Research — Wiseman101

Is Death also a Choice?

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) as part of euthanasia is one of the oldest points of contention in medical ethics. The original Hippocratic Oath forbids it, and many religions and societal traditions have rejected it since antiquity. In physician-assisted suicide, a suffering or terminally ill patient is aided by a certified health practitioner to get access to a lethal dose that the patient then administers on themselves. If the patient is incapable of doing so, they can request the physician to administer the lethal substance to end the patient’s life. [Physician-assisted dying (PAS) as part of euthanasia is one of the oldest points of contention in medical ethics. The original Hippocratic Oath forbids it, and many religions and societal traditions have rejected it since antiquity. In physician-assisted dying, a suffering or terminally ill patient is aided by a certified health practitioner to get access to a lethal dose that the patient then administers on themselves. If the patient is incapable of doing so, they can request the physician to administer the lethal substance to end the patient’s life.]

It is called physician-assisted because the doctor supports in dying and hastening the death of the patient. In this case, the doctor takes the step knowingly and ready to make the patient die. There is a difference between physician-assisted suicide and the euthanasia. In euthanasia a doctor, assist the patient to die through the administration of a lethal drug while in physician-assisted dying, the doctor deals with a sound mind individual who requests voluntarily to die by requiring a dose of barbiturates that will kill him or her. The state of the art palliative care should be established to treat these people suffering and almost ending their lives. The practice of physician-assisted suicide continues to raise debate as only five American states, a handful of European Countries and Colombia permit some form of doctor-assisted suicide. Even though many governments and organizations do not formally accept physician-assisted suicide as a standard medical practice due to ethical concerns, they should adopt it because it is a show of respect to individual civil liberties as provided by the right of every individual to choose what is best for them without government or societal interference. [The practice of physician-assisted dying continues to raise debate as only five American states, a handful of European Countries and Colombia permit some form of doctor-assisted suicide. Even though many governments and organizations do not formally accept physician-assisted suicide as a standard medical practice due to ethical concerns, they should adopt it because it is a show of respect to individual civil liberties as provided by the right of every individual to choose what is best for them without government or societal interference] Nobody should control how someone should die; therefore, patients should be given a right to die anytime they will.

[The text in purple is reproduced from a Pay-for-Paper site called Course Hero where papers are purchased for college courses. https://www.coursehero.com/file/35361015/Physician-Assisted-Suicide-A-Protection-of-Individual-Civil-Libertiesdocx/ ]

Many states have illegalized physician-assisted suicide. However, there has been a recent flurry of legal implications in this case. Kopelman also claims that, the issue of whether of whether to legalize physician-assisted deaths (PAD) has been on debate for a long time now. In the United States, most of the states have prohibited PAD and terming it as unconstitutional, but it the real sense it constitutional. Individuals should be given their liberty under the constitution.  She says that there have been several attempts to change this law. One of the federal challenging the constitutionality of these prohibitions of PAD includes two Supreme Court cases, Washington vs. Glucksberg and Quill vs. Vacco. After several attempts to legalize PAD failed, then the Death with Dignity Act was passed in Oregon in 1995 and also in Washington state in 2008. These laws allow an individual who wishes to die through physician-assisted practice to do so freely.

There has been a controversy on how to recognize the right of PAD individuals. According to Kopelman, some people associate the word suicide with some mental illness and some irrational behavior. However, these people should be given a right to control their lives because there is a point a patient realizes that death is the only best option for the illness, this is a self-preservation means. That is why when the states legalized this means of dying called is physician-assisted suicide.

There are various reasons why the right to physician-assisted suicide should be recognized. The first reason is patient autonomy. A patient should be guaranteed a right to control any possible circumstances surrounding his death. Respect of the patient is one duty of a doctor. The sole responsibility is to relieve pain the patient is undergoing, physician-assisted suicide is one of the approaches used. This practice was practiced in Oregon whereby over 100 patients obtained a prescription for lethal doses under the law, which was passed in 1997. 850 patients die after taking such doses. Most of these patients had critical and acute diseases like cancer whereby death was the only remaining option. It should also be noted that physician-assisted death is a personal choice; therefore, people should be given their right to choose what suits them. Sometimes the pain in the patient can be too much to contain, therefore when the patient recognizes it is better to die, nobody is supposed to prohibit that, secondly, there is an aspect of mercy. If the pain and suffering the patient is undergoing cannot be relived through the palliative care, then the doctor has the powers to do anything possible to assist the patient to relieve the pan, even if it means hastening patient’s death. Because, honestly, sometimes pain can be unbearable.

Kopelman also points out that, not all medicine can relieve human suffering. The pain and suffering of a dying patient can be too much. The suffering is caused by somatic symptoms like nausea, pain, depression, anxiety and even hopelessness. For most of the patients, when they feel to have the control over their death timing, they get comfort. However, it is reasonable to ask for medicine before opting for death directly. As much as there should be a right for physician-assisted individuals, nobody wants patients to die but have freedom and a right to remain alive and in good health. However, it should be noted that PAD is controlling suffering on terminally ill patients.

There is an unexpected benefit of allowing patients to have a right to physician-assisted suicide. However, it should be noted that the laws and rights for physician-assisted right do intend to kill a patient but to assist in pain relieving. In the study by Boudreau, Donald J., and Margaret A. Somerville, “Physician-assisted Suicide Should Not Be” in this exercise, patients have the opportunity to die with dignity; they experience less trauma and pin when dying. In addition, the patient has all the time to say goodbye to the friends and family members. It should be noted that when the patient requests to die early, he saves the financial burden that the family would have used to treat a disease, which will not get ill at the end of the day. The other most crucial benefit of such a death is that some useful organs like the kidneys can be saved for that patients and be used to save the lives of other patients. In addition, one can imagine if there were not physician-assisted suicide, many people could have committed suicide in a mess and horrifying, traumatic manner.

