Suicide - Euthanasia - Arizona
Physician-assisted suicide is suicide, in the traditional sense of taking own life, assisted by a physician. In recent times, there has been an increase in debates regarding the subject, especially after medical assisted suicide was legalized in Arizona and Washington (Engdahl, 2009). However, it remains illegal in all other states, despite many attempts to legalize it. This paper will examine the pros and the cons of assisted suicide and conclude that though it has its merits, the potential harms are too many.
Euthanasia is a popular term in popular culture. The phrase ‘put it out of its misery' is popularly used to refer to situation where the chances of survival are infinitesimal and the affected parties need to be relieved of their pain. The rising popularity of the idea proposes that contemporary societies are open to the idea of euthanasia. In fact, old animals such as pets are subject to euthanasia when their age limits their ability to enjoy their lives and leads to miserable existence. However, the community is not open to the thought of euthanasia in human beings (Merino, 2012).
Perhaps this is due to the differences between the terms ‘euthanasia' and ‘Physician-Assisted Suicide'. While euthanasia entails a physician performing the act of concluding the life of a desperately ill and suffering person painlessly, Physician-Assisted Suicide entails a physician providing the means and the relevant information. The patient does the rest with the full knowledge that it will kill them in Oregon, the foremost state to decriminalize Physician-Assisted Suicide, 0.3% of all deaths are caused by Physician-Assisted Suicide (Engdahl, 2009).
[...] In addition, ethical implications continue to present the greatest challenge against them. Therefore, though there may be compelling cases, Physician assisted suicide may remain outlawed for many years to come. References Engdahl, S. (2009). Assisted suicide. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. Merino, N. (2012). Assisted suicide. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. [...]
[...] To make matters worse, the huge expenditure is not even enough to buy a combatable existence for the remaining days. There is no sense in crippling a family financially in order to prolong miserable existence of a person (Engdahl, 2009). Disadvantages Physician-Assisted Suicide violates medical codes of ethics. Doctors are intended to support life and to prolong it. However, Physician-Assisted Suicide threatens this sacred purpose of physicians. It offers them a way to get rid of troublesome cases, though the cause may sometimes be justified. [...]
[...] In fact, old animals such as pets are subject to euthanasia when their age limits their ability to enjoy their lives and leads to miserable existence. However, the community is not open to the thought of euthanasia in human beings (Merino, 2012). Perhaps this is due to the differences between the terms ‘euthanasia' and ‘Physician-Assisted Suicide'. While euthanasia entails a physician performing the act of concluding the life of a desperately ill and suffering person painlessly, Physician-Assisted Suicide entails a physician providing the means and the relevant information. [...]
[...] In recent times, the biggest opposition to Physician-Assisted Suicide has resulted from improvements in medical technology. For example, advanced medication in modern times has the ability to relieve pain to the point where the patient reconsiders their desire to live. For this reason, the proposition of ‘getting terminally ill patients out of their misery' no longer makes a compelling case (Merino, 2012). In addition, religious implications propose that it is against the will of god to willingly take the life of another person. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
