Outline for Arguments on PAS and Euthanasia
When addressing the matter of Euthanasia and PAS, “we must first acknowledge that figuring out the benefits and harms of permitting euthanasia or PAS is speculative at best” (Emanuel). As well, it is important to acknowledge the fact that, “no matter which social policy regarding euthanasia or PAS is adopted - legalization or maintaining the current policy of permitting them in individual cases - there will be both benefits and harms” (Emanuel). In this argument, it will be shown that legalizing Euthanasia and PAS within the United States, will help people, by allowing terminally ill patients to realize the end of a good death or, more accurately, a create a higher quality dying experience for them. …show more content…
Regarding the topic of ‘death with dignity’, the legalization of PAS and euthanasia offers terminally ill patients self-autonomy, and as will be shown, gives them comfort, confidence, and closure. A person’s last moments on earth should not be spent needlessly suffering from severe physical pain. Terminally ill patients become dependent on other people for their nutrition, hydration, and hygiene (Levin). Instead of spending time in discomfort, the terminally ill should be at rest. The process deserves to be joyful and respectful. As studies show, “many terminally ill patients fear that as their condition progresses they will lose physical function, mental function, and independence. They will lose their sense of autonomy and their ability to enjoy life” (Levin). Additionally, depression and hopelessness, rather than pain, are the primary factors motivating patients’ who wish to die. (Levin). Terminally ill patients suffering from depression are four times more likely to desire death than those not suffering from depression. Finally, a 2002 study shows that the three most common end-of-life concerns for patients choosing PAS and euthanasia, were, “loss of autonomy, a decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life …show more content…
It’s been over 27 years, and thus far, the benefits of legal PAS and euthanasia are clear: (1) the legislature has created safeguards and regulation for people requesting PAS, and, (2) the statute provides a higher quality experience in death. In addressing the first issue, keep in mind, regulation is important, as what are known as “vulnerable groups”, may fall victim to outside pressures withem safeguards. Vulnerable groups such as those pressured by economic interests, family interests, mental disorders, etc. (Steinbock). The law states, “if an Oregon resident has less than six months to live and is mentally competent, she can request that a physician prescribe her drugs that will cause a quick and painless death” (Gill). Furthermore, “Oregon requires that a patient be referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist for treatment if the prescribing or consulting physician is concerned that the patient’s judgment is impaired by a mental disorder” (Warnes). Thanks to the protections offered by the ODDA, “ [...] fears about the abuse of vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, poor, uneducated, or minorities, [do not] seem to have materialised” (Steinbock). However, while this is true, does this statute legitimately help create a higher quality dying experience? Well, “according to the Fifth Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with
When addressing the matter of Euthanasia and PAS, “we must first acknowledge that figuring out the benefits and harms of permitting euthanasia or PAS is speculative at best” (Emanuel). As well, it is important to acknowledge the fact that, “no matter which social policy regarding euthanasia or PAS is adopted - legalization or maintaining the current policy of permitting them in individual cases - there will be both benefits and harms” (Emanuel). In this argument, it will be shown that legalizing Euthanasia and PAS within the United States, will help people, by allowing terminally ill patients to realize the end of a good death or, more accurately, a create a higher quality dying experience for them. …show more content…
Regarding the topic of ‘death with dignity’, the legalization of PAS and euthanasia offers terminally ill patients self-autonomy, and as will be shown, gives them comfort, confidence, and closure. A person’s last moments on earth should not be spent needlessly suffering from severe physical pain. Terminally ill patients become dependent on other people for their nutrition, hydration, and hygiene (Levin). Instead of spending time in discomfort, the terminally ill should be at rest. The process deserves to be joyful and respectful. As studies show, “many terminally ill patients fear that as their condition progresses they will lose physical function, mental function, and independence. They will lose their sense of autonomy and their ability to enjoy life” (Levin). Additionally, depression and hopelessness, rather than pain, are the primary factors motivating patients’ who wish to die. (Levin). Terminally ill patients suffering from depression are four times more likely to desire death than those not suffering from depression. Finally, a 2002 study shows that the three most common end-of-life concerns for patients choosing PAS and euthanasia, were, “loss of autonomy, a decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life …show more content…
It’s been over 27 years, and thus far, the benefits of legal PAS and euthanasia are clear: (1) the legislature has created safeguards and regulation for people requesting PAS, and, (2) the statute provides a higher quality experience in death. In addressing the first issue, keep in mind, regulation is important, as what are known as “vulnerable groups”, may fall victim to outside pressures withem safeguards. Vulnerable groups such as those pressured by economic interests, family interests, mental disorders, etc. (Steinbock). The law states, “if an Oregon resident has less than six months to live and is mentally competent, she can request that a physician prescribe her drugs that will cause a quick and painless death” (Gill). Furthermore, “Oregon requires that a patient be referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist for treatment if the prescribing or consulting physician is concerned that the patient’s judgment is impaired by a mental disorder” (Warnes). Thanks to the protections offered by the ODDA, “ [...] fears about the abuse of vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, poor, uneducated, or minorities, [do not] seem to have materialised” (Steinbock). However, while this is true, does this statute legitimately help create a higher quality dying experience? Well, “according to the Fifth Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with