The Living Pain Essay Example For Students

The Living Pain Essay The Living PainFor centuries, death was measured by a physician feeling for a pulse and putting a mirror under the patients mouth. If there were no signs of life-no pulse, no breath, death was certified. In the last few decades, however, a physicians duty has not been so simple. More intricate scientific tests may be called for; and the law defining the point at which life ends is not so easy to formulate. Many steps must be taken to determine death. At the same time, many steps must occur so the person can have the right to say that they do not want to be respired. In passive or negative euthanasia the person dies naturally of the disease process; in active euthanasia the person is killed. Active euthanasia is often confused with allowing the terminally ill person to die naturally of the disease. Allowing an individual to die means foregoing or stopping medical treatments intended to prolong life. For example, a terminally ill person on a respirator (breathing machine) in an intensive care ward may request that the machine be turned off and that they be allowed to die. The discontinuation of the life support technology when any realistic hope for recovery has completely vanished is a legal, ethical, and appropriate act also known as passive euthanasia.Through the research of this paper, I have looked at both sides of the argument. I can say that I agree with the side of passive euthanasia. One advocate of the legalization of active or positive euthanasia has said that it matters very much indeed if but one person who would have decided for a quick death is forced to undergo a protracted one. It also matters, of course, if but one person who would have decided to live longer is pressured into accepting a quick death (McKenzie 491). Hein 2For some people, any appeal to utility in considering the desirability of legalizing euthanasia will seem cruel and inappropriate. If passive euthanasia becomes legally and morally accepted, it is inevitable that strong pressures will be put on many patients who do not want to die, but who feel they should not live on, because to do so when there looms the legal alternative of euthanasia is to do a selfish or a cowardly act (McKenzie 479). An important attempt to incorporate euthanasia into law took place in England in 1931. Dr. Killick Millard, health officer for the city of Leicester, gave his presidential address before the Society of Officers of Health. In a subsequent article in Fortnightly Review, he presented his specific proposals in a draft bill entitled The Voluntary Euthanasia Legalization Bill. It included the following provisions: 1. An application for a euthanasia permit may be filed by a dying person stating that they have been informed by two medical practitioners that they are suffering from a fatal and incurable disease, and that the process of death is likely to be protracted and painful. 2. The application must be attested by a magistrate and accompanied by two medical certificates. 3. The application and certificates must be examined by the patient and relativesinterviewed by a euthanasia referee. 4. A court will then review the application, certificates, the testimony of the reefer and any other representatives of the patient. It will then issue a permit to receive euthanasia to the applicant and a permit to administer euthanasia to the medical practitioner (or euthanizer). 5. The permit would be valid for a specified period, within which the patient would determine if and when they wished to use it. (Humphry 13)Hein 3Are these the kind of pressures we want to inflict on any person, let alone a very sick person? Are these the kind of pressures we want to impose on any family, let alone an emotionally shattered family? And if so, why not also proper considerations for the crippled, the paralyzed, the quadruple amputee, the iron-lung occupant and their families?The withholding of grand-style heroic surgery from a ninety-nine year old hopelessly dying patient who begs to be left alone is not euthanasia even if surgery could prolong the life several more weeks. The injection of a massive dose of morphine to this same patient, producing death, would be considered euthanasia. The difference is that of an act of commission as opposed to an act of omission. Euthanasia induces death by commission. It does not allow nature to take its course. The act itself is t he same cause of death. Opening an-inground swimming p EssayThe reluctance of medical practitioners to provide individuals with the means to their own death is often speciously justified by reference to the sanctity with which doctors are expected to regard all human life. The Hippocratic Oath is sometimes invoked: I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked; or the Declaration of Geneva: I will maintain the utmost respect for human life. More pragmatically, it may be argued that doctors must work by a single, overriding principle to improve health and prolong life and that it would place them in difficult positions if they had to compromise this aim. This deference rings somewhat hollow, however, in the face of what actually happens in practice. For we find that doctors do make termination decisions as a matter of choice, and without the concent of their victims. I am not speaking here only of the killing of foetuses. Doctors apply non-voluntary euthanasia to the elderly, to comatose patients and to handicapped babies, among others. What sort of profession is it which refuses to do what its clients want, and kills them without their concent?Hein 6Now many of the people who advocate this form of euthanasia are apparently agreed that the concent of the patient is crucial, and that involuntary euthanasia is ruled right out of the court. Yet consider the proposed development in the light of the current situation. On the one hand, assisted suicide, where a person such as your relative helps you to die, is currently illegal, and there is no suggestion that it be made otherwise. On the other hand, doctors killing certain categories of patients without their concent, such as the senile or the comatose, by withholding treatment, is a regular occurrence. Is the legalization of euthanasia more likely to be a development out of the former or the latter of these two policies?In conclusion, I believe that euthanasia should be legal if a person is on life support and will be for the rest of their life, and also if they are suffering. I do not believe that euthanasia should be used as a means of assisted suicide, also known as active euthanasia.