel that what they are doing is merciful and compassionate. It does not go against their religion or morals so they feel that euthanasia is ethical. Euthanasia has been referred to as being ethical because it helps people die in a painless and dignified way. Many experts in medical ethics consider it a moral act when the doctor has known the patient for a long time and the patient faces a prolonged painful death (Mall 35).

On the other hand, euthanasia is not ethical or morally correct. People who oppose the right-to-die concept believe in the 'sanctity of life'. They argue that all human beings no matter what their quality of life, have worth and dignity. Therefore, euthanasia is immoral and wrong in principle. In the religious view, upholding the biblical commandment 'thou shalt not kill' is vital to human survival. Life is for the creator, not the people to take.

Doctors who perform euthanasia are 'playing God', and are also deemed unethical (Mall 89). Euthanasia is an emotional, trying issue facing Americans today. Euthanasia is a morally pertinent question that is affecting today's society. There are so many choices and rights involved in the issue that it has become a legal nightmare. Euthanasia has become a most controversial medical issue battled over every day.