Euthanasia

Vitamin B12 is important in the growth of cells. The body needs the cells to carry oxygen and nutrients to the body. B12 also works with the nervous system function. It makes up are bodies genetic material, and is essential for the production of red blood cells.

The Hippocratic Oath states, “I will keep [the sick] from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” (Rockett). For centuries, physicians have helped patients to die but that was to endure the lengthy process that leads to their death. A physician pledges that he or she will follow the right path that guides them to practice proper uses of medicine. Taking the vital oath helps civil societies flourish. Some people may be against assisted suicide because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Many claim it is a painless, merciful escape, however there are consequences far from being pain free.

In a Netherlands report it tells, “Many physicians who had practiced euthanasia [form of assisted suicide] mentioned that they would be most reluctant to do so again” (Stevens 189). Everyday these physicians are faced with decisions of how to best save their patient. Now they also, have to determine if they can come to terms with ending their lives. The impact on these physicians is tremendous. Kenneth R. Stevens the Vice President of Physicians for Compassionate Care concludes, “Doctors who have participated in euthanasia and/or PAS [Physician-Assisted Suicide] are adversely affected emotionally and psychologically by their experiences” (187). Physicians, who have made the decision to help, face the consequences of their actions. They have helped someone take a life, even if it their own. Death always leaves an impression. Imagine what it must be like to be directly involved with a death. Those men and women in time will have to come to terms with their participation in Physician-Assisted Suicide.

According to Linda Jackson in Euthanasia, a total of 42 people in Oregon had passed away due to physician-assisted suicide. This fact proves the efficiency of euthanasia to be successful in helping to relieve the terminally ill of their excruciating pain. Additionally, suicide is in fact legal in the states within Australia, so there are a vast amount of states that do allow suicide, however, they do not allow assisted suicide, which are very similar. Many states have opposed to euthanasia due to religious issues and the argument that euthanasia goes against the doctor’s oath to swear to do their best for the patient and commit no harm (Jackson 5). In contrast, euthanasia is not the only operation that would go against what is known as the Hippocratic Oath because in the original Oath, it also had prohibited abortions, surgery, and charging teaching fees, in which, in certain situations, are all allowed today. Being so, the argument stating that doctors are going against the Oath all because of euthanasia is invalid (Jackson 31). Christian attitudes and other major religions of the world pose a problem as well due to the issue of suicide being considered as a sin.

There is also debate as to whether or not non-participating states should make legislation to legalize this life ending option. Those who are against legalization of physician assisted death often present with the arguments that legalization will lead to abuse of the practice and consequently harsh treatments of our nation’s sickest patients. They also argue that it is an unethical practice in which mortals are “playing God” and determining where the line between life and death is. This group also establishes that physician assisted death is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors vow to “do no harm” to their patients. Additionally, they maintain the argument that all human lives have value from the time of conception until natural death and allowing physician assisted death would be a premature limitation of an individual’s life. The opposition, however, says that physician assisted death is a dignified treatment for hopeless patients whose only alternative treatment is prolonged suffering until death. Additionally, they argue that allowing doctors to participate in physician assisted death upholds the Hippocratic Oath because forcing a patient to endure undue suffering against their will is in fact doing harm. Also, a major argument states

Furthermore, legalizing euthanasia in the United States breaches the basic principles medical doctors practice by violating the Hippocratic Oath, damaging the relationship between a doctor and his or her patient, and creating opportunities for abuse. Euthanasia’s legalization allowing physicians to perform assisted suicide defy fundamental elements a physician values. Most primitively, a doctor assisting a patient in her or her death through euthanasia violates an oath taken by all physicians before entering the medical field. This oath is known as the Hippocratic Oath and is taken to guide physicians to make ethical and caring decisions for their patients. John Safranek writes about the Oath’s essentials in his article, “Autonomy and Assisted Suicide: the Execution of Freedom.” In it, he says, “The Hippocratic Oath, professed by doctors through the

The Hippocratic Oath is often seen as the determining factor of all medical decisions, but those decisions can be based off of the wrong participant’s point of view. With a multitude of ethics to follow, physicians have always decided what course of action is the most beneficial to their patients. Living in a constantly shifting society, however, has shed light on the power struggle between the rights of patients and the ethics of medicine. In the case of physician-assisted suicide, the conflict of power should resolve with the ultimate decision-making power resting in the hands of the patients.

In addition, at a medical perspective, the responsibility of physicians is to save people in all circumstances under the Hippocratic Oath – the oldest binding document in human history. That was another reason for those who believe Assisted Suicide is immoral with physicians, but is this Oath fair when applied to incurable patients? To be honest, death is a natural law that every living creature on the Earth will face one day and it is just a matter of time. In most cases, we usually see the death of our loved ones as an unfortunate occurrence or a painful loss rather than a solution to end the pain, especially with terminally ill patients. Based on a recent PEW Research Center study, the author Gary Stein stated that, "62 percent say suicide is morally acceptable for

Euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, is an important and controversial topic in our society today, and (under the correct conditions) should both be considered legal and morally acceptable. In fact, throughout history euthanasia has been a debate in many countries, some areas accepting the practice, whereas others find it unacceptable. Many people and professionals continue to refer to the Hippocratic Oath, an vow stating the proper conduct for doctors, and it's famous words "Do no harm." However, when it comes down to whatever holds people back, whether it is their views on religion or oaths from many years ago, it should be considered a correct practice. In fact, in the case of Vacco v. Quill, one point raised was that "Over time, the Hippocratic Oath has been changed, and deleted. In order to "do-no-harm" one would end suffering instead of prolonging it." With the use of Supreme Court cases, and professional psychologist and medical quotations, one can see the clear reasons that this topic must be allowed. In the end, euthanasia should definitely be considered correct both legally and morally due to one's legal rights, sensible ethical values, and the multiple positive benefits upon the legalization of euthanasia.

Although a callous argument, it is said that euthanasia could be beneficial for the NHS and help keep costs low and free up hospital beds for patients on long waiting lists for treatment. Patients who are terminally ill and near end of life cost the NHS a lot of money, not only with pain relief but by providing staff, beds etc. The option to euthanise people in these circumstances would save money in the long term and this money could be put to good use elsewhere by the NHS, which would be the best choice from a business point of view.

It also means that it slides from terminally ill patients using it, to anybody using it. For instance, people who become depressed and may see this as an option to end their depression, if it became available in the UK. For something as minor as depression (compared to terminal cancer), which can be treated through doctors and psychologists someone could take their life if they had this option. Also, doctors could see it as an opportunity to free up beds in a hospital and save it money at the same time. A 1998 study found that doctors who are cost-conscious and 'practice resource-conserving medicine' are significantly more likely to write a lethal prescription for terminally-ill patients [Arch. Intern. Med., 5/11/98, p. 974]. This suggests to us that medical costs do influence doctors’ opinions.

Medical Assistance in Dying happens when an authorized doctor or nurse practitioner gives the patient medication with the intention of causing this person’s death, at his or her request. It gives the patients in suffering due to an incurable disease the option to terminate their life with proper assistance.1

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many people believe that doctors should not prescribe any medication that ends a person’s life since it is considered to be against the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath states that doctors are professionally obliged to save lives. Some consider euthanasia to be immoral and others say that it is murder. Euthanasia should

Euthanasia is one of the most complex and morally critical health care practice and policy issues that doctors and nurses must face and advocate for (Gardner). Even though doctors and nurses must follow some sort of code of ethics, following those codes can be difficult for some because their personal feelings about end-of-life care come into play making it problematic for them to truly rationalize the situation. Doctors are required to take the Hippocratic Oath, which in relation to euthanasia, states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.