Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
A Patients Right To Die - With A Free Essay Review
Imagine that you are lying in the hospital bed and the past months have brought nothing but agony and pain to you. Tears and sadness can be seen on the faces of your family and friends wishing there was something they could do for you. Then, your doctor informs you that what you have is incurable and will only get worse. Would you be able to live on with the pain and try to make the most of your lifes situation? For years, doctors have been prohibited from helping patients to take their own lives. I believe that a terminally ill patient should have the right to decide if they have had enough. By legalizing euthanasia, also referred to as physician assisted suicide, tremendous misery and anguish of patients can be saved. The right to die should be a fundamental freedom to each person (Gorsuch, 2008).
Patients should have to right to die with their dignity intact rather than have their illness leave them as merely a shell of their former selves. Some say assisted suicides will open a whirlwind response to non-critical patient suicides and other abuses. It is the pain and anguished experienced by the patients and their families that ultimately can be protected. When do we agree with the person going through this anguish first hand and allow them to determine their own destiny? Assisted suicide is done in order to put a stop to a patients agony and suffering. Working with the state government would help nurses and hospitals gain a clearer definition of what assisted suicide covers in order to prevent the abuse of this practice.
Physician assisted suicides, also referred to as euthanasia, have been in existence for hundreds of years. One name more known with this subject is Jack Kevorkian, but he was not the first practitioner of assisted suicides. If we look at Romeo and Juliet, we see how a reluctant sells a vial poison to Romeo, who uses the vial to kill himself after learning of Juliets death. These types of deaths have been seen as honorable in past events. New and often expensive medical technologies have been developed that prolong life. However, the technologies also prolong the dying processes, leading some people to question whether modern medicine is forcing patients to live in unnecessary pain when there is no chance they will be cured. Passive euthanasia when a feeding tube is removed or a respirator is disconnected has become accepted as one solution. However, someone who overdoses on pills remains controversial. Assisted suicide is known as a type of active euthanasia where a doctor provides a lethal prescription dose to a patient who is responsible for performing the final act. Even though changes in modern medicine are continuous, attitudes toward assisted suicide among the legal system are not as unceasing.
Another argument we see in opposition of assisted suicides is that it violates medical ethics. The American Nurses Association (ANA) position statement reads, "A nurse must not act deliberately to end a person's life" (Kjervik, 1996). The Hippocratic oath also states; "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel" (Pretzer, 2000). These are two of the most respected and acknowledged documents in the medical field. What both of these statements are doing is prohibiting any partaking of a patient's life or helping a patient in his or her death. Health care professionals work hard on developing a caring and trusting relationship with their patients, giving support while providing the medical care necessary for the patients well-being. We are working so hard on the relationship than we must also ask ourselves, when is it right to make the patient most comfortable with in incurable and painful disease?
Those against assisted suicide question and bring religious views into play arguing that life must be sanctioned by all means as life is most sacred. Another position seen from the opposition is that when a patient is undergoing medical treatment, they must be made to stay alive for as long as possible no matter what they may want because only God can decide when one may die. We can look at the Terri Schiavo as one example in relation (Quill, 2005). Terri was far beyond life based on an examined life and a medical basis; most philosophers would say she could be considered no longer a person. At what point do we take the best interest of the patient into hand and heart? We see how patients can have a say whether to live off of a machine or to have it unplug and this is justified legally. Because these people cannot speak up for themselves, but those that can and are suffering are unjust in their reasonings.
In summary, everyone is going to have an opinion in this matter just as each case is unique in nature. We can see how one case of someone who is suffering from stage four pancreatic cancer can be sympathized with verses reaching out and trying alternative ways to help a patient with extreme depression wanting to end their life because of what their depression is telling them to do. We have seen changes in the form of more and more hospice and homes in communities and this high need of hospice nurses nationwide. This is a struggle that will be within the medical field for years to come as there is no legal end in sight. The power to protect our civil liberty which is the right to die should lie within us.
I'll begin with your second paragraph, since I've little to say about your first paragraph (but note that some readers prefer a more elaborate thesis statement than the one you offer; i.e., some teachers may want your thesis statement not only to state your view but also to summarize your reasons for holding that view). The second paragraph deals with the topic of patient dignity and with the slippery-slope argument against legalizing euthanasia. Generally, try to keep to one topic per paragraph. I think it would be a good idea, in any case, to devote a paragraph to the question of "patient dignity." It's a fairly vague concept on its own, but it shouldn't be too difficult to make it more concrete. You try to do that by referring to the fact that patients become "merely a shell of their former selves," but really that's just a cliche. Don't be afraid to talk about the actual conditions under which terminally ill patients sometimes must live. For instance, some patients need help eating, washing, and going to the toilet. Some patients wear diapers and need others to change their diapers. Others throw up on themselves, or wet their beds. And so on. That kind of stuff is perhaps unpleasant to write about, but writing about it will allow you to clarify what you mean about dignity.
