The term euthanasia comes from the Greek terms eu, which means pleasant, and thanatos, which means death (Starr, 2014). There have recently been many debates and attention regarding right to die legislation in the United States. Currently, only six states have laws allowing patients to seek aid when dying, with California governor Jerry Brown signing the bill into law most recently, on October 5th, 2015. In February of 2015, despite dozens of people testifying in the legislative hearings, Colorado lawmakers rejected the bill that would have allowed Colorado residents to seek aid when dying (Moreno, 2015).
The right to die laws must be spelled out in detail and remain closely monitored for them to be legal, effective, and used in the correct …show more content…
A 2013 report in Washington showed that since 2009, there have been 549 prescriptions written and 525 deaths. Vermont’s numbers are much lower, showing that since 2013, only two prescriptions have been written (Physician-Assisted Suicide Fast Facts, 2015).
The topic of physician assisted death is an extremely controversial issue for many in the healthcare field. Many, many articles exist that expound on the pros and cons of this procedure. The question most debated is whether it is ethical for a physician to aid in a patient’s early death. Both sides, frankly, have compelling arguments for whether the procedure is ethical or not.
The ethical principles that guide the proponents for physician assisted death begin with the respect for a patient’s autonomy. This side argues that a competent adult should be able to make personal decisions about their healthcare and have the right to decide when and how they die. Another ethical principle addressed is justice. This is defined as treating people the same. The argument is that if a patient is terminally ill, they have the right to refuse any kind of interventions that might keep their life going. If a patient is so ill that they are suffering, but are not dependent upon life support measures to keep them alive, treating …show more content…
The insurance company had a narrow set of recommendations for what they considered proper treatment and her $4,000 per month treatments did not fit within their recommendations. They refused to pay for her treatments, but did offer to pay the $50 for medications that would end her life. She felt that this was a very cruel way of being told that they would not put forth the money to help her live, but had no problems with helping her die. The fear in those that disagree with the legalization of assisted death is that lower income patients might not be eligible for treatment or hospice care, even with insurance coverage, but they might be eligible for drugs to assist in their suicide and feel that it is the only option that they have available to them.
Another argument is the issue of professional integrity. When a physician takes the Hippocratic Oath, they state that they will support their patients and that they will do no harm. Those against assisted death argue that providing prescriptions to knowingly help a patient end their life goes against a physician’s oath and whole reason for being in the medical field. How would the population as a whole view the integrity of the medical profession if doctors prescribe medications to harm their patients?
The right to die laws must be spelled out in detail and remain closely monitored for them to be legal, effective, and used in the correct …show more content…
A 2013 report in Washington showed that since 2009, there have been 549 prescriptions written and 525 deaths. Vermont’s numbers are much lower, showing that since 2013, only two prescriptions have been written (Physician-Assisted Suicide Fast Facts, 2015).
The topic of physician assisted death is an extremely controversial issue for many in the healthcare field. Many, many articles exist that expound on the pros and cons of this procedure. The question most debated is whether it is ethical for a physician to aid in a patient’s early death. Both sides, frankly, have compelling arguments for whether the procedure is ethical or not.
The ethical principles that guide the proponents for physician assisted death begin with the respect for a patient’s autonomy. This side argues that a competent adult should be able to make personal decisions about their healthcare and have the right to decide when and how they die. Another ethical principle addressed is justice. This is defined as treating people the same. The argument is that if a patient is terminally ill, they have the right to refuse any kind of interventions that might keep their life going. If a patient is so ill that they are suffering, but are not dependent upon life support measures to keep them alive, treating …show more content…
The insurance company had a narrow set of recommendations for what they considered proper treatment and her $4,000 per month treatments did not fit within their recommendations. They refused to pay for her treatments, but did offer to pay the $50 for medications that would end her life. She felt that this was a very cruel way of being told that they would not put forth the money to help her live, but had no problems with helping her die. The fear in those that disagree with the legalization of assisted death is that lower income patients might not be eligible for treatment or hospice care, even with insurance coverage, but they might be eligible for drugs to assist in their suicide and feel that it is the only option that they have available to them.
Another argument is the issue of professional integrity. When a physician takes the Hippocratic Oath, they state that they will support their patients and that they will do no harm. Those against assisted death argue that providing prescriptions to knowingly help a patient end their life goes against a physician’s oath and whole reason for being in the medical field. How would the population as a whole view the integrity of the medical profession if doctors prescribe medications to harm their patients?