The other most important reason for legalizing physician-assisted suicide is that it gives patients freedom of choice. The capability to control your mind and body is fundamental to any human being. Boudreau and Somerville agree that, a patient should not be allowed to continue suffering for long in this world when in the real sense there are no hopes for healing members. Death is never enjoyable to witness, but also it is more saddening to see your loved one struggle in pain which will not end any time soon members. Therefore, physician-assisted death helps the terminally ill patient to end his life without necessarily undergoing agony for a long time. Physician-assisted suicide is the best method to determine the right time and manner of a terminally ill patient. This liberty grants the patients alternatives to choose. The constitution provides this liberty and makes it clear for everyone. However, some proponents can argue that physician-assisted suicide should be illegalized since the doctors have no right to determine the right time for a patient’s death.

Although physician-assisted suicide can be regarded as a sound practice, there are valid arguments against its application. According to Margaret Sommerville in her book “Death Talk, Second Edition: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide,” she claims that the constitution recognizes the right to life, and when life and death are compared, life will take precedence. Allowing physician-assisted dying is a contradiction of the first liberty. [Although physician-assisted suicide can be regarded as a sound practice, there are valid arguments against its application. First, the constitution recognizes the right to life, and when life and death are compared, life will take precedence (Sommerville, 2014). Allowing physician-assisted dying is a contradiction of the first liberty.]

In a literature review by Nicole Steck and Matthias Egger “Euthanasia and assisted suicide in selected European countries and US states: systematic literature review,” they conclude that it is also possible that legislating doctor-assisted suicide will be the first step on a slippery slope that will involve threats to the vulnerable as premature death is enacted as a cheap alternative for palliative care. This is true when one considers that a dose of euthanasia costs an upward of $50 and kidney failure treatment may cost an upward of $89,000 per year in the US. Also, Sommerville points out that, unproductive and poor citizens will be targeted and this, again, goes against the right of every American to access quality healthcare. [It is also possible that legislating doctor-assisted suicide will be the first step on a slippery slope that will involve threats to the vulnerable as premature death is enacted as a cheap alternative for palliative care. This is true when one considers that a dose of euthanasia costs an upward of $50 and kidney failure treatment may cost an upward of $89,000 per year in the US (Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen, 2013). Unproductive and poor citizens will be targeted and this, again, goes against the right of every American to access quality healthcare.]

For some people, the contention is absolute and moral. Life is sacred and the suffering that comes with it till one dies confers its dignity and consequently, deliberately ending a human life is wrong. Finally, how long will it take before physician-assisted suicide becomes involuntary? When relatives approach a 92-year old man on life support and request them to sign the physician-assisted suicide forms, is that not indirectly violating their rights as they have no choice? [For some people, the contention is absolute and moral. Life is sacred and the suffering that comes . . . . My free preview of the Course Hero document ended here. I did not purchase the paper to continue the comparison.]

According to Bradley Denton and his partner Dr. William Bradley in their “Australian Nursing and Midwifery” journal , the views that physician-assisted dying is immoral and strips human dignity deserves some seriousness but, is not autonomy and liberty critical sources of human dignity as well? The right to choose certainly adds value to human life and people should not take a myopic view of ethics without analyzing the laws that make these ethics possible. In the society we live in where the state and religion are separated, it is queer to support the sanctity of life abstractly by exposing particular individuals to unbearable pain, suffering and indignity that comes from some terminal conditions .Furthermore, evidence from countries and states where physician-assisted suicide has been enacted shows that the slippery slope contention with regard to widespread physician-assisted suicide is a myth. In the Netherlands for example, Gopal in his “Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,” says that the process of doctor-assisted dying is bureaucratic and highly complex meaning that most applicants are rejected until it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the request is voluntary and will do more good than good. The Netherlands treats physician-assisted suicide as a criminal act if not carried out in the presence of an ethics expert, a legal expert, and the doctor. This implies that strict controls are needed, not blatant rejection, to ensure that this right is protected and not abused.

In the article” Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies” by MSC. Suela Hoxhaj, the argument that life should take precedence over death does not hold water when analyzed from an individual’s rights perspective. Just as people have the right to live with dignity, they also have a right to die with dignity. Medical practice is supposed to alleviate pain and unnecessary suffering in patients. Take the example of a single mother of teenage children having stage four cancer. Undergoing chemotherapy means that her hair falls off even as she consistently vomits while enduring the extreme pain that her children are supposed to watch as they take care of her. Presently, the medical technology we have cannot do any better than chemotherapy and radiotherapy to treat cancer (which generally cannot restore health in stage four cancer) and in the case of this mother, the continuing suffering only robs her of her dignity and those of her children. With physician-assisted suicide, such patients and their families get a right to a dignified end.

According to Sommerville, anti-physician assisted suicide proponents argue that death is a natural process that should not be interfered with. However, doctors have and continue to implicitly exercise the right of dying on the patient’ behalf. Physician-assisted suicide fixes this by recognizing the individual civil liberty of the patient to choose and administer PAS. Doctors normally exercise this right by giving pain-relief in lethal doses or withdrawing treatment. As Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen notes, this is usually after talking to relatives, and even though doctors are normally investigated for overstepping this mark, they are rarely charged. [Usually this is by withdrawing treatment or administering pain-relief in lethal doses. Often doctors act after talking to patients and their relatives. Occasionally, when doctors overstep the mark, they are investigated, though rarely charged.] Numerous people welcome this fudge given that it lays limits to PAS albeit with no need to articulate the contentious moral choices involved. [Some people welcome this fudge because it establishes limits to doctor-assisted dying without the need to articulate the difficult moral choices this involves.] This is unethical and unworkable given that the explicit choice to die that should be in the hands of a patient is left in the doctor’s hands. It is hypocritical and goes against the individual civil liberties as society pretends to shun PAS while tacitly and subtly allowing it without safeguards. [But this approach is unethical and unworkable. It is unethical because an explicit choice that should lie with the patient is wholly in the hands of a doctor. It is hypocritical because society is pretending to shun doctor-assisted dying while tacitly condoning it without safeguards.] Physician-assisted dying in its openness will fix this practice of deaths through nods and winks that contravenes individual rights. [Most deaths now take place in hospital, under teams of doctors who are working with closer legal and professional oversight. Death by nods and winks is no good.]

