регистрация / вход

A Time To Die Essay Research Paper

Joel A Time To Die Active euthanasia is a necessary course of action and should be allowed as long as the decision is being made by the family members or the patient themselves. The American Medical Association claims active euthanasia is against it?s policy, but improving the quality of life for a patient is, so what happens if the patients life could be made better by ending it?

A Time To Die Essay, Research Paper

Joel

A Time To Die

Active euthanasia is a necessary course of action and should be allowed as long as the decision is being made by the family members or the patient themselves. The American Medical Association claims active euthanasia is against it?s policy, but improving the quality of life for a patient is, so what happens if the patients life could be made better by ending it?

In a statement by the American Medical Association, they claim ?the intentional termination of the life of one human being by another mercy killing-is contrary to that for which the medical profession stands and is contrary to the policy of the American Medical Association.? The American Medical Association?s policy is to save lives and in saving those lives raise the quality of them. But in a case where active euthanasia would be employed the quality of life for the patient would be horrible whether kept alive or left to die on there own.

The example James Rachel?s gives states ?a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactorily alleviated. He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable. So he asks the doctor for an end to it, and his family joins in the request.? Rachel?s goes on to explain that even if the doctor agrees to withhold treatment, ?as the conventional doctrine says he may.? Simply withholding treatment may make the patient live longer and he would suffer longer than if direct action had been taken, such as a lethal injection.

The American Medical Association is being hypocritical in their pursuit to save lives and raise the quality of them. How can they say they are doing this if the person they are ?saving? spends the last week of their lives coughing up blood, chocking on a feeder tube and having to be humiliated by not being able to use the restroom on their own. In my research I found a web site called euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide: All sides of The Issues they state ? many people argue that pain experienced by terminally ill people can be controlled to tolerable levels through proper management. They conclude that there is no need for physician assisted suicide. However, tens of millions of individuals in North America do not have access to adequate pain management. Tens of millions are without health care coverage. Many doctors withhold adequate levels of painkillers because they are concerned that their patient may become addicted to the drugs. Anticipated cutbacks to health funding will make this situation worse.?

The fortunate one?s of us do not think consider these situations. If you walk into a hospital with no health care coverage they may only give you a small amount of medical coverage, if that, before they send you over to the free clinic. In a situation where a patients life is going to end and your last days on earth are going to be spent in agony whether treated or not then why be cruel? In reality, the basic question posed by supporters of active euthanasia is should a person who is terminally ill, and who feels that their life is not worth living because of intractable pain and/or loss of dignity, someone who repeatedly and actively asks for help in committing suicide but is of sound mind and not suffering from depression be given the option to request assistance in dying?

In my research I found that euthanasia is often mislabeled many people are scared of what it may become. The ?Euthanasia an Physician Assisted Suicide? web site says ?euthanasia is not: whether a particular person should request aid in dying. That should always remain a personal decision. The question is whether people in general should be given the choice to request euthanasia.? They also say that euthanasia is not ? whether a person should be allowed to commit suicide. In most jurisdictions, suicide is a legal act, and has been so for decades.? They also state that it is not ?whether an otherwise healthy person who is going through a period of depression should be given help in committing suicide. They would not be given such assistance under any proposed legislation. Instead, their depression would be treated.? In my research I found that many peoples fears were connected to those tactics used by the communist government and similarly those used by the Nazis in WWII. A statement from ?Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide? states that euthanasia is not when ?death squads periodically visit hospitals and nursing homes in order to kill people who are no longer contributing to society. This is a red herring created to scare people.?

The only thing that supporters of euthanasia are asking for is the right for people in fatal situations to be able to choose death as an option. Why would you want to make someone suffer through the rest of their short life for no reason? It will not hurt some one who does not choose euthanasia as the way to the end, to let someone who wants that option die with dignity.

ОТКРЫТЬ САМ ДОКУМЕНТ В НОВОМ ОКНЕ

ДОБАВИТЬ КОММЕНТАРИЙ [можно без регистрации]

Ваше имя:

Комментарий