Physician Assisted Suicide Essay Example for Free

Physician Assisted Suicide Essay According to the opposing viewpoints database Assisted suicide occurs when a physician provides a patient with the means of ending his or her life-usually a prescription for a fatal dose of drugs. The patient takes the drugs independently of the doctor. Assisted Suicide (also known as physician assisted suicide) has been an issue that is becoming hot as scientists are getting the ability to prolong human life and find a new way to cure diseases previously not able to be cured and people have been talking about people dying due to those diseases. Doctors have had to explain the available treatment options and to obtain the patients consent prior to treatment since the early 1900s with the standard of informed consent. This lets the patient make their own choice with the input of their doctor, and not just do whatever the doctor says. The question with assisted suicide is, Should people who want to die be allowed to arrange an easy, no pain death? I believe that with the correct guidelines and laws, allowing someone to take their own life should be allowed and ratified in all states. The opposing argument does have pretty good points, but I believe that the pros of allowing assisted suicide outweigh the cons. First the opposing view saying that assisted suicide shouldnt be legal says that legalizing assisted suicide would make it too easy for others, such as people suffering from treatable depression, to commit suicide. People with treatable depression might take advantage of this, but people with untreatable depression that have no way out and it is unfair to them to not be able to decide what they want. With the legalization of assisted suicide there will be steps in order for a person to qualify for it, such as the ones already  set up by the Netherland which state To qualify for euthanasia under Dutch law, a person must be mentally capable of making the decision, act voluntarily, be ill without hope of recovery, and have a lasting wish to die. Physicians performing euthanasia must consult with at least one other doctor and must write reports on each case. These qualifications will make it much more difficult for people to take advantage of the system of assisted suicide. Another opposing argument is that people who want to live might not get good care if assisted suicide is a cheaper alternative. This would not be the case because the Hippocratic Oath, which according to Medicinenet is a statement of medical ethics tells physicians, first, do no harm. While you might have the few corrupt doctors who will try to do this, the protocol set in place will make it very difficult for doctors to do this. Lastly the opposing view points My first reason of supporting the legalization of assisted suicide is since because people already can refuse treatment even if they know they will die, why are the not allowed to actively seek out a pain free death? Since you can decline to have treatment done on you if you have a life threatening disease and you know youre going to die, I believe it is fair to ask to be killed and put out of your misery. People with untreatable diseases such as Ebola, and cancer that will cause death, and depression that is untreatable should have a way to die without the day to day pain and suffering of living with the incurable diseases. Next assisted suicide should be legal because if someone is going to kill themselves already we should allow a pain free option, as opposed to a suicide like shooting or hanging yourself. People will always want to kill themselves but with the legalization of assisted suicide I think it will actually cut down on the number of suicides. The process of going through and getting cleared to have an assisted suicide might be able to clear a persons head and have them think more about whether they actually want to die or not so they cannot make a rash decision. This will also allow for a suicide that will go much more smoothly than suicides done by now by yourself since the physicians and doctors who know what they are doing are prescribing you a drug that you take to allow you to die. According to the  opposing viewpoints database some physician feel that it is appropriate for them to end the suffering of a patient who is capable of making a rational decision and asks to die. According to a study done by suicide.org from 1950-2003 26 percent of suicides attempted resulted in a failed suicide and just caused injury. This fact is not good and would be nonexistent if assisted suicide was legalized. Lastly assisted suicide should be legal because humans have the right to decide whether they want to live or die. We have the right to bear arms, freedom of speech, and other freedoms. We are our own entity, and I believe that people should have the right to a much more practical death run by someone who knows what they are doing. All human beings should be treated as equal and able they have certain rights. I believe that one of those rights is the right to determine if they want to live or die, and I think that people should have the option to have a professional to help. The debate of assisted suicide is a hot issue and has allowed for some very good debates in the past couple of years. I think the opposing view has some good points, but in my eyes the pros of assisted suicide diffidently outweigh the cons of it. I think assisted suicide should be legalized because since people can refuse treatment even if they are going to die why cant the ask to die, we should allow a pain free option since if they are already contemplating it they might do it so we should allow a way for someone to commit suicide with a professionals help, and lastly because it is a right humans have to determine whether they live or die. Assisted suicide is something that people talk about and a lot of people have opposing views of it, with me being on the side saying it should be legal. Citation page Assistedsuicide.org: Suicide Statistics. _At Suicide.org! , , , , !_ N.p., 12 June 2013. Web. 10 Oct. 2014. . Oppsingveiwpoints.com: Assisted Suicide. _Opposingviewpoints_. N.p., 15 Feb. 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2014. . Hippocratic Oath: Hippocratic Oath. _MedicineNet_. N.p., 22 Nov. 2009. Web. 12 Oct. 2014. .

