That is Euthanasia Essay Example

of chemotherapy and subsequently passes away, the cause of death remains the cancer itself and not the actions of the doctor or the individual's choice.

Euthanasia, which involves intentionally hastening someone's death to prevent a natural passing caused by illness or old age, should be universally opposed. This is because the Bible states that only God has the responsibility to determine when a person should die. Consequently, assisted suicide contradicts God's ultimate authority in deciding when one should leave this world.

Caution is necessary in assuming God's authority and the Bible does not mandate using all means to indefinitely extend life. Therefore, we are not obligated to prolong the life of a person experiencing extreme suffering. Our focus should be on ensuring comfort during the dying process for terminally ill individuals in severe pain. It is important to refrain from hastening their death and allow nature to take its course. Nevertheless, every effort must be made to provide solace for those enduring such agony.

The acceptance of euthanasia raises concerns about potential injustices in society. There is a risk that if euthanasia is allowed based on what is deemed best for the individual, the government may eventually determine who else should be terminated. The definition of euthanasia may expand to include individuals with chronic depression or those who simply do not desire to live or contribute to society. We must consider whether once we open the door to killing elderly people, it can ever be closed again. It is important to note that while abortion allows for ending life at its beginning, now end-of-life options are also being considered for termination. This dual approach increases the likelihood of

moral relativism and sinful nature leading to death impacting many individuals in between.

Right to Die

PRO: "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 the right to end one's life is deemed equally significant for personal autonomy and bodily integrity, just like other rights safeguarded in this Court's decisions on marriage, family relationships, procreation, contraception, child rearing, and the refusal or termination of life-saving medical treatment. Recent rulings by this Court concerning the right to refuse medical treatment and the right to abortion clarify that a mentally competent individual who is terminally ill possesses a protected liberty interest in opting to cease unbearable suffering by self-inflicting death. When a state enforces an absolute prohibition on physicians' assistance in suicide, it substantially encroaches upon this shielded liberty interest and lacks justification." -- ACLU Amicus Brief in Vacco v. Quill (72 KB) American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Dec. 10, 1996 CON: "Throughout the history of this country's law regarding assisted suicide, there has been consistent rejection of almost all attempts to legalize it.

The US Supreme Court Majority Opinion in Washington v. Glucksberg (63 KB) on June 26, 1997 stated that the 'right' to aid in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Despite this, supporters claim that individuals have the right to avoid suffering and refer to the European Declaration of Human Rights for backing. Conversely, opponents argue that laws prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide impose government-mandated suffering.

According to Rita Marker, Executive Director of

the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, comparing laws against euthanasia to government mandated starvation due to contaminated food is inaccurate. Marker emphasizes that these laws are implemented to prevent abuse and protect individuals from unscrupulous doctors and others. The intention behind these laws has never been to inflict suffering upon anyone. (Source: "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Frequently Asked Questions," www.)

internationaltaskforce. org Jan. 2010

Slippery Slope to Legalized Murder

PRO: "Especially with regard to taking life, slippery slope arguments have long been a feature of the ethical landscape, used to question the moral permissibility of all kinds of acts... The situation is not unlike that of a doomsday cult that predicts time and again the end of the world, only for followers to discover the next day that things are pretty much as they were... We need the evidence that shows that horrible slope consequences are likely to occur."

The statement that the mentioned consequences might happen, as stated before, does not serve as evidence. "- R. G. Frey, DPhil Professor of Philosophy, Bowling Green State University "The Fear of a Slippery Slope," Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: For and Against 1998 CON: "In a society as focused on healthcare costs and the principle of utility, the risks of the slippery slope...

Assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia are not just fantasies. They serve as steps towards more direct forms of euthanasia, like advance directive euthanasia for incompetent patients or euthanasia for the elderly. The argument is that if ending a life is seen as beneficial, then why limit consent to certain individuals? Why ask for consent at all?

Hippocratic Oath and Prohibition of Killing

PRO: "The Hippocratic Oath has been

modified over time as some of its tenets became less acceptable."

References to women not studying medicine and doctors not breaking the skin have been removed. The well-known reference to 'do no harm' also requires clarification. Does refraining from causing harm imply that we should extend a life that the patient perceives as a painful burden? Undoubtedly, in this case, the 'harm' is done when we prolong the life, and 'doing no harm' denotes assisting the patient in dying. Killing the patient - from a technical standpoint, indeed.

