Timed Writing for Project Three
Nikki Butchart
My topic for project three was Euthanasia and Physician assisted suicide. In my research paper my goal was to inform and persuade my readers that if legalized, Euthanasia and Physician assisted suicide will be harmful to individuals seeking major medical care. I constructed a blog called “Have you thought about Euthanasia”, in which I have posted a research paper, three organizations that are against legalization, three letters to those organizations discussing the topic of Euthanasia and PAS and also a fable making the topic understandable to children. In creating these sections of my blog, I thought I could attract a greater audince by not making strong bias statements but using facts about the procedures and discussing all aspects of health care that would be affected by the procedures. My blog or views are not seeking to cause turmoil between those who oppose legalization and those who are for it but somehow make them see the other side of the debate. I feel with our largely growing liberal society we must not back arguments with conservative views but build up our arguments with ideas of what will happen with the future. In writing my letters to the three organizations I began each letter with as a Pre-medical student to establish credibility. I feel that as a pre-med student this debate will greatly affect my career and therefore I should have some interest and information on these procedures. In the letters, I asked the organizations how they felt they could inform the public on the growing concern of corruption in our health care systems and how that corruption would play into these procedures. I am not seeking to justify my views through my own religious or moral beliefs but on they greater good of our society,
The next section of project three, I discuss my topic through the use of a fable in order to make it easily understood for children. In the beginning process of this fable it was hard to construct a child’s story on death. Therefore, I used an example of a child riding his bike who was struck by a car, which in essence is a very likely danger to kids. The child’s accident put him in a coma in which his parents stuck by his side until he woke up. Although it troubled me to use the doctors as the so-called bad guys in the story, I portrayed them to be the ones telling the parents he’s never going to wake up, its too expensive, let him die. Moreover, using my views the doctors potentially acted as our health care system and portrayed the very real pressures placed upon families and patients. Overall my main goal of my project three and blog is to hopefully persuade individuals or at least help them to understand my views on the side of the debate opposing legalization.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Euthanasia Fable explanation
For my fable on Euthanasia I will be writing a short story on a young boy who suffered a head injury in a car accident. The young boy is in a coma in which doctors persuade his parents there is no hope for him to wake up and they should let him die. His parents don't give up and eventually the boy wakes up from his coma.
Friday, November 30, 2007
LETTER TO THE CHN
As a Pre-medical student I foresee a very grim future if the legalization of Euthanasia or PAS occurs. I feel not only would these procedures undermine the integrity of the medical profession but sadly create the likely hood of becoming a means of health-care containment. I feel many are uninformed or swayed by opinions of what they feel should be their rights. Moreover, I feel many are uniformed of the growing threat of our U.S. health care systems working to produce less money for their customer and generate more money into their corporation. As an organization what do you feel is necessary to educate the public on the larger issue concerned with the legalization of these procedures? As our U.S. society becomes more liberal and our health-care corporations begin to grow do you feel the gap between whether to legalize or not is becoming smaller in the sense becoming closer to legalization?
Sincerely,
Nicole Butchart
Sincerely,
Nicole Butchart
Letter to Californians against Assisted Suicide
As a Pre-med student I fear for my future as a doctor in a medical system in which would allow Euthanasia or PAS. The great debate resides in ideas such as the patients right to die and the idea a doctor should take any means necessary to relieve suffering. Although signing the Hippocratic Oath pledging to do all that is within my means to care for a patient I also vow not to act as god. I feel that those who are on the Pro side of the Euthanasia and PAS debate care only for what it does for the individual and not for the society as a whole. As an organization what do you feel is needed to show our population how detrimental is has the possibility of becoming? Also do you feel pressure by the more likely danger of being legalized in California because it has become one of the more liberal states?