Gopal also suggests that, the fear that physician-assisted suicide will be foisted on vulnerable individuals, bullied by rogue doctors, cash-strapped states, panicking relatives, and parsimonious insurers is unfounded. [One fear is that assisted dying will be foisted on vulnerable patients, bullied by rogue doctors, grasping relatives, miserly insurers or a cash-strapped state.] The Oregon experience, where a law allowing PAS has existed since 1997, points to the enhanced recognition of civil liberties. Individuals who choose doctor-assisted dying are in fact insured, well-educated and getting the best palliative care. [Experience in Oregon, which has had a law since 1997, suggests otherwise. Those who choose assisted suicide are in fact well-educated, insured and receiving palliative care.] These individuals are motivated by the desire to maintain their own dignity, pleasure in life, autonomy, and the pain that comes with some conditions. [They are motivated by pain, as well as the desire to preserve their own dignity, autonomy and pleasure in life.]

[The text in blue comes not from Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen, nor from Gopal, but from the same Economist article not named in the References. ]

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) can be caused by the fact that there is no available care for the victim patient. According to Ardelt Monika in the handbook of death and dying 1 “Physician-assisted death,”  palliative care strategies can be effectively utilized to ensure that lives of patients are prolonged rather than shortened. It is not something that can be advocated to have the patients’ lives shortened and yet there are care services that can be incorporated to assist patients to recover from acute suffering. There are quality end-of-life programs available through many hospitals. The focus should not be whether to legalize and give patients a right to decide for their lives, but it should be aiming to provide services that guarantee life for patients. The emphasis should be trying to improve hospital care. Ardelt also claims that, there are more than 4000 hospital agencies in the United States, but due to regulations and strict laws and the rigidity nature of the Medicare hospital cover requirements patients to possess a life expectancy of six months or less, many people in the USA fail to access these services. If the trend continues, then definitely there will be more PAS scenarios and people will be committed to fighting for their rights to die through physician-assisted method. In the US, there is excellent terminal care, which is readily available in many hospitals. Every individual in all states has access to hospital care when they require it. This is made available for people of all ages, either the elderly, children, rich, poor and even the mortal people. A significant number of individuals who die in the US die under the care and the umbrella of hospital premises. The fact is not because there is no sufficient care in the US hospitals; it is not because, in America, terminally ill patients are beyond control, no, this is simply because PAS has been legalized by many states. Making the doctors lazy in the administration of required care, hence assisting patients to die early.

It is evident that at some point, PAS can be recommended for the patient who is terminally ill and experiencing acute pain, but still, we need to look at it adverse effect in the healthcare industry. There is a possibility that advocating for PAS will make many physicians to cause more harm than good. According to Margaret Somerville and Dr. Boudreau, Donald, first, physician-assisted suicide is not the core aim of a doctor, professionally. The sole role of a physician is to support the good health of a patient and assist the patient as much as possible to ensure prolonged healthy life. Permitting PAS publicly will make the doctors lazy in the provision of quality palliative care services, which are aimed to support quality life. The involvement of physicians in PAS raises the question of ethical medical practice. The physician should not assume that facilitating the death of a patient is a unique role, it is not something to recommend but to avoid at all cost.

In conclusion, physician-assisted dying is the ultimate protection of individual civil liberties in the ongoing euthanasia debate. Just as people have the right to life, they have a right to autonomy, happiness, and pleasure in life; elements that are guaranteed through the right to choose a dignified death that alleviates unnecessary suffering. Anti-PAS proponents suggest that it will open the doors to a slippery slope of forced death on vulnerable patients, but evidence from Netherlands and Oregon show that this is a myth if strict controls are in place. After all, the right to die for patients has for long been practiced by physicians and relatives on behalf of patients through the withdrawal of medication or prescription of pain medication. Physician-assisted suicide is fixing this subtle illegal practice by placing the right to die in the patient’s hands hence protecting civil liberties.

References

Denton, A., Levett, C., Bradley, S., & Thoma, L. (2016). Death and dignity: Why voluntary euthanasia is a question of choice. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal24(6), 18-23.

Gopal, A. A. (2015). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Considering the Evidence, Existential Distress, and an Emerging Role for Psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law43(2), 183-190. Retrieved from http://jaapl.org/content/43/2/183

Hoxhaj, O. (2014). Euthanasia – The Choice between the Right to Life and Human Dignity. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies3(6), 279-284. doi:10.5901/ajis.2014.v3n6p279

Sommerville, M. A. (2014). Death talk: The case against euthanasia and physician-assisted Suicide (2nd Ed.). Sydney, Australia: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

Steck, N., Egger, M., Maessen, M., Reisch, T., & Zwahlen, M. (2013). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Selected European Countries and US States. Medical Care51(10), 938-944. doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182a0f427

Boudreau, Donald J., and Margaret A. Somerville. “Physician-assisted Suicide Should Not Be Permitted: option 1.” The New England Journal of Medicine 368.15 (2013): 114-145. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305322708_Euthanasia_and_assisted_suicide_a_physician’s_and_ethicist’s_perspectives

Kopelman, Loretta M. “Does physician-assisted suicide promote liberty and compassion?.” https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-9631-7_6

Physician-Assisted Suicide: What are the Issues?. Springer, Dordrecht, 2001. 87-102. https://www.springer.com/us/book/9781402003653

Ardelt, Monika. “Physician-assisted death.” Handbook of death and dying 1 (2003): 424-434. https://med.virginia.edu/wisdom/publications/ardelt/

Boudreau, Donald J., and Margaret A. Somerville. “Physician-assisted Suicide Should Not Be Permitted: option 1.” The New England Journal of Medicine 368.15 (2013): 114-145.