The third paragraph also deals with more than one topic: the history of euthanasia; the impact of life-prolonging technology; passive euthanasia; assisted suicide properly speaking. One of the problems with having a bunch of different topics in one paragraph is that it is difficult to keep track of your argument; you move very quickly from one assertion to another without pausing to clarify how each assertion contributes to the demonstration of the truth of your thesis. What do we learn from the history of euthanasia, for instance, that might help us rethink our resistance to euthanasia today? (I especially don't understand, by the way, the relevance of the reference to Romeo and Juliet, since its subject is a matter of fiction, not history, although you could argue that it reflects the values of its time). With your reference to modern medical technology, you seem to want to argue that we, in modern times, have all the more reason to be receptive to the idea of euthanasia, but you don't actually, explicitly, make that argument, but instead rush headlong towards your next topic.
So slow down. Divide the topics you actually want to discuss, and want to draw conclusions from, into separate paragraphs. Note that you could devote one paragraph to the difference between historical attitudes and modern attitudes to euthanasia, thus making one topic, that difference and its implications, out of what was originally two topics (the history of euthanasia; modern medical technology). What you want to aim for, in other words, is a paragraph that is argumentatively coherent. To achieve that aim, you will need to know in advance what you want the paragraph to argue. So ask yourself that question every time you go to write a paragraph: what exactly do I want to argue here?
Your next paragraph does deal with one topic: medical ethics. So as a paragraph it is better, more coherent, than the previous paragraph. Note, however, that the paragraph does not culminate in an argument related to your thesis, but rather in a question. It is almost always better to make your claims explicit, instead of relying on your reader to come to the conclusion of you would want the reader to reach. Readers are unreliable!
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say in the last two sentences of your paragraph on the religious opposition to euthanasia. They are worded very awkwardly (the last sentence is not, grammatically speaking, a sentence at all). Revise those sentences with a view to making a compelling case why the religious view is less ethical than the view that favors giving patients the right to physician assisted suicide.
The first sentence of your conclusion is a bit banal, but the second sentence makes a good point, although again not explicitly enough. It may be crucial to the success of your argument that we believe it is possible to tell the difference between cases where euthanasia is justified and cases where it is not. It's not a bad idea to emphasize in your conclusion the point that you make in that respect.
Submitted by: Jinkers02
Howard Ball’s lead essay on this issue is clear and helpful. Yet I think the term “Physician Assisted Death” is evasive and euphemistic. Physicians have for centuries helped patients to die—that is, to endure the process that ends in their death. The question is whether physicians should help them kill themselves—and whether the law should allow physicians to do so. Thus I will use the term Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). This raises a moral question (Is PAS morally right?), and a legal question (Should PAS be against the law?).
First the moral issue. Morality centrally concerns how our choices bear on the intrinsic goods of human persons—such goods as life and health, knowledge, friendship, and others. We ought to care for every person, and that means helping them to attain or preserve these intrinsic goods. Since these goods are the aspects of persons, to act directly against any of them is to act against the person herself. Human life is not something we have; rather, one’s life is identical with one’s concrete reality, that is, identical with oneself. So, a choice to kill a human being, even for a good end, such as to prevent suffering, is contrary to the love and appreciation for the person herself. This is true both of killing others and of killing oneself. Suicide and assisting suicide are objectively morally wrong because they are choices contrary to the intrinsic good of an innocent human person. (I say objectively morally wrong, to distinguish that from moral guilt: someone who makes a choice that is objectively wrong is not at fault for a morally bad choice if she thought what she was doing was right and was not at fault for this mistaken judgment—often referred to as an inculpably erroneous conscience.)
This does not mean, however, that we must always take all measures possible to preserve someone’s life, our own included. It can be morally right to forgo some means of preserving life, even foreseeing that this will result in dying more quickly than one otherwise would. Such a choice is quite distinct from intentional killing—say, choosing to kill oneself by swallowing lethal pills. A choice to forgo excessively burdensome treatment does not involve a failure of respect for the intrinsic good of life. Rather, it is a choice not to use certain means of prolonging life in order to avoid the burdens of that treatment.
This distinction between intentional killing and accepting death as a side effect is important because by our choices we not only select which external behavior will be performed, but we direct our will (the capacity for choosing and intending) toward or against human persons. If I choose to kill someone, then I direct my will against the life—the concrete reality—of a human person.
Some hold that human life is only an instrumental good—not good in itself but only a condition for realizing what is intrinsically valuable. And so they claim that near the end of life our “mere biological life” may be all that is left, and our personal life—our selves—is gone. But that is a mistake: we do not just have or inhabit bodies; rather, we are bodily beings. As I type this sentence I am directly aware that it is the same agent that moves his fingers (a bodily being) and that thinks what to say (a conscious being): it is one and the same being that is both conscious and bodily. And so one cannot justify euthanasia or PAS on the grounds that they destroy a “mere biological life.” To choose to kill the biological life of grandfather is a choice to destroy the one being that grandfather is. (This remains true even though grandfather’s soul—which is only a part of him—survives).
