Mercifull_Killing__a_Part_of_Life

Merciful Killing: A Part of Life Terri Schiavo suffered from permanent brain damage at the age of twenty-six, due to a lack of oxygen. This unfortunate and serious mishap was caused by Schiavo’s own selfish personal decisions (Dowbiggin). An accident caused by her bulimia, which left her in a vegetarian state from 1990 to 2005. Doctors gave no optimism in her case, as a feeding tube was the only hope to keep her merely existence. According to her husband Michael, she had previously expressed that she did not wish to be kept alive if she was in such condition (Terri). A wise choice by Terri, due to the circumstances, if kept alive it would only be selfish, costly, and emotionally draining. Michael fought her parents in court for the removal of the feeding tube and it took fifteen years for the courts to favor Michael’s wishes. Terri died on March 18, 2005, thirteen days after her tube was removed (Terri). Results after her autopsy showed that Terri was unable to think, feel, see, or connect in any sort of way with her surroundings (Dowbiggin). Michael’s tough decision to end his wife’s life was proven to be the best one. Some might describe this as cruel and an egocentric form of murder. However, the correct term is euthanasia. Euthanasia can be defined as an act “to deprive a person of existence by execution or omission for his or her alleged benefit” (Keelan). The word euthanasia comes from a Greek word in the seventeenth century, eu thanatos (εὐθανασία). Eu meaning good, and thanatos means death, good death (Dunsmuir). Euthanasia can be classified in four different categories, passive, active, voluntary, and involuntary (Walker). Passive euthanasia is when medical treatment is a necessary means for human existence, and is removed. The consequences are notably known and expected (Walker). A great example was Terri Schiavo’s case. Her doctors, husband, and immediate family knew if the feeding tube were to be removed, she would die. That poor woman was kept alive for thirteen years, yet she was unable to connect with the world. Active euthanasia is when drugs are administrated to a terminally ill person in order to cause death (Walker). The difference between the two is in passive euthanasia you do nothing to save a life, whereas in active euthanasia you attempt to end a life. Ethically, no one has the right to say whose lives are more valuable than others, yet we should have the right to end painful agony brought upon a human being due to a disease or illness. Voluntary euthanasia is when a patient expresses a desire to end their life, due to their particular situation (Walker). This can also include a do-not-resuscitate form. A DNR is a legal form that is somewhat of a will, requesting no medical means be administrated if additional complications arise (Robert). Involuntary euthanasia is when the person possibly being terminated has no form of communicating, in which doctors or family members make the hard decision to pull the plug (Walker). Terri Schiavo once again falls in to this category. Euthanasia is not murder, cruel, or even unnatural. It is a substantial way to relief someone’s pain and agony. Euthanasia just helps a life takes final journey faster and with less distress. All life, regardless of society or moral beliefs, deserves a chance to leave earth in peace. Euthanasia should be legal because it relieves extreme and unnecessary pain when a person’s life hardly has a purpose or value. Medical expenses can be outrageously high for family members taking care of an ill and terminal loved one, and euthanasia may be the best choice. In addition, a terminally and incompetent human kept alive for someone else’s selfish emotional demand, may interfere with the medical care of other, possibly healthy patients. We should also have the right to end our own lives or the ones of our loved ones, in extreme, painful, and hopeless circumstances. We determine the value of our lives, and should also regulate how much physical pain and suffering we allow ourselves to go through. The determination and emotional distress it takes to euthanize a loved one or a patient, is a great one. However, is it inhuman to allow a patient to go through agonizing pain, or to ease their pain by euthanization' It is utterly heartless, brutal, and absolutely shameless to allow or watch human beings go through a deadly disease and hopelessly keep them alive (Maisie). If a person is able to communicate their wishes, then I believe the person should be heard, and their wishes should be met, regardless of what they are asking for. Throughout life people have choices to make. Some choices may be to better ourselves, to change our destiny, or maybe to look for something new, some may be hard choices and some may be crystal clear. The case is we make choices every day, and if ending a life for the benefit of an individual, then the choice should be theirs, loved ones, or medical experts. Every case is and will be unique, and should be treated adequately, but in the end the intentions of euthanization are good ones. I understand that there may be religious factors or moral issues when active euthanasia takes place. However, passive euthanasia allows life’s course to take its place. Death should not be prolonged, for it is vein, and if doctors and families are able to facilitate a less more efficient way of passing, then it should be done (Maisie). Americans are well aware of medical facilities and their treatments, and with them come great expenses. If a family member became terminally ill or was suddenly put in a vegetarian state, and there was no hope of