Реферат: Euthanasia Essay Research Paper EuthanasiaOne of the

Euthanasia Essay, Research Paper

Euthanasia

One of the most recent political issues that has come up has been euthanasia. Being form Michigan I am very familiar with this topic, since we just had a proposition to legalize assisted-suicide. I am a strong supporter of euthanasia, and feel that it is a person right to end their suffering if they feel that it is too great to live with. Euthanasia is tolerated in the medical field under certain circumstances when a patient is suffering profoundly and death is inevitable. Each person may define euthanasia differently. Who is to decide whether a death is good or not? Is any form of death good? Each person can answer all of these questions differently. It is generally taken today to mean that act which a health care professional carries out to help his/her patient achieve a good death.

Auto-euthanasia or assisted suicide can be justified by the average supporter of the so-called “right to die movement” for many reasons: The first reason is that an advanced terminal illness is causing unbearable suffering to the individual. This suffering is the most common reason to seek an early end. My family was faced with this issue 3 years ago when my grandfather was very ill. Until you see someone who is actually suffering it is very hard to understand how and why euthanasia could be the correct choice. It is still very hard for me to talk about my grandfather, but after seeing him suffer I have no doubt in my mind that euthanasia can help many people end their suffering. The second reason to perform euthanasia is because of a grave physical handicap exists that is so restricting that the individual cannot, even after due care, counseling, and re-training, tolerate such a limited existence. This handicap is a fairly rare reason for suicide; most impaired people cope remarkably well with their affliction, but there are some who would, at a certain point, rather die.

There are many ethical guidelines for euthanasia in today s society. If the following guidelines are met, then euthanasia is considered acceptable to me. The person must be a mature adult, this is essential. The exact age will depend on the individual and their suffering, but the person should not be a minor. Secondly, the person must have clearly made a conscious decision. An individual has the ability now to indicate this with a living will, and can also, in today’s more open and tolerant society, freely discuss the option of euthanasia with health-care professionals, family, and lawyers. The euthanasia must not be carried out at the first knowledge of a life-threatening illness, and reasonable medical help must have been sought to cure or at least slow down the terminal disease. I do not believe in giving up life the minute a person is informed that he or she has a terminal illness. Life is precious, you only live once, and it is worth a fight. It is when the fight is clearly hopeless and the agony, physical and mental, is unbearable that a final exit should be an option. The patients doctor should be informed, asked to be involved, and his or her response been taken into account. The physician’s response will vary depending on the circumstances and their personal views, of course. It is best to inform the doctor and hear his or her response. For example, the patient might be mistaken about the severity of their illness. Perhaps the diagnosis has been misheard or misunderstood. Patients raising this subject were met with a discreet silence or meaningless remarks in the past, but in today’s more accepting climate most physicians will discuss potential end of life actions. The person should also have a Will disposing of his or her worldly effects and money. This shows evidence of a clear mind, an orderly life, and forethought to what will come. All which are important to an acceptance of rational suicide.

The person must have made plans to die that do not involve others in criminal liability or leave them with guilty feelings. Assistance in suicide is a crime in most places, although the laws are gradually changing, and very few cases ever come before the courts. Michigan recently voted against Proposal B which would have legalized assisted suicide. The only well-known instance of a lawsuit concerning this is the doctor-assisted suicide by Dr. Kevorkian, who coincidently I have met a few times in our home town of Royal Oak, Mi. My personal opinion of Dr. Kevorkian is that he is a caring man who has only been trying to help individuals relieve the pain in their lives by the only means left. I feel that before the person carries out euthanasia they should leave a statement saying exactly why he or she is taking their life. This statement in writing removes the chance of misunderstandings or blame being put on others. It also demonstrates that the departing person is taking full responsibility for the action. .

There has been controversy over the means in which a person carries out

euthanasia and to what extent the doctor should be involved. “I’m facing a debilitating disease which has led to a quality of life that is not satisfactory to me. I refuse

to live by healthy people’s rules. I want choice.” (Austin Bastable, MS sufferer) Who has

the right to tell this man that he has to suffer the rest of his life? It was impossible for me

to watch my grandfather everyday as his illness slowly overtook him. So what are our

choices when it comes to euthanasia? Disconnecting respiratory devices is not an

acceptable method of euthanasia. It causes the patient to starve for oxygen and gasp

for it, but when he or she cannot breathe, the body is starved of oxygen and

suffocates. This is not merciful by any means. “One reason why so many people think

that there is an important moral difference between active and passive euthanasia is

that they think killing someone is morally worse than letting someone die” (Leon

Kass) . The idea that a patient utilizes a medical device and has grown dependent on it

for life is a grim one indeed, which I would not like rely on. However, relieving a

patient who relies on this machine for his or her life by simply cutting it off is not

acceptable. Simply stopping medical intervention and allowing nature to take its

course is fundamentally different from mercy killing. For one thing, death does not

necessarily follow the discontinuance of treatment. Euthanasia is the physical

action of putting someone to a painless death who is suffering tremendously. The

passive nature of allowing someone to die is not euthanasia. This is not a physical

action taken by a doctor to ease a patient’s suffering and agony

The doctor should decide whether the ailment is curable and if it is not, he or

she should decide whether the patient will live productively for months or even years

to come. If the ailment is not immediately fatal, will it cause pain and suffering for the

--> ЧИТАТЬ ПОЛНОСТЬЮ <--