Sincerely,
Nicole Butchart
Sincerely,
Nicole Butchart
LETTER TO NIGHTINGGALE ALLIANCE
As a pre-med student, I believe the legalization of assisted suicide is a very real threat to our patients and to our medical profession. Although the so-called given reasons for the legalization include letting someone die with “dignity” or relieving someone of extreme pain, I feel the main pursuit of this procedure would become a means of relief for the cost and care needed. My question to you is how can we educate the public on the likely hood that the legalization will be detrimental to our society in which those who cannot afford the extreme costs of our flawed health care systems will feel pressured to consider the option even though it may not be what they want. Moreover, as an organization what do you feel is needed to convince individuals that there are better options then suicide?
Sincerely,
Nicole Butchart
Sincerely,
Nicole Butchart
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Organizations against Euthanasia and PAS
CALIFORNINAS AGAINST ASSISTED SUICIDE
http://www.ca-aas.com/
COMPASSIONATE HEALTH CARE NETWORK
http://www.chninternational.com/default.html
NIGHTINGGALE ALLIANCE
http://www.nightingalealliance.org/index.php
http://www.ca-aas.com/
COMPASSIONATE HEALTH CARE NETWORK
http://www.chninternational.com/default.html
NIGHTINGGALE ALLIANCE
http://www.nightingalealliance.org/index.php
Euthanasia and Physician Assited Suicide
Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide are the acts of intentional killing by act or omission of a dependant human being for his or her alleged benefit. Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide apply not only to those who are disabled or terminally ill but the general public as a whole. Both issues have affected and continue to affect society today. The much heated debate has not only a tremendous impact on the medical profession but also on the patient. Although Euthanasia and PAS is for the benefit of the patient, the potential harms of legalization may considerably outweigh the benefits. In considering either procedure, it is important to understand that euthanasia or PAS is not always the best option.
Euthanasia and PAS have the ability to undermine the integrity of the medical profession. In a study conducted by Ezekiel Emanuel, 25% of doctors regret having performed euthanasia or PAS (636). Also reported from his study, significant emotional burdens were placed on the physicians from performing euthanasia or PAS. Information from the Article, “What is the benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia,” 18% of physicians who performed PAS and 12% who performed euthanasia were uncomfortable with having ended a patient’s life(636). Each Doctor who graduates from Medical School must sign a document called the Hippocratic Oath. In this document, a doctor swears not only to care for humans but also above not to act as god. Therefore, under the circumstances of the oath, a doctor would disregard their signed promise if they were to participate in either procedure. It is conceived that if a patient walks into a hospital seeking medical care, they are telling the medical staff they wish to live. For example, in the case study of Mrs.T., provided by the book Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, she was a sixty-five year-old woman who had been admitted to the vascular surgery service for evaluation of an asymptomatic carotid bruit. When the patient had agreed to receive surgery to care for the problem, she stated to a house officer before the procedure that she had signed a living will. She knew that there was a possibility of suffering a stroke during the surgery. In her will, she stated that she felt life was worth living only if she could be healthy and independent. She asked in the will that medications be mercifully administered to alleviate her suffering even though it may hasten the moment of her death. Approximately thirty minutes after the patient awoke from surgery she suffered a dense stroke. After several days, it appeared that she might be left with permanent, profound neurological impairment and added to this she also developed pneumonia. At this point, the patient’s brother questioned the patient’s attending physician about the appropriateness of continuing medical treatment. He suggested that his sister be sedated and in essence, be allowed to die. Ten days after her transfer to the vascular surgery floor, the patient became capable of written and verbal communication. Improvement continued at a dramatic rate, and within a week, plans were made to discharge the patient to a rehabilitation center. As a postscript to the case, several months after the patient’s discharge, the patient’s brother wrote a note to the individuals who had treated the patient. In his note, he stated that both he and the patient were glad the staff had stood firm in providing the patient with maximal care and efforts in the face of his demands for reduced care. ( Eisendrath and Jonsen 311-313) Regret by physicians who perform euthanasia and PAS suggest problems and adverse affects that should not be ignored.