According to Philip Nitschke, MD, director and founder of Exit International, euthanasia can sometimes be seen as a positive thing. He also believes that it aligns with good end-of-life care. On the other hand, opponents argue that euthanasia goes against the first promise of self-restraint made in the Hippocratic Oath, which prohibits doctors from giving deadly drugs or suggesting such actions. By refusing to provide poison upon request, Hippocratic physicians reject the notion that a patient's desire for death justifies their killing.

For the physician, human life in living bodies is inherently worthy of respect and reverence. This respect does not rely on human agreement or the consent of the patient, so revoking consent to live does not diminish the respectability of one's living body. The primary ethical principle that constrains the power of the physician is not the patient's autonomy or freedom, nor the physician's compassion or good intentions. Rather, it is the dignity and mysterious power of human life itself. The Oath also emphasizes the purity and holiness of life and art to which the physician has sworn devotion. - Leon Kass, MD, PhD Addie Clark Harding

Professor, Committee on Social Thought and the College, University of Chicago "Neither for Love nor Money," Public Interest Winter 1989

Government Involvement in End-of-Life Decisions

PRO: "We'll all die.

The text discusses the dilemma faced in modern times when death can be postponed indefinitely due to advancements in medicine. This raises questions about when interventions should cease and nature should take its course, as well as whether our fear of death may unintentionally prolong the dying process instead of promoting living. These decisions are highly personal and socially significant, suggesting that they should not be left solely to government officials or lawmakers who may prioritize other matters like highway funding. An article titled "Planning for Worse Than Taxes" published in the Los Angeles Times on March 22, 2005 supports this viewpoint. On the other hand, supporters argue that cases similar to Schiavo's involve constitutional rights such as the right to life and due process, which could justify intervention from the federal government.

There has been a previous occurrence where the federal government implemented the 'Baby Doe Legislation' in response to the deaths of infants with disabilities in the 1980s. This legislation would penalize hospitals that refuse lifesaving treatment to newborns based on the expectation of disability by withholding federal funds. It is necessary for the medical community to have limitations on their actions towards individuals with disabilities, as we have witnessed the actions some members of this community are capable of when there are no restrictions in place. - Stephen Drake, MS Research Analyst, Not Dead Yet End of Life Planning: Q&A with Disabilities Advocate, Reno Gazette-Journal Nov.

A statement was issued on March 22, 2003, in support

of Palliative (End-of-Life) Care. The statement emphasizes that providing assistance in death does not hinder the delivery of quality palliative care. Instead, it promotes integrating compassionate care and respecting a patient's autonomy. The statement suggests considering death with dignity as a viable option and dismisses the belief that euthanasia and assisted suicide are easier for caregivers compared to palliative care. It points out that physicians involved in assisted dying experience emotional impact, contradicting critics of Dutch euthanasia practice who argue otherwise. Rejecting the separation and opposition between euthanasia/assisted suicide and palliative care endorsed by these critics, the statement highlights that there should not be an either-or situation regarding these options. It emphasizes exploring every suitable palliative option before considering assisted death based on a patient's request.

According to Gerrit Kimsma, MD, MPh and Evert van Leeuwen, PhD, euthanasia and palliative care are not opposing concepts in the Netherlands. They argue that palliative medicine is integrated into end-of-life care and that assisted death at a patient's request is considered part of the overall spectrum of end-of-life care. These ideas are discussed in their 2004 book "Physician-Assisted Dying: The Case for Palliative Care ; Patient Choice".

However, studies have shown that hospice-style palliative care is not widely practiced in the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal. There are limited hospice facilities and organized hospice activity available. Additionally, there is a shortage of specialists in palliative care. Despite these challenges, efforts are being made to promote the growth of the hospice movement within the country. It is possible that the widespread availability of euthanasia may be contributing to this slow progress.

According to Wesley J. Smith, JD Senior Fellow in Human Rights

and Bioethics at the Discovery Institute, a Dutch doctor once expressed indifference towards palliation due to the availability of euthanasia.

Healthcare Spending

PRO: Merrill Matthews Jr., PhD Director of the Council for Affordable Health Insurance argues that while efforts are being made to prevent wasteful spending in various aspects of the American healthcare system, there is no significant limitation on healthcare spending in the United States. Considering how healthcare is financed in the US, it is challenging to argue that adopting physician-assisted suicide is financially necessary for saving money for others.

CON: However, potential savings for governments could be a factor worth considering.