Nathaniel Hawthorn :: essays research papers

Nathaniel Hawthorne Nathaniel Hawthorne was born in Salem, Massachusetts. His father, also Nathaniel, was a sea captain and descendent of John Hawthorne, one of the judges in the Salem witchcraft trials of 1692. He died when the young Nathaniel was four year old. Hawthorne grew up in seclusion with his widowed mother Elizabeth - and for the rest of her life they relied on each other for emotional solace. Later he wrote to his friend Henry Wadsworth Longfellow: "I have locked myself in a dungeon and I can't find the key to get out." Hawthorne was educated at the Bowdoin College in Maine (1821-24). In the school among his friends were Longfellow and Franklin Pierce, who became the 14th president of the U.S. Between the years 1825 and 1836 Hawthorne worked as a writer and contributor to periodicals. Among Hawthorne's friends was John L. O'Sullivan, whose magazine the Democratic Review published two dozen stories by him. According to a story, Hawthorne burned his first short-story collection, Seven Tales of My Native Land, after publishers rejected it. Hawthorne's first novel, FANSHAWE, appeared anonymously at his own expense in 1828. The work was based on his college life. It did not receive much attention and the author burned the unsold copies. However, the book initiated a friendship between Hawthorne and the publisher Samuel Goodrich. He edited in 1836 the American Magazine of Useful and Entertaining Knowledge in Boston, and compiled in 1837 PETER PARLEY'S UNIVERSAL HISTORY for children. In was followed by a series of books for children - GRANDFATHER'S CHAIR (1841), FAMOUS OLD PEOPLE (1841), LIBERTY TREE (1841), and BIOGRAPHICAL STORIES FOR CHILDREN (1842). The second, expanded editi on of TWICE TOLD TALES (1837), was praised by Edgar Allan Poe in Graham's Magazine. In 1842 Hawthorne became friends with the Transcendentalists in Concord, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, who also drew on the Puritan legacy. However, generally he did not have much confidence in intellectuals and artists, and eventually he had to admit, that "the treasure of intellectual gold" did not provide food for his family. In 1842 Hawthorne married Peabody, an active participant in the Transcendentalist movement, and settled with her in Concord. A growing family and mounting debts compelled their return to Salem. Hawthorne was unable to earn a living as a writer and in 1846 he was appointed surveyor of the Port of Salem. He worked there for three years until he was fired.

Rhetoric in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar Essay

Throughout various plays and pieces, rhetoric is used to persuade characters into committing to a significant action or decision. In William Shakespeare’s plays, rhetoric is used regularly by characters that plan to persuade others into doing certain actions that satisfy their own personal opinions and needs. As it can lead to many dangerous outcomes, the art of persuasion, evoked through uses of rhetoric, can be seen as a lethal weapon that has the power to cause damage and harm. Similarly, the use of rhetoric also has the power to reveal truths and identities, that have been hidden and kept secret and are only able to be discovered through the schematic initiation of persuasion. To completely persuade someone else, a character must use rhetoric to overcome one of three key decision-making factors: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos. In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, appeals to Logos, Pathos, and Ethos are effectively used to reveal character, as seen in Cassius, Antony, a nd Brutus respectively, throughout the play. Cassius chooses to persuade different characters through appeals to Logos, which indicates his true qualities and aspects, and how they reflect his motifs. To appeal to Logos, one must appeal to the logical side of a person’s mentality; they must use reasoning and syllogism to persuade another person into believing that their opinion is completely logical, and is therefore the best decision to make. This can be seen in Cassius numerous times, and it establishes how he is calculating, logical, and cold. In the second scene of the first act, Cassius tells Brutus that Caesar is not the godly king the he sets himself up to be, and persuades Brutus that Caesar must be overthrown. Cassius convinces Brutus that Caesar is not fit for the thrown by using recollections of past experiences, in which Caesar can be seen as frail and impotent, to insult Caesar and convince Brutus that he is surely not strong enough to be crowned the leader of Rome, â€Å"His coward lips did from their colo ur fly, and that same eye whose bend doth awe the world did lose his lustre†. (1.2.122-124) The message is that Caesar is weak, and is no stronger than the average mortal Roman. If Caesar is weak and frail, how will he be able to lead an entire nation? This use of