Coercion of a patient to use euthanasia or PAS may become a likely danger. According to Emanuel, coercion of the patient is most likely to come from his or her family either because of financial or care-giving burdens. (637) The Delury case in New York is an example in which, a husband was convicted of pressuring his wide who suffered from severe multiple sclerosis to intentionally end her life. His motive was to eliminate the burdens he was experiencing in caring for her( What is the benefit of legalizing assisted suicide? 637). Euthanasia has a likely hood of becoming a means of health care cost containment. In describing the possibility for cost containment in health care, Euthanasia.com articulates their ideas. They declare that, “in the United States, thousands of people have no medical insurance; studies have shown that the poor and minorities generally are not given access to available pain control. Legalized euthanasia raises the potential for a profoundly dangerous situation in which doctors could find themselves far better off financially if a seriously ill or disabled person “chooses” to die rather then receive long-term care.” (arguments against euthanasia) The emotional and psychological pressures could also become overpowering for depressed or dependant people. Financial considerations and significant care giving needs, added to the concern of “being a burden” could serve as influential forces that would lead a person to choose euthanasia or assisted suicide. If legalized, Emanuel predicts the pressures of the ideas can increase the number of patients who might be harmed by these interventions and will begin to equal and exceed the number of dying patients who might benefit from legalization. On the contrary, both euthanasia and PAS have the likely harm of becoming highly persuasive procedures to those who feel pressured.
Euthanasia has the probability of becoming involuntary and premature PAS is possible. Many people who are not competent risk the harms of euthanasia. Euthanasia.com gives an example to their readers of an elderly person in a nursing home. This person, who can barley understand a breakfast menu, is asked to sign a form consenting to be killed. The situation raises the question, is this voluntary or involuntary? (arguments against euthanasia: example 1) Physicians from the Netherlands report that in 9% of euthanasia cases in nursing homes not all palliative measures were utilized. The article also states, many patients given euthanasia were also depressed. In 39% of cases patients who were given euthanasia were depressed and 19 percent of cases patients given PAS were depressed. In the Netherlands it has been documented that more then 20% of patients who received euthanasia were not mentally competent to consent to euthanasia when their lives ended. In only 53% of these cases did the patient ever express interest in receiving euthanasia.( What is the benefit of legalizing assisted suicide? 639) Despite safeguards its hard to imagine that with legalization the frequency of euthanasia or PAS without palliative care would decline in the United States.
Advocates of Euthanasia and PAS can identity the main benefits of legalization. According to the British medical journal, allowing it would give patients a new perspective on their individual autonomy. The British Medical Journal quotes. “ The basic moral rights view is that we do as we see fit with ourselves. Clearly, it would thus be morally illegitimate to forbid patients from killing themselves or to forbid doctors from assisting them.” Moreover, legalization would give a patient the opportunity to be able to decide when they want to die. Euthanasia and PAS could also reduce needless pain and suffering and help those whose are in unbearable pain; people such as quadriplegics, HIV and cancer patients. Options also provide patients with the reassurance they can die peacefully. According to studies done by Emanuel, it is believed that 40% of Americans might get some psychological reassurance knowing that euthanasia or PAS were possible alternatives if their dying was too painful. Euthanasia and PAS are a means to end suffering and in essence a means to a good death.
It is highly improbable that the benefits of euthanasia and PAS will ever outweigh the likely harms. The debate on legalization affects the majority of our population due to the fact that they may experience the situation at some point in their life. Euthanasia undermines the integrity of the medical profession, coercion of a patient to use euthanasia or PAS are likely dangers and both procedures have a probability of becoming involuntary and premature. Although many dangers to legalization exist, euthanasia or PAS can provide individuals with the right to die peacefully or die how they would want. Euthanasia.com seeks to remind those who think euthanasia and PAS only affect the disabled or terminally ill that every day, when driving to the store, walking across the street, they are potentially the next paralyzed statistic. In spite of the few small benefits that euthanasia or PAS will provide to a very diminutive number of people, the misuse and harm can and will exceed those potential benefits and force itself upon those who truly do not want it.