According to the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, the cost of drugs for assisted suicide is significantly cheaper (around $35 to $45) compared to medical care expenses. This cost difference may help compensate for the decrease in treatment and care by offering death as an alternative "treatment" option.

org (accessed May 27, 2010)

Social Groups at Risk of Abuse

PRO: "Disadvantaged populations being overrepresented among patients choosing assisted suicide has been a concern. However, Oregon's experience shows that this has not been the case. In the United States, socially disadvantaged groups include ethnic minorities, the poor, women, and the elderly. A comparison between all Oregon residents who died from January 1998 to December 2002 and those who died by physician-assisted suicide reveals that the latter group was more likely to be college graduates, Asian individuals, younger, divorced individuals, and had cancer or amytrophic lateral sclerosis... Additionally,

6 percent of Oregonians are African American, and none of them have chosen assisted suicide, according to Linda Ganzini, MD, MPH, a Professor of Psychiatry and Medicine and Senior Scholar at

the Center for Ethics in Health Care at Oregon Health & Science University. In her book "Physician-Assisted Dying: The Case for Palliative Care and Patient Choice" (2004), Ganzini argues that assisted suicide and euthanasia could be influenced by social inequality and prejudice, which exist in all sectors of society, including healthcare. She points out that individuals who are most at risk for abuse, error, or indifference in these practices are the poor, minorities, and those with the least education and empowerment. Ganzini does not believe that physicians are more prejudiced or influenced by race and class than others in society, but rather that they are not exempt from the biases present in other areas of collective life. While society strives to eliminate discrimination and the adverse effects of poverty in various aspects like employment practices, housing, education, and law enforcement, it consistently falls short of these goals.

The costs of this failure with assisted suicide and euthanasia would be extreme. There is no reason to believe that the practices will be unaffected by the broader social and medical context. This assumption is naive and unsupportable. " -- New York State Task Force on Life and the Law "When Death Is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context," newyorkhealth.gov 1994 9. Religious Concerns PRO: "Guided by our belief as Unitarian Universalists that human life has inherent dignity, which may be compromised when life is extended beyond the will or ability of a person to sustain that dignity; and believing that it is every person's inviolable right to determine in advance the course of action to be taken in the event that there is no reasonable

expectation of recovery from extreme physical or mental disability.

Be It Further Resolved: That Unitarian Universalists advocate for the right to self-determination in dying, and the release from civil or criminal penalties of those who, under proper safeguards, act to honor the right of terminally ill patients to select the time of their own deaths; and... Be It Further Resolved: That Unitarian Universalists, acting through their congregations, memorial societies, and appropriate organizations, inform and petition legislators to support legislation that will create legal protection for the right to die with dignity, in accordance with one's own choice. -- Unitarian Universalist Association: The Right to Die With Dignity, 1988 General Resolution Unitarian Universalist Association 1988 CON: "As Catholic leaders and moral teachers, we believe that life is the most basic gift of a loving God- a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion. Our tradition, declaring a moral obligation to care for our own life and health and to seek such care from others, recognizes that we are not morally obligated to use all available medical procedures in every set of circumstances. But that tradition clearly and strongly affirms that as a responsible steward of life one must never directly intend to cause one's own death, or the death of an innocent victim, by action or omission... We call on Catholics, and on all persons of good will, to reject proposals to legalize euthanasia.

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, living wills can be utilized to reject extraordinary measures that prolong life. They are also effective in providing explicit and compelling evidence, which may be required by state laws, to refuse care

in the event of terminal illness.

A recent Pennsylvania case demonstrates the significance of a living will. In this particular case, a man from Bucks County did not receive a feeding tube, despite his wife's request, because his living will, which was executed seven years prior, clearly stated that he did not wish to have any artificial invasive form of nutrition, including tube feeding. This highlights the importance of a living will in expressing one's wishes regarding end-of-life care. The authors Joseph Pozzuolo, Lisa Lassoff, and Jamie Valentine emphasize that living wills/advance directives are a crucial component of estate planning.

According to the 2005 CON, the prerequisites for a successful living wills policy are unattainable and living wills often fail to achieve their intended effect. The review of the five conditions for a successful program of living wills revealed that none of the conditions have been met or can be met. Despite the extensive advertising efforts, most people do not have living wills. Additionally, individuals who do have living wills have not thoroughly considered the instructions for life-and-death decisions. Furthermore, those who draft living wills have not provided an effective way for people to accurately express their preferences.

Fourthly, there is a tendency for living wills to not reach the individuals who are actually responsible for making decisions on behalf of incompetent patients. Moreover, living wills do not appear to improve the level of accuracy with which surrogates are able to determine the preferences of patients.