Kopelman, Loretta M. “Does physician-assisted suicide promote liberty and compassion?.”

Rebuttal Rewrite — Wiseman101

Physician-assisted suicide

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) as part of euthanasia is one of the oldest points of contention in medical ethics. The original Hippocratic Oath forbids it, and many religions and societal traditions have rejected it since antiquity. In physician-assisted suicide, a suffering or terminally ill patient is aided by a certified health practitioner to get access to a lethal dose that the patient then administers on themselves. If the patient is incapable of doing so, they can request the physician to administer the lethal substance to end the patient’s life. The practice of physician-assisted suicide continues to raise debate as only five American states, a handful of European Countries and Colombia permit some form of doctor-assisted suicide. Even though many governments and organizations do not formally accept physician-assisted suicide as a standard medical practice due to ethical concerns, they should adopt it because it is a show of respect to individual civil liberties as provided by the right of every individual to choose what is best for them without government or societal interference.

Although physician-assisted suicide can be regarded as a sound practice, there are valid arguments against its application. According to Margaret Sommerville in her book “Death Talk, Second Edition: The Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide”, she claims that the constitution recognizes the right to life, and when life and death are compared, life will take precedence. Allowing physician-assisted dying is a contradiction of the first liberty. In a literature review by Nicole Steck and Matthias Egger “Euthanasia and assisted suicide in selected European countries and US states: systematic literature review”, they conclude that it is also possible that legislating doctor-assisted suicide will be the first step on a slippery slope that will involve threats to the vulnerable as premature death is enacted as a cheap alternative for palliative care. This is true when one considers that a dose of euthanasia costs an upward of $50 and kidney failure treatment may cost an upward of $89,000 per year in the US. Also, Sommerville points out that, unproductive and poor citizens will be targeted and this, again, goes against the right of every American to access quality healthcare. For some people, the contention is absolute and moral. Life is sacred and the suffering that comes with it till one dies confers its dignity and consequently, deliberately ending a human life is wrong. Finally, how long will it take before physician-assisted suicide becomes involuntary? When relatives approach a 92-year old man on life support and request them to sign the physician-assisted suicide forms, is that not indirectly violating their rights as they have no choice?

According to Bradley Denton and his partner Dr. William Bradley in their “Australian Nursing and Midwifery” journal , the views that physician-assisted dying is immoral and strips human dignity deserves some seriousness but, is not autonomy and liberty critical sources of human dignity as well? The right to choose certainly adds value to human life and people should not take a myopic view of ethics without analyzing the laws that make these ethics possible. In the society we live in where the state and religion are separated, it is queer to support the sanctity of life abstractly by exposing particular individuals to unbearable pain, suffering and indignity that comes from some terminal conditions .Furthermore, evidence from countries and states where physician-assisted suicide has been enacted shows that the slippery slope contention with regard to widespread physician-assisted suicide is a myth. In the Netherlands for example, Gopal in his “Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law”, says that the process of doctor-assisted dying is bureaucratic and highly complex meaning that most applicants are rejected until it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the request is voluntary and will do more good than good. The Netherlands treats physician-assisted suicide as a criminal act if not carried out in the presence of an ethics expert, a legal expert, and the doctor. This implies that strict controls are needed, not blatant rejection, to ensure that this right is protected and not abused.

In the article” Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies” by MSC. Suela Hoxhaj, the argument that life should take precedence over death does not hold water when analyzed from an individual’s rights perspective. Just as people have the right to live with dignity, they also have a right to die with dignity. Medical practice is supposed to alleviate pain and unnecessary suffering in patients. Take the example of a single mother of teenage children having stage four cancer. Undergoing chemotherapy means that her hair falls off even as she consistently vomits while enduring the extreme pain that her children are supposed to watch as they take care of her. Presently, the medical technology we have cannot do any better than chemotherapy and radiotherapy to treat cancer (which generally cannot restore health in stage four cancer) and in the case of this mother, the continuing suffering only robs her of her dignity and those of her children. With physician-assisted suicide, such patients and their families get a right to a dignified end.

According to Sommerville, anti-physician assisted suicide proponents argue that death is a natural process that should not be interfered with. However, doctors have and continue to implicitly exercise the right of dying on the patient’ behalf. Physician-assisted suicide fixes this by recognizing the individual civil liberty of the patient to choose and administer PAS. Doctors normally exercise this right by giving pain-relief in lethal doses or withdrawing treatment. As Steck, Egger, Maessen, Reisch, & Zwahlen notes, this is usually after talking to relatives, and even though doctors are normally investigated for overstepping this mark, they are rarely charged. Numerous people welcome this fudge given that it lays limits to PAS albeit with no need to articulate the contentious moral choices involved. This is unethical and unworkable given that the explicit choice to die that should be in the hands of a patient is left in the doctor’s hands. It is hypocritical and goes against the individual civil liberties as society pretends to shun PAS while tacitly and subtly allowing it without safeguards. Physician-assisted dying in its openness will fix this practice of deaths through nods and winks that contravenes individual rights.

Gopal also suggests that, the fear that physician-assisted suicide will be foisted on vulnerable individuals, bullied by rogue doctors, cash-strapped states, panicking relatives, and parsimonious insurers is unfounded. The Oregon experience, where a law allowing PAS has existed since 1997, points to the enhanced recognition of civil liberties. Individuals who choose doctor-assisted dying are in fact insured, well-educated and getting the best palliative care. These individuals are motivated by the desire to maintain their own dignity, pleasure in life, autonomy, and the pain that comes with some conditions. These are factors that embody the civil liberties promise of most governments around the world.

