Implications Post

The question that I have been exploring through this entire blog experience is whether euthanasia should be legalized or not. If this issue were to remain unsolved there are two things that I am proposing would happen. One the people that oppose euthanasia would be satisfied, and two the people who are for the right to euthanasia would continue to fight. The debate will not simmer down just because questions go unanswered. There will always be those who will continue to fight for the right of a person to decide if they want to end their life. And there will also always be those who continue to fight for life. The problem with such a controversial topic as euthanasia is that politicians do not want to make a ruling about it. Similarly to abortion and gay marriage most would rather for the debate to continue rather than getting the problems resolved. This way they are not upsetting any particular group. There are so many grey areas and circumstances when it comes to terminally ill patients and it is rather difficult to make one laws that fits all of these circumstances. The popularity of the topic of the debate dwindles as time goes a long when there is uproar about the topic. There only seems to be big publicized debate about euthanasia when there is a sad story of some old man, woman or terminally ill patient who feels that they have the right to end their own life. Until a story like this comes about, it is easy for those who make laws to put this topic on the backburner. It is easy to see that the media has a lot to do with the strength of the sentiments of heated topics such as euthanasia. With this being said, I do believe that one good outcome to the issue being unresolved is the possible increase in palliative care. With no legal way to permanently end suffering through death, physicians and health care providers will hopefully work harder to relieve their patients of stress and pain through other methods.

Doctor's View of Euthansia

It is important to look at how physicians feel about active euthanasia simply due to the fact that they will be the ones with the ability to perform it if it does become legalized. A study was performed at the University Of Miami School Of Medicine to view the sentiments of medical students, physicians, and house staff about euthanasia. There were 360 persons involved in the story. The results of the study show that the majority of the participants were more willing to perform passive euthanasia and more against performing active euthanasia. Only a small percentage of 6% would be willing to administer a drug to end the life of a patient if they requested it. This may only be a small population of the many hospitals in the United States but the number presented in this study say a lot. I think that we should listen to doctor’s opinions when it comes to Euthanasia.

Theory Post

When a person says that a certain issue is a matter of life or death they are often being sarcastic. With euthanasia; however, this is not the case. The legalization of active euthanasia is in fact a matter of life and death! This is what makes this topic so debatable. I do not believe that there is a way to bring the polarized sides together. The debate over euthanasia goes all the way back to ancient Greece and Rome. Most of the debate came into the spotlight in the 1990s in the United States when Dr. Kevorkian invented a machine that would allow his patients to inject themselves with lethal doses of potassium chloride. It has been going on since then and will continue to go on due to the fact that one cannot change someone else’s feeling about whether they think it is permissible for a doctor to assist to kill his or her patient. Something as important as the jurisdiction to take a life is very difficult to come to an agreement on. With the different medical conditions that have to be considered, and the politics surrounding the topic, a solid yes or no to active euthanasia’s morality could quite possibly never be answered.

Class Links

As a blogger I aim to engage in other's posts as well, here are a few blog sites that I have found interesting and intellectually stimulating:

nonlinearperspectives
The blogger explores the pros and cons to legalizing marijuana. It is not simply a plea to get high but he offers the benefits linking to economy, medicine, and society.

18equalsadult
This page is definitely worth visiting because it deals with a social issue that affects everyone. The blogger provides clear knowledge of the topic and also has relevant cartoons and pictures to support her claim that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. The blogger has a light tone but that does not undermine her stance on her topic.

lovehatethemedia
The blogger conveys their passion for sports throughout all of the blogs, making her topic appealing to others. Use of videos and analysis of these videos defines what makes athletes role models and whether this is a good or bad thing for the young impressionable community.

Euthanasia in Other Countries

When looking at bringing something into law it is often helpful to look at how it has worked out in other countries. For this reason, I have decided to dedicate this post to becoming more knowledge about legalized euthanasia in foreign countries. In other countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland euthanasia is legal. Many countries have the rules that two doctors have to be involved with the procedure. It is easy to say if these countries are legalizing euthanasia then why shouldn’t we? But these countries differ in health care practices. The Netherlands for example has a very high medical care standard. Most (95%) of the population has health care and there is heavy emphasis on palliative care. Before euthanasia should even be considered in the United States I think that we should adopt the practice of more palliative care. Then maybe more patients would be able to cope and not wish to end their lives. In Japan there are four requirements that permit active euthanasia. They are: the person is in excruciating pain, death has to be inevitable, all possible treatments have been performed, and the patient has clearly communicated their desire to end their life early. In Holland the rules are not as serious. The person does not have to be terminally ill and the only requirements are for the patient to make a request and have unrelieved pain. Holland’s rules are definitely not the grounds that I want the United States to go toward and I am sure that most American’s feel this ways. Japans policies; however, are very tempting grounds for the legalization of active euthanasia and could possibly be the basis for the United States if we were to legalize euthanasia in all fifty states.

