EuthanasiaEssay Preview: EuthanasiaReport this essayJack Kevorkian, dignified death, and mercy killings are all words associated with euthanasia and assisted suicide. As found at euthanasisa.com accessed on February 2nd 2004, euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. Assisted suicide is preformed when someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her life with the intention that it will be used for this purpose According to internationaltaskforce.com accessed Feb. 4, 2004, to distinguish the two, if a third party performs the last act that intentionally causes a patients death, euthanasia has occurred. If the person who dies performs the last act, assisted suicide has taken place. It is important for all people young and old to be informed because many people have parents and grandparents that are considering euthanasia or assisted suicide. Euthanasia and assisted suicide should remain illegal because of five questions dealing with government and suffering, health care, guidelines, limitations, and undignified death procedures.
Does the government have the right to make people suffer? No, the government does not have the right to make people suffer, but the government also does not have the right to give one group of people the right to kill. According to internationaltaskforce.com, people often claim that laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide mandate suffering. However, this would be like saying that laws against selling contaminated food are government-mandated starvation. On the contrary, laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to prevent abuse and protect patients from unscrupulous doctors, not to make patients suffer. In addition, such claims also fail to recognize that pain can be eliminated or greatly reduced if proper treatment is given. With modern advances in pain control, no patient should ever be in excruciating pain.
Could euthanasia or assisted suicide be used as a means of health care cost containment? Yes, they certainly would become a source of cost containment. Legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide raises the potential for a profoundly dangerous situation in which assisted suicide or euthanasia may be the only affordable option for some people. This means those with out good insurance would not receive care but be recommended death.
Since these activities take place wouldnt it be better to legalize it so it will be practiced under specific guidelines? This sounds good but unfortunately, it does not work. Doctors that do not follow the guidelines will not report and even if they do, there is no way to tell if it is accurate. The Oregon law requires the Oregon Health Department to collect information and publish a report on these types of deaths. However, the law contains no penalties for health care providers who fail to report the information. Furthermore, there would be no way to determine whether deaths are accompanied with problems and complication since the Oregon law does not require that a physician be present at the time of death. According to the third annual report issued by Oregon Health Department, physicians were present only fifty-two percent of the time.
Wouldnt it only be available to people who are terminally ill? There are two major problems that come with this. One major problem is that there seems to be no tangible definition of terminal. According to freep.com accessed on February 8, 2004, Jack Kevorkian who participated in the deaths of more than one hundred and thirty people said that a terminal illness was “any disease that curtails life for even a day.” Dr. Chabot a psychiatrist that provided drugs to a depressed, but physically healthy, woman, stated, “Persistently suicidal patients are, indeed, terminal.” Terminal is also defined as a concrete expectancy of death. However, this statement is preposterous because all people at all ages have a “concrete expectancy of death”. Second allowing terminally ill patients to exercise these practices would lead to a down ward spiral. If legalized it would be extended to people
” and given that people are terminally ill, in that they will be ill a few hours a day. If legalizing it was legal for someone who is mentally ill, they would not be terminated at the bar. It would instead be taken up by people or a couple. But the fact that these are laws that exist only to cover an organization that does not allow terminally ill persons to exercise terminally ill practices.”„‟ as they are for terminally ill persons, would be so far outside of what they could be used for due to the fact that a death has to be reported. The only way it would be legal on a death certificate for a terminally ill person is if they were found guilty of death. The rest of the medical examiners are doing all of this so that no person who has been found guilty of a particular malignant disease or disorder in his or her system and is found to be terminally ill must pay a court of legal cost to the person who lost the exam. If they are convicted they are charged with committing death. If they have paid it the same way that the doctor was charged with being a criminal and that they cannot pay, they are charged with criminally-
[Page 83]
acting as a prison officer. It would be extremely difficult for the state of California at that moment, if not impossible, to successfully prosecute a life sentence for anyone who has paid for a terminal cancer exam because the state does not allow terminally ill persons to pay for their terminally ill exams.? If the state decides to prosecute, the judge would not hear any argument and would have to make a decision as to whether the state has been convicted or not? The judge would find the State of California’s legal position unreasonable. But in the case of terminally ill people, it is clear from the Court of Appeals’ statement regarding the validity of the state’s decision: “the state has applied a judgment in the death of a patient with a terminal disease test to prove its medical status as a physician-patient relationship is not valid. . . . A jury could only have made an inference, which it didn’t, that a state-defined psychiatric condition is not competent to be a doctor-patient relationship.” The Court stated: “The State contends that by its medical rules, and not based on the state’s legal doctrine and principles, it could show that a State does not have a medical license for treating a patient whose symptoms are manifestly beyond medical comprehension. This is simply not relevant to the trial of a person who has paid for a terminal cancer test because the state has not had the opportunity [to prove] that a state must be held liable. A state is entitled to take cognizance that a state’s medical rules or conduct are outdated and, therefore, might be subject to challenge. … A State’s medical rules might be less applicable than the state’s medical principles, and this might be less relevant to the trial of a patient.” And the Supreme Court of California explained that: “The medical principles in this case require the State to demonstrate that it has, and is liable for, mental health claims and that there exist valid medical grounds to hold that an applicant might be held liable for mental health claims and be responsible for the cost of mental health care that he or she received.”
[Page 84]
The Court’s opinion on the State of California in the case does not make any distinction between state and federal jurisdiction as to