In conclusion, physician-assisted dying is the ultimate protection of individual civil liberties in the ongoing euthanasia debate. Just as people have the right to life, they have a right to autonomy, happiness, and pleasure in life; elements that are guaranteed through the right to choose a dignified death that alleviates unnecessary suffering. Anti-PAS proponents suggest that it will open the doors to a slippery slope of forced death on vulnerable patients, but evidence from Netherlands and Oregon show that this is a myth if strict controls are in place. After all, the right to die for patients has for long been practiced by physicians and relatives on behalf of patients through the withdrawal of medication or prescription of pain medication. Physician-assisted suicide is fixing this subtle illegal practice by placing the right to die in the patient’s hands hence protecting civil liberties.

 

 

 

References

Denton, A., Levett, C., Bradley, S., & Thoma, L. (2016). Death and dignity: Why voluntary euthanasia is a question of choice. Australian Nursing and Midwifery Journal24(6), 18-23.

Gopal, A. A. (2015). Physician-Assisted Suicide: Considering the Evidence, Existential Distress, and an Emerging Role for Psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law43(2), 183-190. Retrieved from http://jaapl.org/content/43/2/183

Hoxhaj, O. (2014). Euthanasia – The Choice between the Right to Life and Human Dignity. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies3(6), 279-284. doi:10.5901/ajis.2014.v3n6p279

Sommerville, M. A. (2014). Death talk: The case against euthanasia and physician-assisted Suicide (2nd Ed.). Sydney, Australia: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

Steck, N., Egger, M., Maessen, M., Reisch, T., & Zwahlen, M. (2013). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Selected European Countries and US States. Medical Care51(10), 938-944. doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e3182a0f427

Open Strong — Wisemann101

Physician-assisted suicide is a situation where the physician assists the patient to end his/her life due to an uncontrollable health condition. When a patient is suffering a chronic disease, which cannot be healed at a particular time or cannot heal completely can request a specific prescription of drugs to end his life to avoid much-prolonged pain. In the scenario, the doctor intends to hasten the dying process of the patient knowingly (Copeland, 87). Sometimes the condition is commonly referred to as euthanasia, but it is different. Some laws and regulations have been set to address the issue of whether physician-assisted suicide is valid and lawful or not. There should be some palliative care and trials in all means before assisting the patient to die. This death shortcut should be the last alternative when all sorts of palliative care have failed to bear fruits (Copeland, 87). Some people have argued that patients have a right for physician-assisted death (PAD); they imply that patients should be allowed to decide what they wish to happen to their lives. This essay analyses the causal and effect relationship that will result in the case of granting people the rights to physician-assisted suicide.

 

 

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) as part of euthanasia is one of the oldest points of contention in medical ethics. The original Hippocratic Oath forbids it, and many religions and societal traditions have rejected it since antiquity. In physician-assisted suicide, a suffering or terminally ill patient is aided by a certified health practitioner to get access to a lethal dose that the patient then administers on themselves. If the patient is incapable of doing so, they can request the physician to administer the lethal substance to end the patient’s life. The practice of physician-assisted suicide continues to raise debate as only five American states, a handful of European Countries and Colombia permit some form of doctor-assisted suicide. Even though many governments and organizations do not formally accept physician-assisted suicide as a standard medical practice due to ethical concerns, they should adopt it because it is a show of respect to individual civil liberties as provided by the right of every individual to choose what is best for them without government or societal interference.

White paper- Wildwood

Proposal:

The three different branches of government were not created as an organizational tool, as something just to categorize different offices and government workers to make payroll easier. They were built and are maintained to prevent against the tyranny that, let’s face it, help create the idea of this new and innovative land. The three different branches, Legislative, Judicial, and Executive, are tasked to keep the next one in check and to ensure they do not become too powerful with the legislation they pass. To make sure the imaginary boundaries are not crossed and there is no confusion as to where the certain powers come from.

With a couple exceptions, every president in the United States history has used the privilege that comes with the being the head of the executive branch. Executive orders are a privilege afforded to the President of the United States in order for them to enact temporary legislation or effect a new bill that might have been signed off on by the Speaker of the House. But when is it too much? When does the President cross that imaginary line and overstep the privilege? There are steps that the Legislative branch could take to limit the awesome power granted to the President.

 

Source 1:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_powe

Content of this article:

This piece discusses a number of different powers granted to the president and how it can be wielded. Everything from the wartime powers to pardons to citizens convicted of a federal crime. Also states where the powers are limited and where the extent of the privilege lies.

What it proves:

This article proves that the presidential power has a limit and a history too it. I will discuss if the limit is not strong enough and ways the government could limit the power as it pertains to overreach from the president.

Source 2:

https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-use-and-abuse-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives

Content of this article:

This article opens up by discussing the fact that in the past, an executive power has been shot down by the high court, which was unthinkable to ever happen in the past. This article goes into depth regarding the separation of powers and how presidential directives are defines.

What it proves:

This piece not only discusses how the president could enact an executive order, but proves that the history of the directives shows there are limits on the power, no matter how broad it may be.

 

Source 3:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/executive-orders-101-what-are-they-and-how-do-presidents-use-them/

Content of this article:

This article directly points at where the power of the executive orders come from and shines a little light on where in the constitution the directive comes from. It also allows the reader to know that the order has the same effect that a regular law signed has on the regular population.

What is proves:

This piece proves that executive orders were used in the past and help shaped this county to where it is today. It gives examples when historic legislation was passed and wouldn’t of went through if it wasn’t for Article II. Discusses that Lincoln had more executive orders shot down by the supreme court more than anyone in history and shows how he went around even executive orders.

 

Source 4:

https://qz.com/898683/can-an-executive-order-be-revoked/

Content of this article:

This article somewhat shows the line of where executive orders can be overturned and how they can be revoked. Doesn’t go into an enormous amount of detail but it covers where and how executive orders can be overruled.