1. Book: Steinbock, Bonnie, John D. Arras, and Alex John London. Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.2. Article: Emanuel J., Ezekiel. “What is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia of Physician-Assisted Suicide?”. Ethics Vol.109, No. 3(Apr., 1999), pp. 629-642. JSTOR. Eckerd College Library, Saint Petersburg, Fl. 24 Oct. 2007 <http://links.jstor.org>3. Web-based site: Tännsjö, Torbjörn. “Taking the final step: changing the law on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.” British Medical Journal. July 6, 2005. Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University. Oct. 24, 2007 <http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7518/689>
4. Euthanasia.com. “Information for Research on Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted suicide, living wills, Mercy killing.” 2007. Oct. 24, 2007 <http://euthanasia.com/index.html>5. Cline, Austin. “When did Terri Schiavo Die?” About.com: Agnosticism/Atheism. 2007. The New York Times Company. 24 Oct. 2007 <http://atheism.about.com/od/terrischiavonews/a/braindeath.htm?p=1
Euthanasia and PAS have the ability to undermine the integrity of the medical profession. In a study conducted by Ezekiel Emanuel, 25% of doctors regret having performed euthanasia or PAS (636). Also reported from his study, significant emotional burdens were placed on the physicians from performing euthanasia or PAS. Information from the Article, “What is the benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia,” 18% of physicians who performed PAS and 12% who performed euthanasia were uncomfortable with having ended a patient’s life(636). Each Doctor who graduates from Medical School must sign a document called the Hippocratic Oath. In this document, a doctor swears not only to care for humans but also above not to act as god. Therefore, under the circumstances of the oath, a doctor would disregard their signed promise if they were to participate in either procedure. It is conceived that if a patient walks into a hospital seeking medical care, they are telling the medical staff they wish to live. For example, in the case study of Mrs.T., provided by the book Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, she was a sixty-five year-old woman who had been admitted to the vascular surgery service for evaluation of an asymptomatic carotid bruit. When the patient had agreed to receive surgery to care for the problem, she stated to a house officer before the procedure that she had signed a living will. She knew that there was a possibility of suffering a stroke during the surgery. In her will, she stated that she felt life was worth living only if she could be healthy and independent. She asked in the will that medications be mercifully administered to alleviate her suffering even though it may hasten the moment of her death. Approximately thirty minutes after the patient awoke from surgery she suffered a dense stroke. After several days, it appeared that she might be left with permanent, profound neurological impairment and added to this she also developed pneumonia. At this point, the patient’s brother questioned the patient’s attending physician about the appropriateness of continuing medical treatment. He suggested that his sister be sedated and in essence, be allowed to die. Ten days after her transfer to the vascular surgery floor, the patient became capable of written and verbal communication. Improvement continued at a dramatic rate, and within a week, plans were made to discharge the patient to a rehabilitation center. As a postscript to the case, several months after the patient’s discharge, the patient’s brother wrote a note to the individuals who had treated the patient. In his note, he stated that both he and the patient were glad the staff had stood firm in providing the patient with maximal care and efforts in the face of his demands for reduced care. ( Eisendrath and Jonsen 311-313) Regret by physicians who perform euthanasia and PAS suggest problems and adverse affects that should not be ignored.
Coercion of a patient to use euthanasia or PAS may become a likely danger. According to Emanuel, coercion of the patient is most likely to come from his or her family either because of financial or care-giving burdens. (637) The Delury case in New York is an example in which, a husband was convicted of pressuring his wide who suffered from severe multiple sclerosis to intentionally end her life. His motive was to eliminate the burdens he was experiencing in caring for her( What is the benefit of legalizing assisted suicide? 637). Euthanasia has a likely hood of becoming a means of health care cost containment. In describing the possibility for cost containment in health care, Euthanasia.com articulates their ideas. They declare that, “in the United States, thousands of people have no medical insurance; studies have shown that the poor and minorities generally are not given access to available pain control. Legalized euthanasia raises the potential for a profoundly dangerous situation in which doctors could find themselves far better off financially if a seriously ill or disabled person “chooses” to die rather then receive long-term care.” (arguments against euthanasia) The emotional and psychological pressures could also become overpowering for depressed or dependant people. Financial considerations and significant care giving needs, added to the concern of “being a burden” could serve as influential forces that would lead a person to choose euthanasia or assisted suicide. If legalized, Emanuel predicts the pressures of the ideas can increase the number of patients who might be harmed by these interventions and will begin to equal and exceed the number of dying patients who might benefit from legalization. On the contrary, both euthanasia and PAS have the likely harm of becoming highly persuasive procedures to those who feel pressured.