syllogism appeals to Brutus’ Logos, and convinces him that it is only logically fit to have a strong and capable man as leader, if there were to be a leader, through the simple cause-and-effect method. This is an example of Cassius being calculating, logical, and cold as he calculates that Brutus can be persuaded through a reasonable, syllogistic appeal, he uses logic to show Brutus evidence that Caesar is weak, and he is cold to the fact that Brutus is a very close friend of Caesar, and that turning such good friends against each other would be dishonourable, disrespectful, and inconsiderate to the bond they share and the significance of their relationship. Antony uses rhetoric through appeals to Pathos to effectively persuade others, and this reveals how he can be seen as smart, empathetic, and loyal. An appeal to Pathos is an appeal to emotion, rather than logic or credibility. Antony understands the power of one’s emotions, and uses his knowledge of this to persuade people into satisfying his needs by convincing them that their emotional desires are the most reasonable factor in making a decision. In the second scene of the third act, Antony gives a moving speech to the Plebians about Caesar’s death, and how he believes it was a traitorous act by the conspirators, and that his murder must be avenged. Antony knows full well that the common mob is not an intellectual group in the slightest, and chooses to appeal to emotions in an emotionally overwhelmed crowd, showing that he is smart and clever. To persuade the Plebian audience into fully believing that Caesar did not deserve to die, Antony decides to render Caesar’s death as a personal loss to each individual Plebian by overstating the fashion in which Caesar was killed, and by exaggerating the betrayal of Caesar’s close friend, Brutus, â€Å"Through this the well-loved Brutus stabb’d, and as he pluck’d his cursed steel away, mark how the blood of Caesar follow’d it, as rushing out of doors to be resolv’d if Brutus so unkindly knock’d or no, for Brutus, as you know, was Caesar’s angel†. (3.2.174-179) By dramatizing Caesar’s death, Antony convinces the Plebians that Caesar, the man they had loved so much, did not deserve to die in such a gruesome manner, betrayed by his close friends, and thus causes the Plebians to feel resentful and vengeful for the death of such a seemingly innocent man. By persuading the Plebians into believing that Caesar’s dea th must be avenged through an exploitation of their emotional dominance in the decision making process, Antony can be seen as empathetic, as he understands the emotional connection between the Plebians and Caesar and uses it to his advantage, and loyal, as he desires, so strongly, for his best friend to be avenged for such a heinous and disloyal crime. Ethos is Brutus’ rhetorical device of choice, and his various uses of it to persuade other characters shows that he is proud, honourable, and naà ¯ve. In the first act of the second scene, Cassius brings the conspirators to Brutus’ house, where they discuss their plan to kill Caesar. Up until this point in the play, Brutus declares that he is very honourable towards his morals, and only does what he believes is right after considering both sides of an argument. Thus, Brutus can be seen as honourable, and proud of his morals, honour and the fact that he always contemplates the right decision by considering the significance of each factor. Much like the way Brutus presents himself in such a manner during the beginning of the play, Brutus can also be seen as honourable and pride through his uses of rhetoric. In this specific scene, Brutus insists that an oath is unnecessary, as they are all honourable men and plan on doing what is best for Rome, â€Å"No, not an oath! If not the face of men, the sufferance of our souls, the time’s abuse-If these be motives weak, break off betimes, and every man hence to his idle bed; so let high-sighted tyranny range on, till each man drop by lottery† . (2.1.114-119) Here, Brutus tries to persuade the conspirators into becoming honourable, if they already aren’t, and believing that their only motif for killing Caesar should be for the greater good of the Roman Republic. This shows that Brutus has pride, as he believes that his mentality of honour is the best mentality for this decision, and he is honourable, as he believes that their actions should only be the most honourable ones. However, Brutus’ pride in his honour causes him to be naà ¯ve and blind to the fact that not every one of the conspirators agrees with his honourable mentality. Brutus’ pride causes him to believe that his personal mentality is the only possible mentality, and renders him blind to the fact that the conspirators are not killing Caesar for Brutus’ honourable reasons. By becoming completely absorbed to the belief that their only possible motif is for honour, Brutus causes himself to be naà ¯ve, through his own honour and pride.