But, it is often objected, why should we not be able to relieve someone’s misery by helping her to die? Isn’t it the compassionate thing to do—as Howard Ball claims—to assist them to kill themselves? We should distinguish between the person who is suffering, and the suffering. When someone we love is suffering grievously we have a strong emotional response. However, what we are reacting to with emotional repugnance is, precisely, the suffering itself of someone who is dying, in severe pain, and gradually losing their vigor and faculties. But it is a different thing altogether to assert that, given that emotion, the best way to act—the best way of helping someone who is suffering a great deal—is to help her kill herself. We rightly abhor the pain and suffering, but not the person herself in that condition. It is right to try to remove the pain and suffering; it is not right intentionally to destroy the person, as a means of removing that pain and suffering.
The moral issue does not by itself settle the legal issue, to which I now turn. Proponents of PAS argue that people’s autonomy should be respected and so the law should allow PAS. It is true that a large degree of autonomy, that is, the absence of restraint on one’s choices and actions, is important as a means to leading a responsible life. But both law and medical practice recognize rightful limits to autonomy. The law requires drivers to wear seatbelts and motorcyclists to wear helmets. There are laws against prostitution, dueling, and the use of certain addictive drugs. All laws limit liberty or autonomy to some extent; the question is whether there is a sufficient public good at stake to limit the liberty at issue.
The protection of life has always been recognized as an essential component of the public good. Especially important is how the culture as a whole—which is profoundly influenced by the law—regards human life. If a culture regards human life as inviolable, that fact protects all of us; if not, then the most vulnerable among us—especially the elderly and the disabled—are in danger. A culture that condones PAS views life as merely conditionally valuable and so views the lives of many of the most vulnerable among us as mere burdens. The elderly, the dying, and the disabled in that type of culture will receive treatment far inferior to what they would receive in a culture that recognized their equal and inherent dignity.
Consider the laws that prohibit physicians from amputating healthy limbs or performing female genital mutilation. If laws prohibiting those procedures were rescinded and those acts became widespread, the message would be sent that these practices are not inherently harmful. Such laws are in place because physicians should perform surgery only to provide a real medical (or cosmetic) benefit to the patient—or at least not significantly harm the patient. In the same way, if the law against PAS were rescinded and PAS were widely practiced, that would send the message that in many cases a person’s life is simply not worth living. The message sent to the elderly and the disabled would be that they may very well lack inherent value. That itself would be a pressure—and not a very subtle one—on the elderly, and on many disabled, to opt for death rather than life. A person’s sense of self-worth is profoundly affected by the views of others in her life and so the sense of self-worth among the elderly, dying, and disabled would be profoundly harmed by the practice of PAS, leading many to despair and to request suicide out of undue deference to others.
Moreover, the logic of decriminalizing PAS for the terminally ill who are suffering grievously would lead inexorably to allowing (and encouraging) other types of killing. If the rationale for PAS is to respect autonomy, then why limit it to those are terminally ill? Why privilege the autonomy of those who are suffering and terminally ill above those who are suffering chronically? If the rationale for PAS is that a person is in misery or has allegedly lost her dignity—if, for such people, death is a benefit—then it will be impossible to deny this alleged benefit to those who lack decisionmaking capacity, those who are unconscious, or demented, or too young to have such capacity (as has occurred in the Netherlands with the open euthanasia of infants).
Thus, out of respect for life, and out of compassion and care for the elderly, dying, and disabled, PAS should remain illegal.
Also from this issue
Physician Assisted Death in America: Ethics, Law, and Policy Conflicts by Howard Ball
Howard Ball reviews the recent history of physician-assisted death (PAD) in America. He argues that it is a fairly direct outgrowth of other trends in our society, including the medicalization of death, the movement toward palliative end-of-life care, and the longstanding concern for individual autonomy that has characterized American legal and political thinking. Social values evolve, and he argues that allowing physicians to assist patients in dying will eventually come to be an accepted value as well, as a matter of compassion for those who are suffering.
The Decriminalization, and Medicalization, of Suicide by Philip Nitschke
Philip Nitschke looks back at the Baby Boom generation. All through their lives, they have broken the mold, in women’s rights, contraception, divorce, and many other areas. Now, as they approach retirement and the end of life, they are again breaking the mold. Death isn’t what it used to be, and a long, drawn-out, medicalized death may not be to everyone’s liking. Yet the law has often lagged behind, and one might even question, with Nitschke: Why do we need law, or physicians, in deliberately ending our own lives?
Say No to Physician Assisted Suicide by Patrick Lee
Patrick Lee urges us to observe the difference between committing suicide and foregoing burdensome treatment. Committing or assisting a suicide both disrespect the intrinsic good of human life and are objectively morally wrong. We rightly abhor pain and suffering, but this sentiment should not lead us to attack the person who is experiencing the pain and suffering. If we do, the lives of the elderly and disabled throughout our society will be devalued, with grave consequences for all.