One of the most fundamental question that is asked often is, “What is life?” Life is a myriad of things. Life is strange; life is beautiful; life is a journey of different possibilities and outcomes. But life is also comprised of difficulties, whether it is facing and overcoming difficult challenges or having to make difficult choices. Life is about making decisions one right after another. One of life’s toughest decision is having to decide when is enough, enough? In this case, when is the pain and suffering of a terminally ill patient enough and what if there was an option for them to end their unbearable suffering? The practice and legality of euthanasia has recently become a topic of discussion because of the ethical and moral values that
…show more content…
Basic issues doctors face is deciding how to balance potential good and potential harm. The Hippocratic Oath is an oath that is taken by new doctors stating that they will uphold professional ethical standards. One of the promises within the Hippocrates Oath is “first, do no harm”. How does one define harm, more specifically, how do physicians define harm? Is there less harm done to a patient by trying to fight a terminal illness with a slim chance of success or is there less harm done to a patient that comes to term with mortality and decides life to take its course? Most doctors might think that death is a failure and goes against their role of healers, but on the contrary, death is the natural order of life and trying to prolong life can do more harm than good. Atul Gawande, a general surgeon, said, “People with serious illness have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. If your problem is fixable, we know just what to do. But if it’s not? The fact that we have had no adequate answers to this question is troubling and has caused callousness, inhumanity, and extraordinary suffering.” While it is understandable for doctors to face the fear of prolonging life or ending life too soon, the right to life or the right to die is a very personal choice and it is a personal choice no one should have the right to make but the patients themselves. Atul Gawande describes the satisfaction of helping one of his patients to a good death rather than inflicting additional harm by “aggressive” treatment, with only a small chance of significantly prolonging the patient’s life. Prolonging life and denying terminally ill patients the right to euthanasia only prolongs and complicates death creating more medical problems instead of focusing on the patient’s well-being and quality of life. For many terminally ill
Basic issues doctors face is deciding how to balance potential good and potential harm. The Hippocratic Oath is an oath that is taken by new doctors stating that they will uphold professional ethical standards. One of the promises within the Hippocrates Oath is “first, do no harm”. How does one define harm, more specifically, how do physicians define harm? Is there less harm done to a patient by trying to fight a terminal illness with a slim chance of success or is there less harm done to a patient that comes to term with mortality and decides life to take its course? Most doctors might think that death is a failure and goes against their role of healers, but on the contrary, death is the natural order of life and trying to prolong life can do more harm than good. Atul Gawande, a general surgeon, said, “People with serious illness have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. If your problem is fixable, we know just what to do. But if it’s not? The fact that we have had no adequate answers to this question is troubling and has caused callousness, inhumanity, and extraordinary suffering.” While it is understandable for doctors to face the fear of prolonging life or ending life too soon, the right to life or the right to die is a very personal choice and it is a personal choice no one should have the right to make but the patients themselves. Atul Gawande describes the satisfaction of helping one of his patients to a good death rather than inflicting additional harm by “aggressive” treatment, with only a small chance of significantly prolonging the patient’s life. Prolonging life and denying terminally ill patients the right to euthanasia only prolongs and complicates death creating more medical problems instead of focusing on the patient’s well-being and quality of life. For many terminally ill