Doctor Assisted Suicide - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 944 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2019/05/31 Category Law Essay Level High school Tags: Assisted Suicide Essay Did you like this example? While taking your own life may be wrong, Doctor-assisted suicide should be acceptable because the patient or individual may feel the need to undergo the process of Doctor-assisted suicide because they are suffering from something that may be making life difficult for them. Also, people may feel the need to undergo a procedure like this because they feel like it is their only hope and they just want to be put to rest. The individual most of the time is experiencing something that some people cannot around them cannot understand and they feel like they are trapped in an unbearable situation that they cannot cope with and feel the need to ask a doctor for help and put them to sleep. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Doctor Assisted Suicide" essay for you Create order Again it may seem wrong but Doctor-assisted suicide is the better alternative to having to suffer through all the problems and deep pain that the person may be facing. On the other hand it also it helps the individual finally be relieved of all the pain that they may be feeling on the inside and out. Although it may seem unlikely but there is a possibility that a person gets themselves into a terrible situation resulting in a horrible injury but it is possible. Chances are that someone might be put in a situation as grave as this. If so I should be legal for the person to make their own choice and chose to take their own life because this procedure gives them something that medicine cannot give them. A good example of a people who may need this procedure might be patients that are Terminally ill meaning that they have a disease that is not able to be cured. These people would rather be put to sleep than to have to suffer the rest of their life knowing they have this disease that causes them such great pain and will never be cured. In a situation like that the person may believe that the best choice is to be put to death. Also being put to death by a Doctor is also the best choice for a terminally ill patient because it reduces the fear of the patient because he knows that his death will be painless and he wont have to live through his current pain and suffering. The important part of the topic is that people understand that these patients are not choosing to Die because they want to simply just die. They are asking to be put to death because they are in such deep pain and suffering that they cannot express to others. This specific procedure is currently only available in 7 States and for the procedure to be approved the physician must be a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) licensed to practice medicine by the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Oregon. The physician must also be willing to participate in the Act. (CNN) The Doctor also has to verify that the patient is a resident of the State that the procedure is legal in. The problem with this is that this is currently only legal in 7 states but all people should have the right to be put to death if they really have to need to undergo the process but that is for the State to decide on. People should have the right to chose to die. If the Individual feels the need to do it it should be completely legal to do so but the law states that As soon as one takes steps to end the life of another, they may become criminally liable for homicide. (HG Legal Resources) but it really does not make much sense. People should be able to be put to death if they want to because it is their own body but the law forbids this practice for a reason that remains very unclear to the public. The reason Physician Assisted suicide is illegal is not clearly stated by the court of law but the other main argument is that such practices are immoral and state that Doctors who commit these crimes have violated many of the rules and values that they agreed to follow when they became a d octor. (LEP). But many believe against this because its not immoral if the patient is suffering and really needs this procedure. It is more immoral to let the patient suffer just because people believe its not ok for a person to be put to death but people do not have the slightest idea of what these people might be going through. But then again this is still immoral in the eyes of the law and the public. The choice belongs to the person who feels the need to die not the law that forbids this act. There are many people in the United States and even in the World that need this procedure because they dont want to suffer through something, not even their worst enemy deserves. There are innocent people that have Terminal illnesses and each one of them have to fight through the pain, the tears, and sorrow to have to put up with another day of agony knowing that they will never be cured just because it is immoral and illegal to be put to sleep by a Doctor who is only trying to calm the patient down and finally put them at peace. The people should have the right to make the choice they think is best for them. The Practice Doctor Assisted Suicide should be acceptable and legal for anyone with the need of it because they do not deserve to suffer what they are going through.