Support Of Euthanasia In The United States

Name Instructor’s name Course Date Euthanasia Some health conditions are irreversible; these conditions could be incurable diseases or incapacitating physical conditions. Individuals suffering from such conditions can decide to end their lives with the assistance of their physicians. The choice of an individual to terminate his/her life with the assistance of a medical doctor because of an incurable and painful disease is known as euthanasia. In some countries euthanasia is allowed while in other countries, it is illegal; the country's decision to legalize or legalize euthanasia is dependent on the morals and ethics of individuals in the country. The act has sparked a lot of debate in the United States, with some people agreeing to it while others are disagreeing. History of Euthanasia The debate surrounding euthanasia began in the United States in 1870 (Law Teacher). The debate started as a result of the proposal made by commentator Samuel Williams to the Birmingham Speculative club encouraging them to permit euthanasia. According to William, this procedure was only to be allowed to people undergoing painful and hopeless situations in their sicknesses; the idea was meant to induce a painless death to the patients. The idea was further motivated by the introduction of morphine anesthetic which could relieve patients of pain and also induce painless death. After the Williams proposal, allot of debate ensued. The proposal was printed in books and magazines; it was further published in journals, literary and political. The printing and publication popularized euthanasia, and therefore many people had the chance to debate the issue. The matter was discussed by both the medical practitioners and non-medical professionals; with some agreeing and some denying. The debate got a boost when it was presented by an Ohio legislator to the Ohio legislative assembly in 1906 in the form of a bill, where it was debated for quite some time (Emmanuel). The Ohio legislators rejected the bill, and people thought that it was the end of the long debate. The issue of euthanasia again emerged in the U.S. in 1976. In that year, California legislatures passed the Natural Death Act. In the Act, patients were given free will to request their physicians to withdraw or withhold life-prolonging treatment. In situations where the patients are incapacitated to make the decision, the relatives could be used to request for life termination. The Act also allowed patients to sign through the attorney the life termination agreement. Since California's introduced the Act, many states in the U.S. have also embraced it, and each state has its laws concerning euthanasia. The first euthanasia case was seen in 1976, the case of the Quinlan’s family. Karen Ann, the daughter of the Quinlan's family who was in a severe condition, when the parents requested through the Supreme Court that she be removed from the ventilator and allowed to die. The New Jersey court ruled in favor of the family and that marked the start of an assisted death. The ruling brought a lot of confusion and debate; with some quoting people’s ethical values and some saying that it would bring bad precedence in the medical history. A second and noted case again occurred in 1990, a case between Cruzan and Missouri. In 1983, Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in an accident that sent her into an irreversible coma. Earlier, before the accident, Nancy had requested that if in any case, she will be in such a state then she would desire to die. Nancy stayed in her coma, up to 1987, when the parents decided to seek permission from the Missouri Supreme Court to allow them to remove the feeding pipes that were sustaining Nancy. The court refused to listen to their plea by claiming that there was no substantial evidence that Nancy wanted to die willingly. The family rejected the decision and moved to U.S. Supreme Court, where their will was granted, and they proceeded to remove the feeding pipes. The U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling that individuals have a legal right that is protecting them to decline undesired medical treatments. The Cruzan case prompted the Congress in 1990, to pass the Patient Self Determination Act. In the Act, patients were allowed to make decisions whether to prolong or terminate their lives in case of an irreversible health condition. The Act required health facilities providing Medicare to inform patients of their right to choose to live or die. The Act also allowed, the relatives to make decisions on behalf of patients who could not reason. So many cases of people demanding for euthanasia have been witnessed. The continuous demands have resulted in the enactment of laws governing euthanasia in different U.S. states (CNN Library). Also, the procedure has been categorized into passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia involves removal of life support equipment while active euthanasia involves the killing of a dying patient, known as physician-assisted-method. Ethics of Euthanasia The continued demand for physician-assisted death is increasing despite the ethical medical requirements. In medical colleges, American College of Physicians, the medical trainees are discouraged from euthanasia. The college claims that the only thing at stake is the trust the patients will have with the doctors (Sulmacy and Mueller). For example, patients go to the hospital to get relief from their illnesses and to be treated, and this is the only hope taking people to hospitals. If now the physicians are now turned to be killers, then the patients will develop fear, and this will adversely affect the patients-physician relationship. The act is therefore not ethical because it is only altering the role of medical professionals in society. The medical teams are supposed to work based on their judgment. The judgment should have a basis from clinical observations, the doctors, and the nurses have collected. In the unexpected situation that the family or the patient requests for the physician-assisted death, the doctors will not be performing their duties, but responding to an external demand not related to the sickness. The medical teams are supposed to care for patients and even in severe situations; they are supposed to give moral support and other supports to ensure the patient's life is improved (Sulmacy and Mueller). If the medical personnel will be lawfully forced to kill, then the medical advancement so far achieved will be in vain; this will only render medicinal value useless. People should receive proper care at the end of their lives. The treatment patients receive in hospitals is part of the care people need. The care should give hope to the patient and the relatives. Employing euthanasia in hospitals only induces physical suffering to the patient and emotional and financial losses to the relatives. People should die with dignity, an honorable death. Since euthanasia is just offering inappropriate treatment, it is ethically abusive to the patient and the relatives. If the situation is terrible to the point of death, the patients should be taken into palliative care instead. Argument for Euthanasia Death should not be painful; people should die peacefully and with dignity. In severe medical conditions, patients undergo a lot of physical suffering; this suffering makes the patient and the relatives undergo psychological stress (Brooks). The stress in itself can result in other stress-related diseases in the patient and the relatives. The suffering also makes the patient suffer desperation. The pain if intense can make the patient forget their body care; the patients will be helpless. In the helpless situations, the relatives have the responsibility to take care of them. The care can be expensive and consuming, mentally, and physically. Therefore, it is advisable to end an individual’s life to preserve them from the pain and the trauma they cause the relatives. Euthanasia is a planned death between the relatives, the patience, and the doctors. The relatives are aware of the death and can have time to share their last memories with the patient before the patient dies, they even have time to say goodbye before the death. The relatives do not suffer emotionally because of the death. For example, in an article written by Law Teacher, 2013, “An Analysis of Euthanasia its pros and cons points out that people who allow their loved ones undergo euthanasia are not worst hit by the death. The anxiety of waiting for bad news is also eliminated. Nobody likes death, and therefore to face the bad omen relatives can come together and witness how their relative is dying. Because euthanasia relieves people of emotional stress, it should be encouraged. According to American laws, people have a right to decide to die if they are terminally ill or physically incapacitated. The right gives patients with long-suffering health conditions room to decide whether they want to continue living or die. Human rights are fundamental and should be observed to the last minute; no one should trample on another person...