Okay, now's the time to start putting your money where your mouth is (or in this case, where your keyboards are) and put some of your Definition know-how to work. Please choose one of the assigned readings and outline not only just how the author defines the concepts involved, but take it one step further and challenge that definition. What about it do you agree with? What do you disagree with? How would you change it to suit your needs and/or your argument?
Jonathan Bezenah
In the article From a Slippery Slope to an Avalanche, the author argues against Physician-Assisted Suicide stating it is to euthanize children if the doctor believes their suffering is intolerable or if they have an incurable disease. However, the definition is limited and does not define Physician-Assisted Suicide well enough. First off, his definition only mentions children, and through the article, he only talks about how doctors are euthanizing humans under 12. For a better definition, the author needs to include a broader range which includes not only children, but any person. Also, the author needs to change what intolerable means. The definition of intolerable is not clearly known. Intolerable could mean no longer able to bear pain, or a nuisance. In the later case, the children may just be annoyed with something. However, the author most likely means no longer to bear pain. In creating the definition, the author should not allow any ambiguity within in his or her acclaimed definition. A more appropriate definition of Physician-Assisted Suicide based on this author’s article should be to euthanize any patient if the doctor believes that the patient can no longer bear anymore pain, or they have a disease that is incurable.
Hassen Berry
The article The Other Pro-Choice Movement by Mary Shaw claims that physician assisted suicide should be in the hands of the ill person. In a physician assisted suicide, the person committing suicide is already in a death situation and they are just waiting. The physician helps by contributing medicine to help them find death faster. She says that it should be up to the ill person whether or not they would need assistance from the physician. Shaw sets up her argument in which the person should be able to decide whether to die a slow horrible death or die quick with dignity. She also explains how in Oregon that they passed a law for physician assisted suicide to become legal. People who were opposed to this feared that it would cause a widespread of deaths but were informed that the deaths were very little, about one in 1,000 deaths since the law took place.
I believe that physciain assisted suicide should be legal in all states. People are killing themselves regardless the situation. From young to old, people of all ages are dying from drugs, shootings, and illness. If a person is going to die and they are just waiting and hurting then they should have the right to end their life with the help of a doctor through medication. The only person that can prescribe medication is a doctor. If a person is mentally ill then they should not be able to decide whether they should die. They are ill and will not make the best decision because they are not in the right mind set to make the best decision. I feel for the mentally ill that there should be a process in place that will help them improve their illness and after a certain time if the illness has not improved or cured then the decision of ending their life should be put in the hands of their loved ones so they can make the best decision.
Courtney Redding
In the Other Pro-Choice Movement Mary Shaw talks about the Hemlock Society. That is a organization that support assisted suicide when a patient is terminally ill and in intolerable pain. Shaw is an advocate of this organization and believe that its okay for some one suffering to be able to take their life if they deem it necessary. I agree with the argument fully because she uses the example that even if a physician doesn’t help those people who really want to die because of the pain will kill themselves anyways just not in a peaceful way. I would change the argument by making the lines more solid though. There would have to be more restrictions on who could do this as oppose to it just being a terminally ill person in pain, they would probably have to have therapy to be sure that is what they really want.
Lindsey Prato
In the article the “Ethics in Medicine- Physician Aid-in-Dying,” the physicians role is discussed in this process. PAD is when a physician gives the patient a lethal dose of medication upon patients request that will help them end their life. Right now this is only legal in one state, Oregon. This is a very controversial subject. I agree that a terminally ill patient should have the choice of wether they want to continue suffering. I think that all terminally ill patients should have the choice to end their lives. This would let them go in peace and not have to suffer anymore. Some patients don’t want to spend the rest of their lives in misery or in a hospital bed, they should have the choice to chose. This would also save their family money with hospital bills. I disagree with the fact that this is not available in all states, I feel it should be. I would change this situation by letting it be available in all states and the patient should be able to chose what they want to do if they are terminally ill.
Ayanna Green
I've read the article titled "Physician-Assisted Suicide". PAD is basically a physician helping a terminal patient with committing suicide because they no longer want to suffer. I do agree with the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide because it's the patient's choice to do something like that. I don't think it would be right for a patient to sit in a hospital and suffer until they finally die. A person can be miserable when they're in so much pain. I like that it's also required for the patient to have 6 months or less to live in order to be able to make that type of decision because if they had more time to live, something could possibly be done to help that patient. Although I agree with this idea, one thing I disagree with is the idea that a Physician could persuade a patient to participate in their own suicide. I believe if they didn't bring it up themselves, doctors should bring the idea to their attention. In order to analyze my argument better, I would research the pros and cons of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I would want to know if anything has ever went wrong while a patient was doing a procedure, does it always work, etc.
Erika Phillips
In the article The Other Pro-Choice Movement, by Mary Shaw, it talks about the assisted suicide law. Who is to say that suicide is actually what a patient wants to do. If they can not bare any pain much longer from being terminally ill I think patients should have the right to not live or not. Although a person killing their self is not the right thing to do, it is still an option many patients wish to choose from. Furthermore, To understand assisted suicide more, the words pain and terminally ill will have to be looked up. What if a patient can not talk, how would people know to pull the plug on the patient or not? That is something to think about because the purpose of "assisted suicide is to be "assisted" in their own deaft not killed.