Euthanasia and Health Care Reform

There is a big debate arousing in the United States about the health care reform. Some are saying that this could promote euthanasia in the elderly. Along with the other points that are outlined in the plan there is a plan for the elderly on Medicare to have sessions that counsel them about end of life plans. In these sessions you know what will be discussed…euthanasia! I do not know about any of you but I would not want my grandmother or grandfather going to any session with euthanasia as a main topic. This will definitely lead to older people ending their lives sooner. This part of the bill ‘may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia’. End of life consultations as they call it have been in the workings since 1990, but I cannot imagine paying taxes for someone to counsel elderly people on how to end their life sooner. It does not matter if it is in the society’s best interest or not this is flat out wrong! On the other hand certain politicians say that this is not in any way what the goal of these consultations is. It could be that these would simply inform patients about their choices and they would not be forced to sign any type of living will. There are many secrets and new arguments occurring daily about the hot topic of health care. What do you think about its affect on euthanasia? Do you think that a person would even considered euthanasia if it was not proposed by a doctor?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25486.html#

Revised Analysis Blog

From the previous posts you can obviously tell that my topic for this blog is euthanasia. Although it is often called the “good death” my posts over the next couple of weeks will examine the bad nature of this practice. After doing more research, writing blogs, and reading the comments to these blogs I have decided to narrow my topic down a little bit. There are two forms of euthanasia. One is passive euthanasia which is removing life sustaining treatment or withholding treatment from a patient. The other is active euthanasia. Both forms of euthanasia have been covered but the main type that I am proposing that is immoral is active euthanasia. As I have stated before, active euthanasia is the acceleration of death by injection of drugs. These are two distinct opposites because one allows the patient to die and the other intentionally brings about the death of the patient.

There are many opposing arguments facing active euthanasia. One argument that agrees with active euthanasia is that it is an act of mercy. Some question how one could think that it is cruel to deny a suffering person the right to end their agony. This argument leads to active euthanasia being in the best interest of the patient. It is the sentiment of some that if a person only has sorrow left in their life, then aiding them in ending their life is in the best interest of the patients. And still others feel like a person should not be forced to stay alive against his or her own will . Autonomy after all is all about the freedom of a person to make decisions about his or her own life and medical treatment.

Then there is the other side of the argument. A lot of people are against active euthanasia for many reasons. The American Medical Association states that active euthanasia goes against protocol for doctors. Even the American Geriatric Association feels that if a patient is inquiring about euthanasia then this should “trigger” the health care provider to understand the patient’s pain and put forth all efforts to relieve this pain. It is wrong to kill a person or to help a person to kill themselves. The sanctity of life is a major argument for those that are against euthanasia. This deals with the fact that life is something to be promoted and cherished and to not be taken for granted. Life should be respected in all of its stages, even if the last stages of life are painful and hard to endure. I do realize that not everyone believes in God that will read this post, but it is the argument of some that humans are playing God by deciding when a person’s life should be over. Even with the new health care plan proposed by Obama, many older citizens are questioning whether the legalization of euthanasia will force them to sign living wills saying that they would like to receive physician assisted suicide. The truth in this matter has many people and especially senior citizens worried that a part of cutting cost is by legalizing euthanasia.

When deciding upon whether euthanasia is right or wrong there are a lot of things that need to be balanced out. For instance is saving a person’s life inferior to saving that person from pain and also is loss of life better than loss of pain? These and many more questions that must be examined and answered before one is able to come to a conclusion as to whether active euthanasia should be legalized. If it is illegal to kill another person, is there really a difference between murder and active euthanasia? Active euthanasia is also known as mercy killing, but is this really an act of mercy ? And with euthanasia only being legal in the state of Oregon do we really want this legalization to spread to all of the states of America? It is my sentiment that when there is an absence of hope, there should always be an “err on the side of life”.

