Euthanasia 13 Essay Research Paper Medical advances

Euthanasia 13 Essay, Research Paper

Medical advances have created ethical dilemmas, which no previous generation of doctors has ever faced. New life-sustaining techniques and practices are forcing doctors to ask questions that never needed to be asked before.

Foremost of these is: “How far do we go to save a life”?

Other questions challenge ethical traditions, which have been in place for centuries. “When suffering is immeasurable and a patient’s condition terminal, should doctors be permitted to end a patient’s life?”

“Should doctors take active role in hastening a patient’s death?”

Today, more than ever, the push is on to “change the rules.” Dr. Kevorkian, a leading doctor in the fight in legalizing Euthanasia, while deplored by most medical professionals for his methods, is heralded as a hero on many fronts for bringing this issue into the public square. By all accounts, a time of decision is upon us. “When a fully conscious person requests death, should a doctor assist the person in dying”?

It is the purpose of this speech to present a concise overview of the primary arguments for the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide.

My four primary arguments for legalizing euthanasia are as followed.

1. The mercy argument, which states that the immense pain and indignity of prolonged suffering, cannot be ignored. We are being inhumane to force people to continue suffering this way.

2. The patients right to self-determination. Patient empowerment has been a trend for more than twenty-five years. “It’s my life, my pain. Why can’t I get the treatment I want”?

3. The economics argument, which notes the cost of keeping people alive, is exceedingly high. Who’s footing the bill for the ten thousand people being sustained in a persistent vegetative state? Aren’t we wasting precious resources when an already used up life is prolonged unnecessarily?

4. The reality argument. “Let’s face it people are already doing it”.

Lying in bed, alone in inconceivable pain. For many people the process of dying includes weeks, months even years of pain and suffering. For some, the pain may reach an intensity which even drugs cannot overcome. Even where pain largely can be controlled, distress is caused by loss of control over bodily functions, physical wasting away and mental disarray or incapacity. I ask of you, would you like to die this. For many, this is reality. Not being able to do anything or go anywhere restricted by their medical condition. The Netherlands, the only country where euthanasia is technically legal, has the same criteria for eligibility for assistance to die, as those of the Northern Territory Act. In 1997 2.7% of all deaths qualified under these criteria. A rate which if applied to the Australian death statistics equates to approximately seven deaths per day. Can we call ourselves a humane society and ignore these people. As Professor Ronald Dworkin (Professor of Law, New York and Oxford Universities) says: ” making someone die in a way that others approve, but he believes a horrifying contradiction of his life, is a devastating, odious form of tyranny.

While the common law gives every competent person the right to refuse medical treatment, in practice such a right is often overridden. A person may be certified as mentally incompetent if he or she refuses treatment, which the attending medical professionals believe is warranted. The treatment may then be given legally. Such cases of patient empowerment must be abolished. Alone, among Australian states, South Australia has legislated to allow persons to refuse medical treatment without being subjected to medical veto. All states in Australia, should legislate this law, it is not acceptable that medical professionals have power over a patients will. Some terminally ill patients who have been denied assistance in dying, have attempted to terminate they’re suffering by ending their lives themselves or with the help of loved ones, who are not trained in medicine. Some patients have botched their suicides and brought further suffering to themselves and those around them. Patients should not have to resort to suicide to end their suffering. It is their life, their pain. They should be able to get the treatment they want. As Sir Mark Oliphant said, ” if we so choose, the end of life need not be preceded by intolerable pain, or by senility and loss of bodily functions. Death with dignity is the right of every person who faces an incurable, painful or degrading future.

Caring for terminally ill patients requires a vast amount of money. In 1997, shortly after the senate voted to overturn the Northern Territory’s euthanasia law, doctors from both sides of the euthanasia lobby united in calling for more funds for palliative care. There is a requirement for several hundred million dollars extra to really adequately provide for the needs of the dying, particularly in country areas. I put forth the questions to you, where is the government going to get the money from. The only way of course, would have to be to raise the taxes, or to cut funding from another specific area. Why waste precious resources on something we don’t need to. Prolonging the life of a person, who can no longer live, is pointless and costly. Would it not be better to die a death with dignity, than to succumb to a bed for the rest of your life?

A clinical study showed that 3.5% of deaths in a 12-month period were the result of “euthanasia with-out consent”. 30% of deaths were the result of deliberate end-of-life decisions taken by doctors – which included withholding or withdrawing treatment. Euthanasia without consent is five times more common in Australia than in Holland, where euthanasia is widely practiced. Given by the facts, I ask you why, the government chooses to outlaw euthanasia when it is done anyway. Legalizing it would mean that patients would be able to consult doctors, and not resort to taking it into their own hands, making it safer and better. There would be no need for suicide attempts, consequently there would be less tragedies.

To conclude, the only way for us to go forward would be to follow the lead of the Netherlands in allowing euthanasia to be carried out by medical practitioners under clear guidelines. State governments in Australia would probably have to introduce a legislation to achieve a situation like that in the Netherlands, but when such legislation is introduced they will have made an enormous contribution to the exercise of personal freedom by those individuals who wish to die at a time of their own choosing and with their dignity intact.