- Information
- AI Chat
Against euthanasia viewpoint notes
Health Education
NCEA
• 13 (NCEA 3)Recommended for you
Preview text
Class research euthanasia
Against EUTHANASIA INFORMATION STATS
Student Name
● Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life ● Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives (those of the disabled or sick) are worth less than others ● Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable ● Euthanasia might not be in a person's best interests ● Euthanasia affects other people's rights, not just those of the patient ● Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary ● There's no way of properly regulating euthanasia ● Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill ○ Allowing euthanasia to undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives ○ Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill ○ Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill ○ Euthanasia undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying, and good pain relief ● Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors ● Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives ○ Moral pressure on elderly relatives by selfish families ○ Moral pressure to free up medical resources
○ Patients who are abandoned by their families may feel euthanasia is the only solution
● Euthanasia is a homicide. In most countries, killing another person is considered murder, even if the intention is to “ease the pain” ● Abuse against whether Euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal. ● The right to die implies a duty to kill. ● Euthanasia encourages vulnerable people to end their lives. Directly or indirectly, Euthanasia imposes many pressures on the elderly and people with disabilities. ● Euthanasia is likely to increase the suicide rate. There is a huge debate around how we need to decrease suicide not only in teens but adults too, and legalising Euthanasia could send mixed messages to suicidal people by making it seem like it is okay to commit suicide. ● Euthanasia may lead to the decline of care for terminally ill people. ● Euthanasia could become an economical method of “treating” the terminally ill. The costs of poisons used for causing death by Euthanasia is about $50 per injection, while a chemotherapy treatment costs thousands of dollars. ● Euthanasia may weaken patients. Access to Euthanasia could cause an internal conflict for the patient, torn between fear of pain and the desire to continue to live rich moments with their family and loved ones. Thus, in the context of a society open to Euthanasia, the patient having difficulty living with demanding illness would bare an additional burden. ● There could have been a possibility that the patient has been misdiagnosed by a doctor. Under the current medical system, doctors aren’t actually paid to come up with the right diagnosis. So in that case, if a doctor misdiagnosed a patient, and the patient choose the go through with Euthanasia, the doctor could possibly be charged for this
● When seriously ill patients receive good palliative care (physical, psychological and spiritual care), they rarely want to end their lives.
● Good medical care aims to eliminate the pain, not kill the patient. Key medical bodies oppose a law change, for example, the New Zealand Medical Association; Hospice New Zealand; the Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine; Palliative Care Nurses New Zealand, and the New Zealand Health Professionals Alliance, among others.
● The fact that voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) are illegal means maximum efforts are made to relieve pain and address all aspects of a person’s suffering. Will this still occur if the law is changed? EAS would be a cheaper option.
● Legalising assisted suicide, especially for mental conditions, accepts that ‘some suicides are okay’. This risks sending a ‘mixed message’ regarding the tragedy of youth suicide and creates a confusing double standard.
● The current law has a stern face, but a kind heart. By holding a penalty in reserve, it sends a strong message that it’s not okay to deliberately kill someone else. However, the Court shows compassion in individual cases based on specific circumstances. For example, in 2012 Evans Mott was discharged without conviction for assisting his wife’s suicide.
● Changing the law will not mean an end to such cases going to court as it could still be difficult to distinguish between an assisted suicide and a murder.
● Many assume that changing the law will simply allow the very small number of high-profile cases to proceed without legal objection. In fact, ‘legalisation leads to normalisation’ and, as has happened overseas, will lead to greatly increased numbers dying that way.
● Changing the law would create a legal situation in which the state licenses death in advance and sanctions the death of some of its citizens.
● Legalising assisted suicide amounts to state-sanctioned suicide.
● Changing the law would send a message that some people’s lives are not worth living – it will steer some people towards a premature death.
● Granting a tiny and vocal minority the choice to be killed will undermine the choice and/or will of many others to live.
