Physicians Assisted Suicide in the USA Research Paper

Physicians Assisted Suicide in the USA - Research Paper exemplarIn addition, the practice would lessen the urgency to develop new medicines designed to prolong life. Those who oppose the practice on religious grounds argue that it is playacting God therefore sinful. Health care professionals cite the Hippocratic Oath which forbids them from carrying out this procedure. This paper will examine the moral and ethical concerns surrounding euthanasia, elucidate the meaning of the term, present arguments both for and against the practice and conclude with a recommendation to resolve the issue. The word euthanasia is from Greek origin meaning good death. Writers of 1700s Britain referred to euthanasia as a being a preferential method by which to die well (Definition, 2007). Euthanasia describes a situation in which a terminally ill patient is administered a fatal dose of medication, is removed from a life-support system or is simply allowed to die without energetic participation such(p renominal) as by resuscitation. A doctors involvement in the procedure could be to either prescribe a lethal dose of drugs with the express intent of ending a life or by intravenously inserting a needle into the terminal patient who then activates a switch that administers the fatal dose (Naji et al, 2005). Physicians, lawmakers, and philosophers have debated the notion of euthanasia since the beginning of recorded history but the wide public debate regarding its legalization has besides surfaced over the past four decades. In the 1970s it became lawful to draft living wills which allows a patient to refuse heroic life saving medical exam assistance in the event they were incapacitated and could only survive by artificial means (Rich, 2001). In some other words, it gave the next of kin the right to transport doctors to pull the plug if the patients condition was considered hopeless, a practice which is now broadly accepted. However, these wills did not eliminate the potential pr oblem of individuals being unbroken alive for incredibly long periods of time in permanent unconscious states as there were often no provisions for withdrawing nutrition and hydration when no other life support interventions were necessary. This oversight has been largely addressed through power of attorney. Today, the debate centers on individual autonomy, whether or not patients who suffer from extreme chafe and have a terminal or degenerative complaints such as Alzheimers, AIDS and multiple sclerosis have the right to an assisted death of the font and time of their own choosing (The Fight, 2004). The euthanasia debate embraces compelling and impassioned arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of euthanasia are concerned with human suffering. Many diseases such as cancer cause a lingering and excruciatingly painful death. Watching a loved one as they wither away from the disease eating away at their organs is tough enough on family members, but to see them suffer even when drugs are administered is unbearable not to character reference what the patient must endure. This emotionally and physically torturous situation is played out in every hospital, every day of the year but serves no purpose.