Constructive As of November 2017, human euthanasia is legal in the following places Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia and Canada but assisted suicide is is legal in the following locations Switzerland, Germany, Japan, and in the US states of Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, Montana, Washington DC, and California. These locations have the highest rate for suicide and ever euthanasia has became legal in these locations the rate of suicide has gone up. The main difference between this and euthanasia is that in assisted suicide the patient is in complete control of the process that leads to death because he/she is the person who performs the act of suicide. In a article on daily The Daily Signal it talks about how some advocates of assisted suicide have been making this argument. A new academic study, however, shows the reverse to be true: legalizing physician-assisted suicide increases the total number of people committing suicide. This debate heated up earlier this month as Gov. Jerry Brown, signed a law authorizing assisted suicide in California.
At the same time, the October issue of the Southern Medical Journal included a study examining the correlation between legalizing physician-assisted suicide and the overall suicide rate. The study, “How Does Legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide Affect Rates of Suicide?”, contradicts the notion that legalizing assisted suicide would reduce the total number of suicides by helping people cope with their declining condition. The suicide rate has actually increased ever since this law was passed and there is no evidence of suicide going down with the assist of a physician but once this law was passed suicide increased by 6.3% in places where euthanasia is legal which means that instead of helping people ease the pain , it’s actually caused helped cause more deaths . In Oregon 1749 people were giving prescriptions to kill them , only 1227 people actually died . In washington 938 people were giving prescriptions , only 917 died .
Even tho it killed a decent amount of those people is still shows that you are not guaranteed a quick and painless death .Euthanasia is giving way too much power doctors to the point where they actually might start abusing it . In a Article on procon.org it talked about how n”In 2005, 39 physicians wrote a total of 64 prescriptions for lethal doses of medication in which Thirty-two of the 2005 prescription recipients died after ingesting the medication ,six of the patients who received prescriptions during 2004 ended up dying died in 2005 as a result of ingesting the prescribed medication.
Which ended up giving a total of 38 PAS deaths during 2005. One 2004 prescription recipient, who ingested the prescribed medication in 2005, became unconscious 25 minutes after ingestion but then regained consciousness 65 hours later. This person did not obtain a subsequent prescription and died 14 days later of the underlying illness (17 days after ingesting the medication) Complications were reported for three patients during 2005 , one patient regained consciousness after ingesting the prescribed medication. None involved seizures. Fifty percent of patients became unconscious within five minutes of ingestion of the lethal medication and the same percentage died within 26 minutes of ingestion.
The time it took for the medication to take effect would take anywhere from five minutes to 9.5 hours These valuable resources are saved in a great amount if a person chooses to participate in physician-assisted suicide. This could prompt hospitals and doctors to begin using euthanasia as a means of money saving, which could result in people that have not agreed, being killed .Doctors in the Netherlands who have had experience with assisted suicide and euthanasia, have expressed concerns regarding the effects on doctors. A report from the Netherlands stated: “Many physicians who had practiced euthanasia mentioned that they would be most reluctant to do so again.
” A accident in New Hampshire raised a lot of questions . A physician had committed euthanasia because he felt like he was compelled to do it . Instead of giving the patient a lethal dose of morphine , he actually ended up injecting air into the patient and what this does is when the air enters your vein it actually can end up traveling to the brain , heart or lungs and it can cause the patient to have a heart attack , stroke or respiratory failure and sense the doctor that did this did not ask for the consent of either the patient or the relatives , this shows that doctors will start using this as a form of treatment . Why should the doctor have the right to call someones elses life when the patient is not ready to go ? is it because he thinks its the right thing to do ? the doctor’s job is to do what he thinks its right , his job is to give the patient another day to live , give the patient hope .One of the key factors in allowing a person to choose to die or to live is whether or not they are mentally capable to make such a large decision. It can be very hard for a person to understand the implications of their decision, and many terminal illnesses affect the mind in ways that are hard to detect that even doctors won’t be able to see until it’s too late . It would be a tragedy for anyone to not understand the decision they were making until it was too late. While the term terminal typically means that the person will inevitably die, one can not count out the fact that medical miracles happen every single day in situations where people think that it might be the end .
Even people in the bleakest of situations have been able to pull out of it miraculously and go on to live a full life. In a article on The Daily Signal it talked about how In 1994, Jeannette Hall, a resident of King City, Ore., voted in favor of Ballot Measure 16, which for the first time in the United States, would allow terminally ill patients to end their own lives through physician-assisted suicide , but little did she know that 6 years later should would be diagnosed with colon cancer . shes was given 6 months to a year to live Hall, who was divorced, and had lost her mother to dementia and her brother to suicide.
She didn’t want to live anymore she just wanted to call it quits . Stevens learned that Hall had a son, Scott Walden, who was living in Astoria, Ore., training to be a state trooper. At the time, Walden didn’t even know his mom had cancer—let alone that she was asking her doctor to prescribe her a lethal dose of life-ending drugs.Fifteen years later, Hall is now cured of cancer and celebrating her 70th birthday with her son—who has since graduated from the police academy but has yet to get married.She enjoys telling that story in hopes that it will stop others from ending their lives too soon.Euthanasia is a homicide .