What it proves:

This piece proves that there are ways to overrule or revoke an executive order even though the laws surrounding such may not be as stringent as they could be.

 

Source 5:

https://www.ranker.com/list/bold-executive-orders-by-presidents/mike-rothschild

Content of this article:

This article dives into the most famous of the executive orders, the orders that helped shape this county. Diving in depth into some of the more infamous executive directives could make the second article of the constitution more relatable and easier to put into plain text.

What it proves:

This piece shows that the most well-known executive orders help shape the country we live in today. Executives orders help outline legal precedent that will shape the court system for many generations in the future.

White Paper – Pinkpineapples23

1.Physical activity, Fitness, and Physical Education: Effects on Academic Performance

The Content of the Article: The relationship between physical activity and physical fitness to brain health and to academic performance. Children should be provided with physical activity breaks, may increase time and attention on a task in a classroom setting.

What it proves: Physical activity is related to cognitive development and a healthier body. Children who are physically active outperform the inactive and unfit children for a short and long term. Overall, increases of physical activity improve the brain structure and the function that underlies academic performance.

2. Physical activity may help kids do better in school

The content of the article: Physical activity improving a child’s academic performance. Providing different studies assessing children in physical activity and comparing them to children who are not activity. Providing in school physical activity can benefit the kids.

What it proves: Children who are physical activity do better on test then children who are not active. Fitness in kids tends to corelate with higher socioeconomic status which strongly predictive of academic achievement. Where activity was added in schools, children who were at risk for obesity are now in the normal body range of mass index.

3. Preschoolers not getting enough physical activity in child care

The content of the article: The children spent 73% of tier time sedentary. They are claiming that the more active the children are at an early age the more likely they will maintain a higher activity level throughout their childhood.

What it proves:Spending little time on physical activity risks setting patterns for inactivity that will follow the children into their childhood. They have barriers that inhibits them to provide the children with physical activity, the space is not safe for play and the fear of the children getting hurt.

4. Physical activity: Benefits of exercise for health and wellbeing  

The content of the article: Provides the benefits of physical activity in different categories. The Categories are health, brain function, and emotional and mental health.   

What it proves:Physical activity helps to develop the children’s movement skills. Moderate intensity can increase the size of an area of the brain where learning and memory are involved. Being physically active can reduce any anxiety for people who have heightened anxiety. It will allow children to make more friends if they are physical active, especially in sports.

5. The Value of Movement Activities for Young Children  

The content of the article: Movement is important in a young child’s life. It can help not only motorically but emotionally and socially. They can benefit from many different types of motor activities. Movement can also help children with disabilities.

What it proves: Cooperative activities can help children learn to work together which can help them socially. The simple activities can help long reaching skill that can assists a child later in life. For children with disabilities, movement activates is a starting point for further development in other areas.

White Paper- muggastackz

 

https://intpolicydigest.org/2015/03/11/is-the-media-altering-our-perceptions-of-crime/

The Essential Content of the Article: This article provides information regarding social media outlets and how they are the reasons why crimes are becoming more and more prevalent. The idea behind this article is; are crimes rates increasing nationwide because social media allows us to perceive how the crimes are being done. It gave percentages on the difference between crime rates then and crime rates now.

What it proves: The article explains how the media can inform us about a crime that happens nationwide. Along with the idea that all of this information may not be true; people believe that crime rates are increasing. The more significant crimes get put on the social media platform to prove that crime will continue to grow. The FBI gives statistics that violent crimes across the nation are slowly decreasing reasonable crime rates are starting to rise.

 

The Essential Content of the Article: This article explains how murder rates are rising in cities. In many cities, homicide rates are increasing while the regular crimes like burglary are slowly decreasing. The article provides credible people like a chief of polices, a criminologist and a mayor to give information on why these rates are increasing.

What it proves: This article demonstrates that crime rates are increasing as actual crime is decreasing. In small cities, murder rates are rising due to environmental effects like a bad neighborhood. The data in this article is valid because there are people who have done research on this idea to prove that there is an increase with rates and a decrease in crime.

http://prospect.org/article/violent-crime-increasing

The Essential Content of the Article: The article talks about how crimes are increasing by racial and social groups. The article gives data regarding on the ages of different groups and how they affect crime rates in America. Political people give their thoughts on how the criminal justice system works.

What it proves: The article provides information on how people in society are affected by the criminal justice system and what makes these crime increase. Different races and social groups will do crime differently than others. People who abuse drugs do crimes as well to affect people in society. This article provides thoughts on why crime increase along with why do people do these crimes.

http://www.vindy.com/news/2018/sep/28/fbi-statistics-crime-report-local-nation/

The Essential Content of the Article: This article gives statistical data regarding local cities that mirror national crime rates. The article talks about two local towns whose homicide rates increased as well as decreased.  Chief of Police from the local cities made remarks on why these crimes are frequently happening and how things could lower the crime rates.

What it proves: This article proves that there could be possible ways on why murder rates keep increasing as crime will as actual small crimes are less prevelant in cities. This information helps with the credible sources and statistical data by having the increase or decrease from year to year.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-caused-the-crime-decline/477408/

The Essential Content of the Article: The main idea of this article is about how crimes have dropped in the U.S. This article reflects on how crime in the 90s has changed from then to now. There are questions and answers to why certain things have changed dealing with crime.

What it proves:  This proves that the crime rates have going upward. Even when they decrease, they still continue to increase. This article provides information for each region and how their rates different from others. This also gives details on how policing works along with how the economy works with the criminal justice system and the crimes that are happening.

 

 

White Paper- P1nk123456

Question:

Why don’t Black people wear their natural hair? Why are they raised to permanently change their hair from its natural state?

Thesis:

Black people do not wear their hair naturally because they have been taught for centuries to assimilate into White society.

 

Prologue/ Possible Beginning:

For my research essay, I am exploring the social aspects of Black society in America. I want to know why Black people do not like their natural hair. Now I know this is not for every single Black person, but the majority believe that their hair is unattractive, unprofessional, or not “good”. Off of the top of my head, I can answer by saying it is a cultural belief that has been passed on for generation starting from slavery and has been held onto because of racial bias in society. What I don’t understand is why in today’s society, Black people, specifically women, still believe that their hair is inferior in comparison to a White woman’s hair. Even if they fear that they will not be accepted into society, whether it is because they have directly dealt with workplace issues involving their hair or indirectly from their parents, why do they believe that their hair is not attractive or professional enough to the point that they chemically alter their hair.

Another issue is the Black woman’s view of other women. As much as some may say that they do it to make White people comfortable or to assimilate into White society, they do it because they feel that their Blackness is unattractive. Black women will comment and ridicule other Black women for the same hair that they naturally have. If you were changing your hair for the White people, why would you attack the Black people? They are known for calling other female’s hair unruly, unattractive, and unprofessional; they refuse to own their natural hair type.

As many compliments that I have received over the years for having an afro, I have also received lots of critiques, especially form Black people. Usually White people ask annoying and stupid questions like “how do you get it like that?” or “can you straighten it?”, followed by trying to touch my hair and saying how cool or pretty it is. These questions usually irritate me and honestly make me think (and say out loud) “are you stupid, of course I can straighten it” or “I don’t know, how do you get your hair like that?” But when a Black person comments something that’s not a compliment, it is usually along the lines of “you need to get your hair done,” as if I didn’t spend 5 minutes moisturizing and pikking it in the morning and an hour washing and detangling the night before. Some people believe that being“light skinned” girls or boys were more attractive than “dark skinned” or the Black people that would only date Hispanics or Whites because they have better physical attributes and would their children “good hair”.” Not that that shouldn’t be a problem, we are allowed to have our preferences, but It is basically saying Black is not beautiful.

Structure: 

  1. Introducing thesis, Biological advantage of Black hair; what is natural black hair?

Generations of Black people, specifically women, in America have dealt with generations of social struggle to meet the ideal beauty standard when it comes to their hair. The battle between not being White, but trying to look as though they fit in socially with the Eurocentric beauty standards of this country has impacted the hairstyle of Black people for decades.

Natural Black has ranges from soft, ‘S’ shaped curls to the tight ‘Z’ shaped of a kinky afro. Famous personal hairstylist, Andre Walker, invented the Andre Walker Hair Typing System which rates hair from pin-straight type 1a to the kinkiest type 4c; most Black people being typer 3 and 4 (**Nina G. Jablonski, George Chaplin.) Originating in Africa, kinky hair evolved for the dry heat by whi

Post emancipation African American culture did the double duty of investing in two things to “fix” their Blackness, their otherness. Skin bleaching and hair straightening were the dual remedies. Skin bleaching has dramatically fallen out of fashion, and is now seen as a politically incorrect ritual of self-hatred. However, altering hair texture is still a booming business in African American communities.

Nappy, kinky, or curly; they are all descriptions of Black hair. What defines Black or African hair ranges from loose, S shape curl patterns to tightly curled hair to the kinkiest ‘Z’ shaped, cross-sectioned strands of an afro.

Conclusion

I know that it is completely true that a lot of White people do not understand the concept of Black hair since they live in their bubble and that there was a time when Black hair was less acceptable and professional, but in modern times, it shouldn’t be a problem.

Citations:

THE POLITICS OF BLACK HAIR A Focus on Natural vs Relaxed Hair for African-Caribbean Women by Michael Barnett

 

  • “that in many cases the underlying motivation for black women to straighten their hair is due to a deep-seated desire to distance themselves from their natural “kinky” hair.”
  • “In other words, many black women seek to reject their natural black features and emulate white physical characteristics as a result of self-hate based on the internalization of a white supremacist worldview and the racialized hierarchies associated with this.”
  • “Along with the ideology of white supremacy comes the notion of black inferiority. Hence it is by no means a leap of the imagination to posit that the development of low self-esteem among blacks results from their internalization of white supremacy.”
  • “black women had to make do with butter and bacon grease and in some extreme cases, black men used the axle grease for carriages on their hair to give it a straighter look.”
  • “Second, after living so long in a country where white supremacy was the norm, black women internalized the notions of black inferiority, which led them to embrace the concepts of “good hair” and “bad hair” – where kinky hair is seen as “bad hair” and straight, flowing hair as “good hair”. As a consequence of this, they tried to straighten their hair even if it meant using dangerous chemicals like lye, which they mixed with potato, vaseline, and soap at times to create a formula known as “conk””
  • They have gone to the extreme of using bacon grease or car oil to slick their hair back.
  • “the blacks who had been freed before the war wanted to hang on to their position at the top of black society and used as their justification the notion that light skin and “good hair” made them superior”
  • “As early as the 1830s the selling of haircare products for blacks was commonplace in African American periodicals in the U.S. North (as were beauty parlours run by free African American women). These early advertisements focused on products to lighten the skin and straighten the hair.”
  • During the late 1800s African American intellectuals and middle class men championed black hair in its natural state as the preferred style. This trend became even more apparent in the early twentieth century, during and after World War I, when activists such as Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. Du Bois and J.A. Rogers advocated that blacks, especially women, embrace what they deemed to be a natural and inherent beauty born of one’s African heritage.
  • “black women use hair straightening as an assimilation mechanism based on a belief that it conveyed a non-threatening image to white and mainstream society and allowed one to more easily blend in with the rest of society.”

 

Proves: Black women straighten their hair to be a part of the White society. There also lies self-hatred that has carried on for generations; little girls believing they are inferior and less attractive because of their skin and hair. Natural hair has only been a “trend” three times in the last 200 years. White people have been known to prefer hair that doesn’t look like “wool” because it is unattractive, unruly, and threatening.

