Debate on Health Care Ethical Issues

HCS/435

Victor Gibb

By: David Moeller, April Shaffer, Josephine Johnson, Rachelle Jacquay, Angie Wellman, Margaret Werzinsky

Intro

Supp Side The topic of euthanasia has been of much debate for many years. Throughout the outline varying sides have been focused on in regards to this topic. On one side there are supporters of euthanasia that believe that each individual has the right to make their own choices when dealing with the quality of life they want to be subjected too. Many are in favor because euthanasia can help decrease the suffering that terminally ill patients have to endure. Then there are those that oppose this line of thinking, “These people are convinced that no individual has the right to determine the end of his life” (Geiger, 2010). When discussing the topic of euthanasia this has been deemed an ethical issue because it deals with moral principles, which is different for each individual.

Opp Side

Supp Side

Euthanasia is a topic that brings about much debate, but when it comes to an individual’s life they should have a legal right to choose what is best for them. Many in opposition of euthanasia go along with the view that it is wrong for a person to end their life and that it is right to have laws that prohibit such actions. But the question that arises is if this legal course gives a person the right that was granted to them in the Declaration of Independence, each individual having the right to the pursuit of happiness. This being the case each individual has the right to choose the course that they believe wills be the best for them and if the government controls this individuals no longer have the right but instead they have to be granted permission. So there is no freedom of choice it is left up to legislation and politics (Bowden, 2007). Euthanasia is not about taking away a person’s choices but instead giving them the option of not having to suffer anymore especially when they no longer want to lead a life of pain. Assisted suicide is about a patient’s freedom of choice and the quality of life that they want to lead.

Opp Side

Refute Pro Side

Within the Declaration of Independence it highlights that each person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you get to the crux of that it means that no one has to have another person's permission to live, and no one should be able to obstruct another person's effort to achieve their own personal happiness. But in the case of a debilitating disease draining the life, will to live, and happiness from a person then that same principle should stand. The right to life includes the right to death. And if the state has to give permission to end a life then it contradicts that right because a person exits now my permission and not by their individual right (Bowden, 2007). It is not about terminally ill patients having extended rights it is about each individual having rights in general. Oregon has passed legislation that has permitted a doctor to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs to a mentally competent, terminally ill patient. This is not just haphazardly done but the patient has to make a written or oral request, consult two separate physicians, and endure a mandatory waiting period (Assisted Suicide, 2009).This can not be done by relatives or doctors, and the patient is the one who has to administer the lethal dose. In this case it is the patients right to make the informed decision for themselves and not someone else deciding for them. When dealing with someone's right to choose euthanasia I do not feel that budgets and money and other things of that nature should be the determining factor in this decision. What I think should be upheld and evaluated is each individual's patient's rights to make their own decision in regards to their life and how they want the end to be. When dealing with terminally ill patients there is no regimen that is taken to "get better". When a patient reaches the point of the last stages of cancer or other illnesses that can not be cured or there body can no longer handle operations because they are so weak and drained then it is not a matter of getting over the depression with a pill or being cured. It is coming to terms with their impending death, so it is not that they are different from anyone else it is that their outlook is different because there is no end in sight for the pain that they feel. "Suicide is a human right. But it is vital not just to have the right but to be able to exercise it, with dignity and without using brutal methods" (Geiger, 2008). Euthanasia is not a means of killing off people arbitrarily, it is a decision made by those who have no hope for a cure and it is something that has been noted by their physicians. There is still a need for medical research to be done so that cures can be obtained. Yes, supporters do believe that doctors have a part in the decision making process of euthanasia by changing the name to "physician assisted suicide (PAS)". (Randall & Downie, 2010) The doctors should be responsible for making the decision, prescribing the lethal overdoes and then administering it, the cause of suffering is illness and overdosing is used to end that suffering. Yes, doctors have assisted in euthanasia in other countries, for example, in Switzerland euthanasia is legal to hasten death by assisting someone who is terminally ill or severely mentally ill since 1941 but police must be notified. Belgium residents only, two doctors must be involved and psychologist since 2002. The role of the U.S. government would have if euthanasia was allowed in medical facilities would be none. The decision of euthanasia should be between the patient and their family, "intensely personal and socially expensive decisions should not be left to governments, judges or legislators better attuned to highway funding." (LA Times, 2005) Administrations and doctors facing ligation and lawsuits if euthanasia was passed would be physicians and advocacy groups being sued if controlled drugs were used could face suspension or revocation of licenses to prescribe federally controlled drugs. I feel that the hospital should change their ethics policy to coincide with the passing of the euthanasia law so that there are minimal decision making issues to be made.

Refute Opp Side

Conclusion

Reference

Geiger, A. (2008, October 24). Why I Prescribe Drugs for Suicide. Times Online. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com

Bowden, T. (2007, October 30). After Ten Years, States Still Resist Assisted Suicide. Ayn Rand Institute.
Eisenberg, J. (2006). The Right Vs. the Right to Die: Lessons from the Terri Schiavo case and How to Stop it from Happening Again. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Geiger, A. (2010, November 28). Assisted Suicide Is a Valid Medical Decision. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ic/ovic/viewpointsdetailspage.
Geiger, A. (2008, October 24). Why I Prescribe Drugs for Suicide. Times Online. Retrieved from http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com
Gorsuch, N. (2009). The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Randall, F. and Randall, R (2010). Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia: Role Contradictions for Physicians. Retrieved December 7, 2010 from http://www.findarticles.com

(2008). Euthanasia in other countries. Retrieved December 7, 2010 from http://www.independent.co.uk

Los Angeles Times. (March 22, 2005). Planning for Worse Than Taxes. Retrieved December 8, 2010 from http://euthanasia.procon.org

(). Euthanasia - Oregon's Euthanasia Law. Retrieved December 8, 2010 from http://law.jrank.org/pages/6602/Euthanasia-Orgeon-s-Euthanasia-Law.html