First read topic: Debate: "Euthanasia should be an individual choice and an option for anyone with a terminal illness."
Then my Response to topic: The question of euthanasia in the wake of technological advancement conflicts with traditional values on the sanctity of life. The ethical dilemma is posed by the society value of personal autonomy. In some cases, the physician opinion is relevant concerning whether an individual who is terminally ill should undergo death assistance. Under the ethical dilemma and the discussion that ensues, terms like ‘autonomy,` ‘liberty,` ‘best of interest` and ‘justice` keep on reappearing. The question, therefore, should terminally ill patients have an option of euthanasia and be treated as an individual right? Euthanasia should not be regulated by lawmakers who have little understanding of the situation terminally ill undergoes but rather is personal and borders an individual right to privacy, right to live and right to die on one`s terms.
When the debate about euthanasia is started, most people associate euthanasia with physician-assisted suicide. However, there are two types of euthanasia, passive euthanasia, and active euthanasia. A Clear understanding of both kinds would inform public opinion and public debate. Passive Voluntary euthanasia is when the physicians take no action to keep a patient alive. Actions like removing ventilators or failure to insert feeding tube are an example of passive euthanasia. In patients who are terminally ill and have brain damage, keeping them alive artificially is torture and denies them the right to closure. Such individuals are denied right to end their life with dignity.
The intent of palliative care is to alleviate pain and suffering, and physicians can administer death causing the medication to relieve the patient from suffering. Lindblad, Lynoe, and Juth, (2014) argues that it is morally justifiable to create evil in pursuit of good. However the question of who gets to input decision regarding death.
Under the fourteenth amendment, the liberty interest which is also the individual right of choice is guaranteed. Competent Terminally ill patients thus have the right to choose in advance and make legally binding advance directive in anticipation of inability to accept the withdrawal of treatment, in a voluntary passive euthanasia. What is not permitted is hastening death through additional medication. Active euthanasia, therefore, forms the bone of contention. Autonomy is a highly valued principle, and patients and family should participate actively in end of life decisions. Under liberty of interest, patients should be allowed to choose the time, the manner of their death.
In pursuit of medical justice, fair and equal treatment of all patients should adhere. In most cases, terminally ill patients are too debilitated to explore the end of life options actively. In such situations physicians usually, deny them the chance to options available. Another issue is the effect of terminal illness on family members. It is sad to remember loved ones at death as helpless, incontinent, pain-racked, or even sedated. Everyone wishes to leave a good memory on their loved ones. Therefore, the opportunity to die with dignity should not be taken away from such patients. The prior decision to end life digitally would be able to reduce premature suicide because the patients would know the time and manner of their death. The more people are enlightened on the issue; the more many will be able to write wills, make arrangements when they are still competent.
Lindblad, A., Lynoe, N., & Juth, N. (2014). End‐of‐Life Decisions and the Reinvented Rule of Double Effect: A Critical Analysis. Bioethics, 28(7), 368-377.
Then both peers:
I personally do not agree with people choosing to end their own life by euthanasia due my personal beliefs and my own outlook on life. However, I don`t think that it should be illegal so that people who want to end their life can do so in an effective and painless way. With that being said, I think the government has an interest in making sure the people who make this choice are of sound mind and not being influenced by outsiders. In a perfect world, people wouldn`t influence others to end their life, but unfortunately that is not the case and I think it could be a real issue. Another thing that would have to be weighed is how to deal with people who wish to harm themselves but have some sort of mental illness or are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. My answer to all of this is for the patient to speak with a psychiatrist and essentially be approved to move forward with euthanasia.
I feel bad for people who feel like they have nothing left to live for because I feel like everyone is placed on this earth for a reason. However, I don`t feel it is appropriate to judge people who have terminal illness because I have never been in their shoes and I hope I never am.
Peer 2: I find that we should have the choice to end our lives, when we see fit. Most of us do not seek to die sooner than later and are actively working on living a purposeful life. I find that either one has a mental illness that causes and individual to want to die, or one has a deadly or chronic illness that causes one to want to die. My opinion might be skewed, my older sister had MS and year by year it is getting worse. I usually attempt to attend my sisters doctor`s visits and stay with her when she receives her IV treatments. When sitting in the room one can see several people with MS at different stages. This foreshadowed what is to come and how painful it will be. I must say that if my sister ends up bedridden and unable to breath on her own, I doubt that I would fight for her to be kept alive. If my sister opted to not live in that type of pain, I would support her decision. I doubt I would have understood or empathized with the notion of euthanasia, yet seeing my sister and other people in the MS clinic, I must say I understand and I believe it should be the individuals choice. Reading the book "tuesdays with Morrie" in a sense made me realize that there are different ways of dealing with an illness of that magnitude. Most people I`ve met at my sisters doctor visits were younger adults that were in a way in denial. There is a sense of bitterness and fear and frustration coupled with the diagnosis. I believe that there should be some sort of mental health consultation done over a period of a year or so, before and individual should be able to make that call. It should be something one can decide with a clear mind, but one might wonder how clear ones mind is when one is in chronic pain.
What YOU WRITE: tell what you like about each peer and challenge them if you need too but be respectful. Keep in mind of my response so we are on the same side of the debate. Write one page per peer.
Response Name Affiliation/Institution Course Date Response Peer 1 First of all, the author was able to remain objective regardless of their personal feelings on the topic at hand. Different people often find themselves at fault for involving or allowing their personal feelings to cloud their judgment. The resultant effect is that one`s input or opinion becomes subjective and biased. In such occasions, generalize ability becomes an issue and one`s sentiments no matter how i