This is an interesting story about a woman named Charlotte Allen who was harassed by her health care providers to sign a living will. She had to face the reality of this so called “good death.” For more on this story click here

Coping With Pain

I just so happened to come across this website that said that after spending 10 days in the hospital, most terminally ill patients stop receiving concern about their treatment. I can see why this would cause some to want to end their lives. But I am also convinced that this is no reason to legalized active euthanasia. These instances that have been brought to my attention require a cracking down on the health care team of terminally ill patients. Just because a patient is in the hospital or hospital like setting for an extended period of time does not give reason for their life to be ended. It is the doctor’s job to communicate with his or her patients and come up with a treatment plan that keep s the patient comfortable in their possible last stages of life http://hubpages.com/hub/EUTHANASIA--GOOD-DEATH. Increasing funding for hospice for example is a great alternative to just killing a patient through euthanasia. It enables one to die with dignity, handle unfinished business, and manage pain. These are all topics that were addressed in many arguments for the allowance of euthanasia.

Clarification

There has been a lot of comment posted confusing DNR order to euthanasia. The two subjects are kind of similar because they both deal with plans to end one’s life. For these reasons I will clarify the difference between the two in this post. A DNR (do not resuscitate) is a legal order for health care professionals not to revive a person if the patient’s heart stops beating or they stop breathing. It basically tells the members of the health care team not to perform CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation). Euthanasia; however, is the voluntary ending of one’s life. There are two common forms of euthanasia. The first is active euthanasia. This is when some type of drug is injected to provoke death. Some examples of these drugs include: morphine, barbiturates, and curare. Active euthanasia is my main focus for the next couple of weeks in this blog. The second type of euthanasia is passive. This involves the termination of life sustaining treatment that a patient was receiving. Examples of this are taking a person off life support and ending the providence of food usually through a feeding tube. I can accept this type of euthanasia due to the fact that there is nothing done by the doctor to bring about death and the patient just dies due to their illness. Passive euthanasia and DNR are the two subjects that people sometimes group together. I hope that this helps with the distinction between Euthanasia and a do not resuscitate order.
http://www.mlpd.mb.ca/reports/dnr/2.1.html
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/etexts/deathanddying_text/Rachels_Active_Passive.htm

un-biased

As a first time blogger, who has an opinion on my topic of euthanasia it is important to remain unbiased while going through this experience. Therefore, in this post I will point out and discuss some exceptions that could possibly constitute for euthanasia (physician assisted suicide). First off there are a lot of people that go through excruciating pain that the health care professionals are not able to alleviate. I can see how this would bring about a miserable life for a person and the possibility that there could be an end to their suffering might seem like the best option. I especially consider this for the elderly who have lived their life to the fullest and are ready for the end to come. Second, some patients feel a loss of dignity when faced with severe sickness or disease. Personally I have experienced clinical rotations at a nursing home and have seen first-hand the effects of this. Instances such as these could cause for the inquiry into euthanasia. The dehumanized sentiments felt by persons going through these predicaments could cause them to fell that ending their life is the best thing to do. I hope that most physicians would perform this practice if legalized in the best interest of their patient. With that being said, if euthanasia were to be implemented by doctors there would have to be precise guidelines that would have to be followed to ensure that the jurisdiction given to doctors to perform euthanasia is not abused http://www.thehumanist.com/humanist/articles/rogatz.htm.

Introduction

Is Euthanasia (physician assisted suicide) a merciful act or a murderous act? This is the question at stake and the topic of my blog. A lot comes into play with the topic of euthanasia. By definition euthanasia is “the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.” http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/index.html. Some think that it is a way for terminally ill patients to be put out of their misery, while others believe that it is just a cry for help where most of the patients are depressed and not thinking clearly. http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/facts/keypoints.html . I am proposing that physician assisted suicide is not a way to solve the problems of people going through pain. The second part of the word healthcare is CARE. It is a doctor’s job and duty to care for their patients and to “keep them from harm and injustice.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html. The act of assisting someone to end their lives is totally an injustice and is inflicting harm on the patient which goes against the Hippocratic Oath. A oath that all health care providers are supposed to follow. When you assist someone to kill themselves, problems are not solved just because the life of the person with the problem has ended. You are giving up on the person and their condition, and by doing so you are also allowing the patient to give up on themselves and their life. There is so much at stake with this topic and the possibility of lives being loss is serious. What do you think about the practice of physician assisted suicide?