Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are one in the same when it comes to the controversial. Euthanasia allows a physician and the patient to choose the option to control the patient’s right to live or die. There are arguments supporting the idea that such an act would be in violation of the Hippocratic Oath that all physicians swear on, specifically the theme that they would “do no harm”. Furthermore, arguments can be made regarding the physician’s authority and role as a medical profession being compromised and disregarded as result of overwhelming patient authority. In an interview titled, “Euthanasia Sets Sail,” Philip Nitschke counters arguments made on the basis that legalizing euthanasia or physician assisted suicide and requiring
…show more content…
By introducing government as the judge of who has the right, you then put the power of life and death into the hands of a third party completely unfamiliar with the case and its specifics. An opinion piece published in the Los Angeles Times (March 2005) counters this proposal by stating, “These extremely personal decisions [right to autonomy; live or die] should not be left to the government, judges, and legislators who are better attuned to highway funding.” Only by creating a world in which medical training and experience aren’t relevant can you justify the idea that the government’s opinion and ruling on this matter is the most relevant and the clear option. We are at a stalemate in regards to who has this right. Every avenue of the argument on who deserves to choose whether a patient has the right to euthanasia has run into a conflict of interest at some point. Perhaps we can come to a proposal that respects the autonomy of the patient, observes the intuition and experience of the physician, and allows the government to legalize euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. I propose that we expand the medical profession and specialize euthanasia as a practice to accomplish
By introducing government as the judge of who has the right, you then put the power of life and death into the hands of a third party completely unfamiliar with the case and its specifics. An opinion piece published in the Los Angeles Times (March 2005) counters this proposal by stating, “These extremely personal decisions [right to autonomy; live or die] should not be left to the government, judges, and legislators who are better attuned to highway funding.” Only by creating a world in which medical training and experience aren’t relevant can you justify the idea that the government’s opinion and ruling on this matter is the most relevant and the clear option. We are at a stalemate in regards to who has this right. Every avenue of the argument on who deserves to choose whether a patient has the right to euthanasia has run into a conflict of interest at some point. Perhaps we can come to a proposal that respects the autonomy of the patient, observes the intuition and experience of the physician, and allows the government to legalize euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. I propose that we expand the medical profession and specialize euthanasia as a practice to accomplish