Deonnia Sanders
I chose to pick the article The Other Pro-Choice Movement by Mark Shaw. In this article, it is talking about the assisted suicide law is upheld in Oregon for adults and it should be legal in other states. I agree with it because people with terminal illness that suffer a lot of pain and should have the right to end it. If it is too much for them to deal with life and their illness then they should have that choice if they want. However, this law only applies to adults. In the article it talks about how this law gives sick people the right to die in the manner that they want to and their families will not have to see them suffer. A lot of adults have siblings, children, and spouses and that is hard for the family to know that a loved one has committed suicide.
Eric Kroepel
In The Other Pro-Choice Movement, physician-assisted suicide can be defined as, “allowing terminally ill patients to seek medical assistance in hastening their deaths when their pain becomes unbearable or their quality of life is otherwise intolerably and hopelessly impaired.” This definition is sufficient to why the process of physician-assisted suicide is or should be legal in some areas across the world. However, the definition fails to describe what kind of “unbearable” pain is required for this process or how the process is performed on the patient. Oregon is the only state in the United States that allows physician-assisted suicide, which is “a quick, painless, and certain end to their intolerable suffering” opposed to the patient who can suffer from the pain until their body shuts down. Physician-assisted suicide is also legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland. Without the option of physician-assisted suicide, patients who wish to die but simply cannot perform the act in a proper manner, lead to other acts that can be gruesome. The point is, it is easier for terminally ill patients to say goodbye to their families and face death at a given time while enduring no pain from there on, rather than suffering the whole time and dying at any given moment, without allowing the patient and their family to say their last goodbyes. No one should have to suffer, especially if there is no known cure or drug that can permanently or temporarily ease the pain. Physician-assisted suicide should be brought back into public focus and should be encouraged to other states to pass similar legislation.
Jazmine Robinson
I chose the article the Other Pro-Choice Movement by Mary Shaw. In this article it talks about the suicide law. This can be defined as “allowing terminally ill patients to seek medical assistance in hastening their deaths when their pain becomes unbearable or their quality of life is otherwise intolerably and hopelessly impaired.” Oregon is the only state in the United States that allows physician-assisted suicide for adults, and it should be legal in other states. I believe that it should be legal in other states because of the people that cannot bare the pain any longer because of the terminally ill than they should have the right to live or not. I don’t believe in anyone suffering. I feel it’s just wrong
Paul Peregord
In The Other Pro-Choice Movement Mary Shaw discusses the laws concerning physician assisted suicide. Oregon is the only state that recognizes physician assisted suicide as a legal procedure. This is an operation that should be legalized in every state. Your life is your life and you should not have to justify how you want to live it, or end it. In the case of terminally ill patients, they have no hope of getting better. Maybe lessening their symptoms, but they have a illness that will end their life. When life for them gets too painful, too unbearable, or too anything that they don't wish to experience, they should have the ability, the opportunity to be “put out of their misery. The article defined physician assisted suicide as “allowing terminally ill patients to seek medical assistance in hastening their deaths when their pain becomes unbearable or their quality of life is otherwise intolerably and hopelessly impaired.” What I challenge is that physician assisted suicide should be available to everybody, not just the terminally ill. Those that want to end their life, end their life. They will commit suicide in their own way and quite possibly will cause themselves great harm in doing so. Physician assisted suicide would provide every person with a way out of their life without pain. A contemplative take on suicide. Personally, I don't need a individual who wants to be dead to be around. Get out of your misery, I have my own problems and I'm going to handle them my own way. Don't try to tell me how to live my life, don't try and tell a person that they have to live their life. It wasn't their decision to be brought into this world, but they should have the decision to take themselves out of it.
Lia Hale
“Physician Aid-in-Dying” is an article about physicians that give patients who are diagnosed 6 months to live or less, a lethal amount of medication to end their life sooner. Only two states allow this choice among their patients, Oregon and Washington. I suppose it is right for a terminally ill patient to decide whether or not they want to live. Though it’s an option to those patients with 6 months to live which is better than giving it to a patient with 2 years to live, but doctors have misdiagnosed life spans. There have been cases when someone was expected to have a shorter life span and lived much longer than expected or even ended up in remission. To make this argument stronger I would research how many patients have lived longer than expected and how much longer did they live.
Stephine Fulbright
In Mary’s Shaw, the Other Pro-Choice Movement physician assisted suicide one can define it as allow terminally ill patients to seek medical assistance in hastening their deaths when their pain becomes unbearable or their quality of life is otherwise intolerably and hopelessly impaired. Now the question that comes to mind is who decides that their life is at this stage. If the terminally ill themselves don’t take their life then it wasn’t meant to be. Anyone can sign a paper or wavier for a physician to help them, but who’s to say that’s what they really want. Yes their life may be miserable or intolerable but they themselves should be the only ones to take it. No one should give them that assistance in what some feel is saving them from misery, or pain. It is their choice if they want to live, but no one should help them to their death.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.