survival, financially, euthanasia would be a beneficial choice for both parties. A great concern is that insurance companies will take advantage of euthanasia in order to cut their costs and increase their profits (Arguments). It is better to let go of a loved one then prolong their death. In addition, terminally ill patients, vegetarian patients, and patients that have no desire to live, may take up room, time, facilities, medicine, and resources that could be used for healthier patients and research. Basically, they utilize resources that really don’t do them any good, or bring them back to normal. We all have the right to choose for ourselves and to make wise, intelligent, beneficial choices for others. Freedom is one of the greatest values Americans have. Despite the fact that euthanasia is not a choice we are able to make for ourselves or others in the states. Oregon is the only state in America that allows euthanasia, however it comes with many restrictions (Legal). The government shouldn’t be allowed to decide whether a person in agonizing pain should be kept alive or not. If a person is denied the resources to end their pain by euthanasia, they may resort to a painful and monstrous form of suicide. When a person is terminally ill, and has accepted their fatal coming, they should be allowed to leave this earth as they please. Who are we to judge their final decisions' We are no one to place that judgment on others, for the simple fact that we have absolutely no idea how physically and mentally agonizing a disease can actually be. In 1994, the citizens of Oregon voted for euthanasia to be legal with certain restrictions (Oregon’s). The restrictions are as follows “a person must be terminally ill, have six months or less to live, must make two verbal request for assistance in dying, a single written request to die, must convince two different doctors that they are genuine with the request and it is voluntary, depression may not be a factor, must be educated on other alternatives, and once all of the above has been met, the individual must wait a total of fifteen days before the plan is taken in to action” (Oregon’s). This law was well thought out and creates loops and second chances for the terminally ill to make a final decision. Injections by a doctor are not allowed, yet a drug by the name of barbiturate would be prescribed to fulfill a patient’s request. It does not surprise me that statistics show an increase in euthanasia from 1998 to 2002 in Oregon (Death’s). In 1998 sixteen people where allowed euthanization. In 1999 and 2000 a total of fifty-four people went through with the procedure. By 2001 and 2002 the number increased to fifty-nine people (Death’s). Researchers conducted a survey in 2002 and asked the people who decided to go through euthanization a series of questions. When asked if they were afraid to lose independence, eighty four percent said yes. They were asked if they were afraid of not being able to part take in enjoyable activities, and again eighty four percent responded yes. Forty seven percent of the terminally ill were afraid of losing bodily functions, such as using the restroom by themselves. Thirty seven percent did not want to be a burden on loved ones, and twenty six percent of them were afraid of pain (Death’s). These statistics are startling, but these peoples insight to pain should be taken in to serious consideration. As more deaths and research is conducted more laws should be implements around the Unites States to allow euthanization. Euthanasia’s points of view are based on practical, emotional, and typically religious attitudes. In cases where individuals are not physically impacted, yet emotionally involved, I suggest they leave judgmental thoughts and behaviors behind. When laws are created, we must ask ourselves why they are created and who they are implemented to help. Is prohibiting euthanasia to benefit society, support humane behavior, or is it to help people' And if so who is the government really helping' A person’s pain does not benefit society in any physical, financial, or ethical way, to allow someone to go through an enormous amount of pain is inhuman, and if a person wishes to leave this earth in peace, than we are not helping them by keeping them alive. To let a person live in pain is wrong and unethical. More states should implement similar laws like Oregon’s, and citizen’s votes should be taken in to consideration. Works Cited “Arguments against Euthanasia.” Euthanasia.com. 2010. 26 Oct. 2010. . “Death’s under Oregon’s Physician Assisted Suicide Act.” CNSNews.com. 26 Oct. 2010 < http://www.euthanasia.com/deaths2003.html>. Dowbiggin, Ian PhD. “Historical Timeline History of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide” 28 Sep. 2010. 26 Oct. 2010. . Dunsmuir, Mollie. “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.” Government of Canada. 12 Aug. 1998. 26 Oct. 2010. . Cordeaux, J. “Examples of Euthanasia.” 2001. 26 Oct. 2010. . Keelan, Nicole. “The Euthanasia Debate” The University Standard. 26 Oct 2010. . “Legal Status of Assisted Suicide / Euthanasia in the United States.” Nighting Alliance. 2006. 26 Oct. 2010. . Maisie M. Dr. “Pros and Cons of Euthanasia.” 26 Oct. 2010. . “Oregon’s Euthanasia Law’s.” Ads by Google. 2010. 26 Oct. 2010. Euthanasia - Oregon's Euthanasia Law. Robert, Kelly M.D. “Advance Directives and Do Not Resuscitate Orders.” Family Doctor. Sept. 2010. 26 Oct. 2010. http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/pat-advocay/endoflife/003.html. “Terri Schiavo.” NNDB. 26 Oct. 2010 . Walker, Janice Dr. “Types of Euthanasia.” Pregnant Pause. 20 Nov. 2001. 26 Oct. 2010. .