Patients are never obligated to endure painful procedures which are worse than their current condition and which do not have a reasonable hope of success. During the Civil War, many soldiers died not from war injuries but from the results of medical procedures like infections from botched amputations. In such cases, refusal of these “extraordinary means” would not be considered euthanasia. Today, however, with the progress of medicine, technology, and rehabilitative treatment, drastic procedures like amputation can be done, and survivors usually live and adapt to their disability.The killing of oneself is a suicide, not a homicide. If a person kills another person in order to end the other person’s pain or suffering, the killing is considered a homicide. It doesn’t matter if the other person is about to die or is terminally ill just prior to being killed; the law generally views such a killing as criminal.
Thus, a “mercy killing,” or act of EUTHANASIA, is generally considered a criminal homicide. In a article on jrank . org they talked about how As medical technology advances and the medical profession is able to prolong life for many terminally ill patients, a person’s right to die by committing suicide with the help of a physician or others has become a hotly contested issue.
In the 1990s, the issue of physician-assisted suicide came to the forefront of U.S. law. Dr.
JACK KEVORKIAN, a Michigan physician, helped approximately 130 patients to commit suicide. Michigan authorities prosecuted Kevorkian for murder on a number of occasions, but because aiding, assisting, or causing a suicide is generally considered to be separate from homicide, Kevorkian initially avoided conviction. Finally, in 1999, he was convicted of second-degree murder following the nationally televised broadcast of a videotape showing Kevorkian injecting a lethal drug into a patient. In 2000, the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE revealed a study showing that 75 percent of the 69 Kevorkian-assisted deaths that were investigated were of victims who were not suffering from a potentially fatal disease; five had no discernible disease at all. Instead, it appeared that many of the suicides were the result of depression or psychiatric disorder. He killed those people not because they asked him to but because he felt like it . THank you , now i stand for questioning RebuttalMy opponent said that euthanasia and assisted suicide is a end to the pain the patient is suffering from and they are right , it does end the pain by taking the patients valuable life . There are other treatments to help ease the pain .
These treatments don’t get rid of the pain 100% but these treatments and medication helps bring the pain down to where it’s tolerable and to the point where the patient can deal with the pain .People are in very vulnerable positions, such as terminally ill patients, are very open to abuse by caregivers and even family members. They can become a burden on families, which may prompt them to convince them that choosing euthanasia is the right choice for them. When it comes to medical facilities, it is very possible that this type of practice can be misused for reasons such as saving money, saving space, and even personal issues. Once the patient stops feeling like they are a burden then that’s when the pain is gone . Their problem is that they need help finding the extra push to keep them going .
Everyone goes through different levels of pain but ending someone’s life because they are going through more pain is not okay . Life is preses as it is . There is always a chance for hope .
It is widely believed that there are only two options open to patients with terminal illness: either they die slow`gt5mxly in unrelieved suffering or they receive euthanasia. In fact, there is a middle way, that of creative and compassionate caring. Meticulous research in Palliative medicine has in recent years shown that virtually all unpleasant symptoms experienced in the process of terminal illness can be either relieved or substantially alleviated by techniques already available. My opponent said that Euthanasia is not a homicide .
last time i checked killing anyone is a homicide. If a person kills another person To end the others suffering or pain , the killing is considered a homicide . Which means a “mercy kill” or a act of euthanasia is considered a homicide . Killing someone because they have a terminal illness should be morally wrong . How can a doctor or physician go through with taking someones life even tho there are times where the patient doesn’t want to die but the physician or doctor think its their own call. we focus on the term “killing,” and everytime we hear it, negativity would always fill our minds.
Nobody would want to see anyone get killed, except maybe for sadists. Generally, nobody wants to get killed and nobody should want to kill—and nobody should kill. What is this so-called “mercy killing”? Well, basically, it’s still killing, but out of mercy. Thanks, Captain Obvious.
The thing is, the main method of mercy killing is ending one’s life. Imagine getting high grades in school—yet your method for doing so is bribing your teacher. The point is taking someone’s life is not okay . Allowing patients, by law, to choose death is a slippery slope; it will lead to abuse of the system and legalized murder.They said that it is their right to die , but is it really a right when the doctor or physician does not have your consent to end your own life but regardless they do it anyways . In a heated debate on june 26 1997 , Washington vs glucksberg they stated that The history of the law’s treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it.
That being the case, their decisions lead them to conclude that the asserted ‘right’ to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.the federal government is against the right to die even though some states have laws that say it’s acceptable for physicians to assist and provide “aid in dying.” The right to die has a socio-economic dimension to it.
If it is legalized, then disadvantaged people will choose an early death more frequently. Aid in Euthanasia violates the Hippocratic oath. The Hippocratic Oath is perhaps the most widely known of Greek medical texts. It requires a new physician to swear upon a number of healing gods that he will uphold a number of professional ethical standards but by Committing Euthanasia the doctor / physician break this oath .
The problem with euthanasia is that it could soon become a slippery slope, with the legalisation of involuntary euthanasia following it. Lord Walton, the chairman of a House of Lords committee on medical ethics looking into euthanasia spoke on the subject: “We concluded that it was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused.” Since involuntary euthanasia is indistinct from murder it would be impossible to regulate, causing the danger of murderers not being brought to justice, due to their crimes being passed off as involuntary euthanasia. There is also concern that doctors could end up killing very sick patients without asking for their permission, and in the worst case scenario, begin to kill off patients to free up beds in hospitals, or to save money. These situations show how dangerous it could be to let the legalisation of euthanasia lead into the legalisation of involuntary euthanasia.