Euthanasia has the probability of becoming involuntary and premature PAS is possible. Many people who are not competent risk the harms of euthanasia. Euthanasia.com gives an example to their readers of an elderly person in a nursing home. This person, who can barley understand a breakfast menu, is asked to sign a form consenting to be killed. The situation raises the question, is this voluntary or involuntary? (arguments against euthanasia: example 1) Physicians from the Netherlands report that in 9% of euthanasia cases in nursing homes not all palliative measures were utilized. The article also states, many patients given euthanasia were also depressed. In 39% of cases patients who were given euthanasia were depressed and 19 percent of cases patients given PAS were depressed. In the Netherlands it has been documented that more then 20% of patients who received euthanasia were not mentally competent to consent to euthanasia when their lives ended. In only 53% of these cases did the patient ever express interest in receiving euthanasia.( What is the benefit of legalizing assisted suicide? 639) Despite safeguards its hard to imagine that with legalization the frequency of euthanasia or PAS without palliative care would decline in the United States.
Advocates of Euthanasia and PAS can identity the main benefits of legalization. According to the British medical journal, allowing it would give patients a new perspective on their individual autonomy. The British Medical Journal quotes. “ The basic moral rights view is that we do as we see fit with ourselves. Clearly, it would thus be morally illegitimate to forbid patients from killing themselves or to forbid doctors from assisting them.” Moreover, legalization would give a patient the opportunity to be able to decide when they want to die. Euthanasia and PAS could also reduce needless pain and suffering and help those whose are in unbearable pain; people such as quadriplegics, HIV and cancer patients. Options also provide patients with the reassurance they can die peacefully. According to studies done by Emanuel, it is believed that 40% of Americans might get some psychological reassurance knowing that euthanasia or PAS were possible alternatives if their dying was too painful. Euthanasia and PAS are a means to end suffering and in essence a means to a good death.
It is highly improbable that the benefits of euthanasia and PAS will ever outweigh the likely harms. The debate on legalization affects the majority of our population due to the fact that they may experience the situation at some point in their life. Euthanasia undermines the integrity of the medical profession, coercion of a patient to use euthanasia or PAS are likely dangers and both procedures have a probability of becoming involuntary and premature. Although many dangers to legalization exist, euthanasia or PAS can provide individuals with the right to die peacefully or die how they would want. Euthanasia.com seeks to remind those who think euthanasia and PAS only affect the disabled or terminally ill that every day, when driving to the store, walking across the street, they are potentially the next paralyzed statistic. In spite of the few small benefits that euthanasia or PAS will provide to a very diminutive number of people, the misuse and harm can and will exceed those potential benefits and force itself upon those who truly do not want it.
1. Book: Steinbock, Bonnie, John D. Arras, and Alex John London. Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.2. Article: Emanuel J., Ezekiel. “What is the Great Benefit of Legalizing Euthanasia of Physician-Assisted Suicide?”. Ethics Vol.109, No. 3(Apr., 1999), pp. 629-642. JSTOR. Eckerd College Library, Saint Petersburg, Fl. 24 Oct. 2007 <http://links.jstor.org>3. Web-based site: Tännsjö, Torbjörn. “Taking the final step: changing the law on euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.” British Medical Journal. July 6, 2005. Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University. Oct. 24, 2007 <http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7518/689>
4. Euthanasia.com. “Information for Research on Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted suicide, living wills, Mercy killing.” 2007. Oct. 24, 2007 <http://euthanasia.com/index.html>5. Cline, Austin. “When did Terri Schiavo Die?” About.com: Agnosticism/Atheism. 2007. The New York Times Company. 24 Oct. 2007 <http://atheism.about.com/od/terrischiavonews/a/braindeath.htm?p=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)