 

 

https://www.derm.theclinics.com/article/S0733-8635(13)00125-3/pdf

 

WHY AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN TRY TO OBTAIN ‘GOOD HAIR’ Whitney Bellinger University of Pittsburgh at Bradford

  • Commendably, Donaldson (2012) links the economic security factor with that of assimilation. She argues that black women use hair straightening as an assimilation mechanism based on a belief that it conveyed a non-threatening image to white and mainstream society and allowed one to more easily blend in with the rest of society.
  • “Raven-Symone relates her understanding of hair straightening as a way to blend in and make those unfamiliar with black hair (especially whites) more comfortable. In her words, “Relaxing one’s hair is a way to make everybody around you more relaxed.””
  • “According to Abdullah (1998) and Thompson (2009), black women with natural hair in many cases are deemed unkempt, unprofessional and downright unemployable”
  • “Hotel cashier Cheryl Tatum was fired in 1988 for refusing to take out her braided hairstyle. Her supervisor called the hairstyle “extreme and unusual”. If, by contrast, Tatum had worn her hair straightened it would have been very unlikely that she would have been fired at all.”
  • Black women straighten their hair because of tradition. For generations, they have relaxed or hot combed their hair to reach the stiff, but “straight” look. Black female identity has been chosen before they could choose for themselves as a cultural norm.
  • “With the notable absence of celebrity role models and images of women with kinky or natural hair in advertisements and in black magazines (as well as mainstream women’s magazines), there is space for a subliminal message to be communicated that natural hair is not sexy, fashionable or desirable”
  • “Good hair” is only achieved when being close to White textured hair and wearing weave.
  • Hair that is good without being straight is only seen in girls that are mixed race. Their hair is curly and grows down and long.
  • “She further pointed out that because many black women have internalized the pervasive negative bias against African textured hair (black hair in its natural state), it takes them a while to get used to wearing their hair natural”
  • Natural hair is unsexy
  • “Hairstyles essentially indicated things such as a person’s marital status, age, ethnic identity, religion, wealth, and rank within particular communities or regions.”
  • “As such, even though natural African textured hairstyles are growing in popularity, they still are not as widely accepted or as widely regarded as the permed or processed (creamed) and weave-based hairstyle common in largely black communities or societies”

Proves: Black women believe that if their hair is long and straight, they are assimilated into society and accepted by White people. They are also seen as attractive. Having relaxed hair makes White people comfortable. Black women are more marketable for jobs when their hair is straight, so the option might come down to being financially stable or having natural hair. There is a lack of Black women in the spotlight, and when there is, they do not wear their natural hair. It shows young Black girls that their hair is considered unattractive and undesirable.

 

Afro Images: Politics, Fashion, and Nostalgia Angela Y. Davis

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/448739

  • “ whose unruly hair natural hairdo symbolized Black militancy (that is, antiwhiteness).”
  • 60’s era of Black militancy

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-textured_hair

 

  • “natural hair texture of certain populations in Africa, the African diaspora, Oceania and Asia. Each strand of this hair type grows in a tiny, spring-like helix The overall effect is such that, compared to straight, wavy or curly hair,[1]afro-textured hair appears denser.”
  • “In many post-Columbian, Western societies, adjectives such as “wooly”, “kinky”, “nappy”, or “spiralled” have frequently been used to describe natural afro-textured hair.”
  • Hair is categorized currently by a number and letter system; 1a being pin straight have and 4c being the kinkiest and darkest hair type.
  • “Afro-textured hair grows at an average rate of approximately 256 micrometers per day, whereas Caucasian hair grows at approximately 396 micrometers per day.”
  • “An individual hair’s shape is never completely circular. The cross-section of a hair is an ellipse, which can tend towards a circle or be distinctly flattened. Asiatic heads of straight hair are formed from almost-round hairs, and Caucasian hair’s cross sections form oval shapes. Afro-textured hair has a flattened cross-section and is finer, and its ringlets can form tight circles with diameters of only a few millimeters.”
  • “afro-textured hair may have initially evolved because of an adaptive need amongst humans’ early hominidancestors for protection against the intense UVradiation of the sun in Africa”
  • “Historically, many cultures in continental Africa developed hairstyles that defined status, or identity, in regards to age, ethnicity, wealth, social rank, marital status, religion, fertility, adulthood, and death. Hair was carefully groomed by those who understood the aesthetic standard, as the social implications of hair grooming were a significant part of community life.”
  • “In 1960s United States, natural afro-textured hair was transformed from a simple expression of style into a revolutionary political statement. It became a fundamental tool of the Black movementin America, and “[h]air came to symbolize either a continued move toward integration in the American political system or a growing cry for Black power and nationalism.””
  • “At this time, an African-American person’s “ability to conform to mainstream standards of beauty [was] tied to being successful.”[12]:148Thus, rejecting straightened hair symbolized a deeper act of rejecting the belief that straightening hair and other forms of grooming which were deemed ‘socially acceptable’ were the only means of looking presentable and attaining success in society. The pressing comb and chemical straighteners became stigmatized within the community as symbols of oppression and imposed White beauty ideals.”
  • Conking was used in the 1930s to straighten kinky hair
  • Black girls’ self-esteem reflects their hair

 

Proves: Black hair has been used as a symbol of rebellion and freedom three times in history. It is a way to fight conformity and the pressure to be a part of White society. A political statement. Blackness was seen as a positive attribute in these times. Their hair is a part of their heritage.

 

 

Ayana D. Byrd and Lori L. Tharps. “Hair Story: Untangling the Roots of Black Hair in     America.” Bucknell. 2001. Retrieved 24 September 2018. http://www.libcat          .bucknell.edu/wcpa/servlet/org.oclc.lac.ui.DialABookServlet?oclcnum=45094139

 

Chris Rock “Good Hair”

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeXUm8OOUA8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63tXzrpWjbM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0DgVijM7Z8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxQGXmEVw-4&t=470s