Media ViolenceEssay Preview: Media ViolenceReport this essayImagine a body slowly and excruciatingly being broken down by an unseen and uncontrollable invader. Now imagine that there is a law preventing anyone from ending that suffering. Welcome to the argument over euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as “the act or practice of killing out of mercy.” Euthanasia technically exists in four categories: active, passive, voluntary, and involuntary. Passive euthanasia is the act of removing all treatments and forms of life support intended to prolong life or cure illness, and allowing the patient to die of natural causes. Active euthanasia consists of an outside force actually causing the death of the patient, or hastening the death with the use of drugs and other tools. When the patient is fully competent and capable of making this life or death decision on his or her own, it is considered voluntary euthanasia. If the decision is made for the patient, due to him or her being rendered incapable of this sentient conclusion, it is labeled as involuntary euthanasia. For the past several decades, this has been a major issue, making its way from activist groups to the Supreme Court. The debate over euthanasia was ignited publicly in 1988 with an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine about an experience in committing active euthanasia. The act of euthanasia, in either passive or active form, is acceptable in only one nation in the world. Even there, in the Netherlands, it is permitted in only certain cases as specified and supervised by the legal system, and has yet to be fully legalized. Euthanasia should be legalized because it is a personal choice.
The argument over euthanasia is complex and multi-faceted; particularly dealing with the responsibility of those involved in the act. Many people, in the argument against euthanasia, claim that if euthanasia were made legal in the United States, physicians would abuse that law. They say that insurance companies would place pressure on the doctors to encourage this choice in their patients to save costs. Another claim is that the physicians may shrug off their responsibility to their patients and choose the quick and easy way out while charging a hefty cost. In a more realistic sense, physicians would more likely maintain a strong moral and ethical outlook on the entire situation, as well as follow a set of strict professional specifications. Physician Guy I. Benrubi, professor at the University of Florida Health Sciences Center stated, “Obviously, if euthanasia were to be accepted in our society, stringent procedural safeguards would be needed. In addition to those in effect in the Netherlands, we should consider the protection afforded by the traditional medical concepts of certification and qualifications” (Moreno 116). The entire medical community would have to set guidelines for doctors of euthanasia to follow, which would ensure the safety of patients. It has become clear, however, that euthanasia, in its journey towards legalization, has many more hurdles to clear.
If euthanasia were legalized in the United States, it would reduce the current number of deaths caused in a highly unprofessional manner because of the legality issues. Presently, many physicians aid in the suicides of terminally ill patients by giving them the drugs necessary to commit the act on their own. The physician will frequently list the cause of death as the actual illness, rather than (assisted) suicide. This is to prevent public delving into the patients history and illness, and causing limitless pain for the patients family. This is very unprofessional because though the intent is good, it is not a guaranteed method and could result in merely more pain for the patient and his or her relatives. Ronald Dworkin, an author of books about euthanasia and other ethical issues summarized this idea when he stated, “Patients might be better rather than less well protected if assisted suicide were legalized with appropriate safeguards” (Leone 36). The intent
is to prevent suicides, and such an act would be just. Thus, to help avoid unnecessary pain or suffering patients will want to be provided with legal, legal and legally recognized methods of assisted suicide, which would involve the first aid. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court has shown that, in practice the states are generally not able to implement the proper precautions. In this case, the California Supreme Court ruling and the Colorado Medical Board decisions make it not only legal but also illegal for medical students to teach people how to administer lethal drugs or to practice them in school or in public schools. This situation, combined with the lack of legal and legal options, make it impossible for every class of patients to obtain legal aid. In fact, this type of educational effort could have a huge impact, unless the states were willing to move in the other direction. Patients and families may be forced to give a large amount of medicine to the poor terminally ill because of a “lack of legal services”, lack of funding, problems with the law regarding assisted-suicide, medical neglect, lack of support/counseling. It’s really quite ridiculous to think that anyone would “give money” to a state, given that the state is the source of most law enforcement services in the US. As Professor Edward K. Anderson points out in the excellent “Patients in Waiting for Medicine” which he released in 1991,
There are an increasing number of states including New York, California, Kansas, Nevada and Michigan, which prohibit medical assisted suicide, and others which have become more lax around it. It is a public health issue, which the state needs to address. For the first time in our history, doctors are required not only to report the reason for their deaths, but what happened to the patient or an additional person living with that illness. In many states, it is now considered a felony and there have been recent Supreme Court cases concerning such criminalizing actions which often lead to the death penalty. In other states, it makes it difficult for the state, which is being criminally burdened by a highly unjustified ban on medical assisted suicide in public schools (see Section 29 of Article XIII of the United States Constitution), to take any action that could reduce the level of pain experienced by its already overcrowded, impoverished and often terminally ill patients.
With the exception of the medical sector, there are also many professions in which assisted suicide is legal. This includes doctors, dentists, and even psychologists and psychiatrists.
(Source: New York Times, March 21, 1995)
More than 1 million people are dying in health care because they are being assisted. Over the six years in 1999, 17 people died in US hospitals in assisted suicide. This figure is over 438,000 deaths. The national homicide rate is more than six times the FBI average. According to the World Health Organization, the United States has the highest rate of suicides among developed nations. There are about 300,000 American citizens living in emergency rooms on the street for their own health or life. According to one study by University of California, Berkeley’s Walter Isaacson & Associates, the U.S., is the worst industrialized nation in the world for suicide. A 2013 report at the University of California, Berkeley found more than two dozen states have enacted laws that do not apply to those who take medication that causes death, suicide, or major depressive disorder (and suicide in this case is an adult suicide, for which California law allows for mandatory reporting. This is about the worst that the U.S. has suffered as a result of the war on drugs. More than 5,000 Americans who die during a crisis in their health care must live out the rest of their lives suffering conditions worse from lack of care, lack of quality care and untreated illness, poor care and untreated illness in the care of others. One of the most common deaths is in a parent