● Allowing voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS) opens the door for disabled, sick and elderly people to see themselves as a financial and emotional burden. The ‘right to die’ could become a ‘duty to die’. No safeguards can protect against this. In Oregon, 49% of those receiving legal assisted suicide in 2016 cited “concern about being a burden” as a reason.[2]
● Abuse of disabled and elderly people is a serious issue in New Zealand. Legalising euthanasia would put them further at risk, especially when there is increasing pressure on the health budget.
● The act of euthanasia is neither easy nor peaceful. It is a difficult thing to do, and medical personnel is adversely affected. In Belgium, doctors are entitled to psychotherapy after euthanizing a patient. It is not uncommon to see Belgian nurses take a day off when they know that euthanasia is planned. ● Accepting euthanasia means accepting that some lives (such as elderly or people with disabilities) are worth less than others. Legalizing euthanasia would send a clear message: it is better to be dead than sick or disabled. For a healthy person, it is too easy to perceive life with a disability or an illness as a disaster, full of suffering and frustration.
● Euthanasia will lead to the decline of care for terminally ill people. The Geneva University Hospital reduced its palliative care team after it decided to allow assisted suicide. In the Netherlands, there is a confirmed case of a patient euthanized to free up a hospital bed. In Brazil, although euthanasia is illegal, a doctor has recently been accused of seven murders after killing patients in intensive care. An investigation is underway to elucidate 300 other cases of suspicious deaths, probably caused by the same doctor. What would have happened if euthanasia was legal?
● Euthanasia devalues human life ● Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment ● Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death ● There is a "slippery slope" effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first been legalized for only ● the terminally ill and later laws are changed to allow it for other people or to be done non-voluntarily.
● People in health care have the responsibility to save lives and keep others healthy. With euthanasia, doctors or physicians who practice this act are violating their oath to preserve lives and not do harm unto others. This act is a clear opposition to the principles of medicine which is to provide cure for illnesses and render care to patients. ● Euthanasia, like suicide has a psychological effect on people and society. According to experts, people with family members who have committed suicide are prone to doing the same and this also goes with the act of mercy killing. If society will accept it as a normal practice, it can influence more people to consider euthanasia. This can be bad especially if the sickness was wrongly diagnosed but the patient was already euthanized. ● Euthanasia will always remain a topic debated upon by proponents and opponents. People from both sides will always discuss about its advantages and disadvantages. Whichever has more weight, perhaps, depends on the situation and it is best to consider these factors all the time.
futureofworking/6-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-eutha nasia/
Hospices in New Zealand believe that improving access to hospice and palliative care services should be the priority for Government. This will ensure everyone receives quality care regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status or location. Only when all New Zealanders have ready access to good quality end-of-life care can a balanced discussion begin. All people should be made aware of options for hospice and palliative care, and should be offered an individual assessment of their needs to ensure that appropriate palliative care is being provided. This should be an integral part of advance care planning. hospice.org/about-hospice-nz/euthanasia-our-opinio n
In the Netherlands, the law which makes euthanasia legal requires the following criteria to be met:
Zealand, and Hospice New Zealand, as an organisation,
does not support a change in the law to legalise euthanasia
or assisted suicide in any form. Hospice NZ believes greater
access to palliative care will improve end-of-life care for New
Zealanders. Greater investment will reduce inequity of
access, increase numbers of trained healthcare professionals
(across the whole health sector), and provide more resources
for Hospice services. This investment should be a major
priority for central
government.hospice.org/resources/euthanasi
a-our-opinion/
Ethical arguments
● Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life ● Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives (those of the disabled or sick) are worth less than others ● Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable ● Euthanasia might not be in a person's best interests ● Euthanasia affects other people's rights, not just those of the patient
Practical arguments
● Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary ● There's no way of properly regulating euthanasia ● Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the
terminally ill ○ Allowing euthanasia undermines the committment of doctors and nurses to saving lives ○ Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill ○ Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill ○ Euthanasia undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying, and good pain relief ● Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors ● Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives ○ Moral pressure on elderly relatives by selfish families ○ Moral pressure to free up medical resources ○ Patients who are abandoned by their families may feel euthanasia is the only solution
Historical arguments
● Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people
Against euthanasia viewpoint notes
Subject: Health Education
NCEA
• 13 (NCEA 3)
- Discover more from:
