Today sacred a right as the Right to

Published by admin on

Today there are five to ten thousand comatose patients in long term care facilities (Wheeler A1). There are countless elderly people in care facilities that have repeatedly expressed a desire to die. There are countless terminally ill patients that have also begged for death. Should these people be allowed to die, or should they be forced to keep on living? This question has plagued ethicists and physicians throughout the years.

In the Netherlands, courts have begun to permit the administration of lethal injections to terminally ill patients (Jacoby 101). To many people, this is a barbaric practice. To others, it is the only humane thing to do. When a person is dying of a terminal illness with no hope of recovery, that person should be allowed to die if they wish. Deliberately keeping them alive to endure the pain and suffering of their illness is the barbaric practice. If they wish death, death should be given to them. Activists for the “Right to Life” don’t stop to consider the right to die. I believe that the Right to Die is as sacred a right as the Right to Life. People who believe in the Right to Die are not alone. The Hemlock Society, which advocates the right to die for terminally ill patients claims to have 28,000 members in forty chapters nationwide (Derr 3).

One of the controversies over the right to die is: who should choose? If the patient is comatose or is unable to make rational judgements, should the doctor or a family member be permitted to make the final decision? If family members were allowed to make the decision Right to Life advocates claim, a family member could get away with the murder of a relative just because that person can’t make up their own mind. Right to Death advocates have a simple answer to this problem. Every person should have a ‘Living Will’ which simply states that that person wishes death if they are fatally injured or become terminally ill. A ‘Living Will’ would permit people to make their own decisions about life and death with no possibility of being misunderstood.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Today, Holland has legal euthanasia where an estimate for the figures for deaths from active euthanasia would be in the range of six to eighteen thousand deaths (Moody 712). This number may seem horrible to some, but to others, it simply means another six to eighteen thousand people who are no longer suffering.

I do not know why the Advocates for the Right to Life insist on keeping people who are suffering alive, but I do know that they have no right to dictate to a person whether or not they have the right to die. I can understand the concern of these people that euthanasia might be used for unethical killings, such as the Nazis did in World War II, but if euthanasia were strictly regulated to include only those who had specifically asked for euthanasia, or those who had asked for it in living wills, then what happened in Germany could be prevented.

When someone is suffering extreme pain from an injury or a terrible disease, do we deny them drugs to make them more comfortable? Of course not. I see no reason to deny the same suffering and dying people the comfort of death.

* Derr, Patrick. “Euthanasia and the Future of Medicine.” Hastings Center Report December 1988: 2-3
* Jacoby, Tamar. “‘I Helped Her on Her Way'” Newsweek November 7, 1988: 101
* Moody, Harry R. “Legal and Ethical Issues in Elder Care: The Right to Die” Gerontologist October 1988: 711-712
* Wheeler, David L. “Euthanasia: an Increasingly Pressing Issue for Ethicists and Physicians” Chronicle of Higher Education November 9, 1988: A1, A6

Categories: Family Members

Opium- extreme degree. The presence of soldiers

Published by admin on

Opium- an addictive drug originally used as a painkiller. It is obtained from the unripe seeds of the opium poppy and can be made into substances that a person can smoke causing relaxation, alleviated anxiety, and a state of euphoria. Continued use of the drug also induces deterioration to the mind and body of a person eventually causing death. The substance was therefore stated illegal in China during the late 18th Century yet consistently smuggled into the country via British merchant ships. As the Chinese placed more restrictions on trade in an effort to abolish the importation of opium, the battle against the drug raged on until war was unavoidable between England and China. It is this war that lasted from 1839-1842 which eventually led to the British reign over Hong Kong and legalization of opium trade in China as well as the opening of many trade routes along the Chinese coast. The British success of the war is unarguable, however, the extent to which they devastated China could have possibly been avoided if the Chinese emperor had received accurate information regarding his country’s failure during the first battles. If the emperor had known of his navy’s lack of success against British warships a compromise could have been met however, due to inaccurate reports to and from commissioner Lin Tse-hsu the emperor was unaware of England’s inevitable victory. With Lin in charge, Chinese success over the opium trade was going well and followed through to an extreme degree. The presence of soldiers in Canton, the main trading port between them and the British, and the threat of potential execution to any person found using or selling the drug illustrated the extent to which Lin would proceed. (So then) The opium crisis began in 1837 when Chinese officials disrupted the smuggling by burning the boats used to carry the opium ashore from the floating warehouses. It was such threats that prompted Palmerston of England to dispatch a warship to China to protect British property in 1837. Despite this, China still raged on against the narcotic and in March of 1839 convinced the head of the British trade commission at Canton, Captain Charles Elliot, to hand over more than 20,000 chests of opium. However, after the killing of a Chinese by drunken seamen and the lack of punishment put forth on them by the British, Lin suppressed all trade with England and proceeded with other measures as well. Lin ordered that delivery of all rice, tea, meat and fresh vegetables to the anchored ships at Macao to be intercepted and cut off. Freshwater springs that were known to be used by the British at various points along the coast were poisoned. Large banners were posted to warn Chinese villagers not to drink from the streams. Lin then pressured the Portuguese authorities at Macao to evict the British from their harbor, under penalty of severe trade restrictions. These drastic measures forced all of the British ships to retreat from Macao to Hong Kong by the middle of August. However, such trade limitations would not go well with England and a severe response was in order. On August 31, Commissioner Lin learned that the merchant ships anchored off Hong Kong had been joined by a twenty-eight gun British frigate. Although this news was not good, Lin, who had the use of a fleet of Chinese war junks at his disposal, was not frightened by the arrival of a single British warship. Finally the first confrontation between the two navies occurred and it was the barbarians, as thought by the Chinese, that were victorious. Although the Chinese warships returned the British fire, they did no damage to the British ships, and were forced to retreat after being badly shot up by cannonballs. The captains of the defeated Chinese junks feared that their failure would be viewed by higher authorities as a disgraceful act of cowardice. The captains therefore reported to Commissioner Lin that they had won a victory and had sunk a British ship. This incident also represents the first of inaccurate messages passed to Chinese officials providing the government with a false sense of security. The British response was not one intended for violence however. For security, a second armed vessel joined England’s entourage in an effort to deliver a sealed letter to the Chinese. However, the Chinese refused to open the message before returning it triggering another battle. The British immediately sank five of the largest Chinese war junks and severely damaged many others in an attack that lasted just under 45 minutes. Once again the Chinese suffered significant losses against superior weaponry and once more out of fear, falsified the encounter. Commissioner Lin now faced serious difficulties. If he truthfully reported his defeat to the Emperor, he was likely to be disgraced and punished. He therefore kept his report of the battle brief and vague, describing six imaginary “smashing blows” that had been inflicted on the impetuous British barbarians. This conveniently crafted statement no doubt prolonged Lin’s authoritative position in addition to providing the Chinese government with more unfounded confidence, which would soon be exploited. In the beginning of June, 1840, Lin suddenly found himself confronting a large British expeditionary force that had come from Singapore, which included steam-powered gunboats and thousands of British marines. In a report to the Emperor, Lin wrote, “English warships are now arriving at Canton. Although it is certain that they will not venture to create a disturbance here, I am certain that they will, like great rats, attempt to shelter the vile sellers of opium.” Still confident that the Chinese coast-guard could prevail in the event of trouble, Lin concluded “People say that our junks and guns are no match for the British…. But they do not know!” Commissioner Lin’s forces, however, proved to be no match for the invaders, who immediately imposed a blockade on the Canton estuary, then attacked and took control of strategically important sites along the China coast. There was no way of disguising this loss to the Emperor and Lin was justly reassigned. However, ten years later Lin was once again told to stop the trade of opium but collapsed and died during a trip to Kwangsi. The successive Imperial Commissioners who replaced Lin Tse-hs in Canton were unable to stop the opium traffic. In conflicts known as the First and Second Opium Wars, British naval and marine forces seized control of Hong Kong, ravaged the Chinese coastline and briefly occupied the capital city of Peking. In 1858 the Chinese government, bowing to British demands, reluctantly legalized the importation of opium. These wars have faced the efforts for justification and many reasons can be found. However, the underlying reasons for war rarely live up to the expenses paid. The wars waged on the Chinese people caused untold deaths and casualties. The British destroyed, plundered, looted and raped their way along the coast of China. Had the Chinese properly been notified on the trend of the war, perhaps these lives would have been spared.
Legal Issues

Categories: Trade

STUDY: The Rehabilitation Centre, Ottawa, Canada, and colleagues

Published by admin on

2000 SEP 19 — ( — Patients with advanced stage cancer favor policies that allow euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide if pain and physical symptoms become intolerable, according to an article in the September 11, 2000, issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Keith G. Wilson, PhD, from The Rehabilitation Centre, Ottawa, Canada, and colleagues surveyed 70 terminally ill cancer patients (median survival was 44.5 days) to evaluate their attitudes about euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. This is the first study to directly examine the attitudes of cancer patients who are nearing death, according to the authors.
They found that 73% believed euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide should be legalized — their major reasons included pain and the right to choose. The participants who were opposed to the legislation cited religious and moral objections.
Forty patients (58%) reported they might make a future request for a hastened death, if it were legal, particularly if pain and physical symptoms became intolerable. Twelve percent would have made such a request at the time of the interview. This group was different from the other participants in that they reported a greater loss of pleasure or interest in activities, they felt more hopelessness and they had more desire to die. They also had a higher prevalence of depressive disorders; however, they did not differ on ratings of pain severity.
“People who are against legalization are motivated primarily by religious or secular moral concerns, which place the sanctity of human life above other considerations,” Wilson et al. explain. “Those who are in favor of legalization are more concerned about the relief of uncontrollable pain and suffering, as well as with the rights of the individual to exercise choice and control. These are fundamental differences in the premises on which the two positions are based, which suggests that there is little common ground between them on which to reach a compromise solution.”
According to background information in the study, cancer patients are the largest group to select euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in jurisdictions that allow physician-hastened death (Arch Intern Med, 2000;160:2454-2460).
The study was supported by a grant from the National Health Research and Development Program of Health Canada, and by a Career Scientist award from the Ontario Ministry of Health to co-author Ian D. Graham, PhD, from the Ontario Ministry of Health.
By: Gorsuch, Neil M.; Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Summer2000, Vol. 23 Issue 3, p599, 112p
/ Pages : 414 / 24

Categories: Career


I'm Iren!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out