A Solution For Terminal Illness Professor Ramos Blog

A Solution For Terminal Illness Imagine this, your mother has had uncontrollable seizures for the past four years with no cure or way to stop them. You have to watch helplessly as she goes through a minimum of seven seizures a day. She can no longer walk, eat, brush her teeth, or do normal activities as she used to without your help. She tells you that every day she is living in unimaginable pain with no rest. The medications to ease some of the pain costs hundreds of dollars that you have to pay for. Your mother tells you she wants to end her life and finally be at peace without having to wake up every morning and go through each day suffering. Would you agree and consent with her in being put to rest? This act of a physician legally ending a person’s life by a painless means with the consent from the patient and their family is called voluntary euthanasia. There are two different ways that euthanasia can be classified. Euthanasia can be classed as either voluntary euthanasia or involuntary euthanasia. Volu ntary euthanasia is when a patient requests and gives consent for a physician to take their life. Involuntary euthanasia is when the patient is unable to give consent for this action (but has previously expressed their want for their life to end) and that decision is then made by someone else. Euthanasia should be legal to anyone who is suffering because of an incurable medical condition or if they are terminally ill, as long as the patient gives consent and has a true understanding of what the procedure is. To clarify what euthanasia is, according to the National Health Service, euthanasia is â€Å"the act of deliberately ending a persons life to relieve suffering† (â€Å"Euthanasia† par. 1). A doctor would be able to intentionally overprescribe a patient’s medication in order for them to slowly end their life, with the consent of the patient of course. This should be legal to those who are suffering from severe medical conditions with no cure or those who are terminally ill. Dr. Michael Irwin states, â€Å"I wouldnt want to be unnecessarily kept alive against my own will (Irwin par. 3). If someone wants to willingly end their life because of medical reasons they should at least have that option available. Being kept alive against one’s own will, and making them suffer from an incurable medical condition is outrageous because they just want to be at peace. This could bring up the question, what about the doctors doing this, can’t it be seen as murder? Dr. Marcia Angell says, â€Å"It seems to me that, as with opposition based on whether the physician is active, the argument that physicians should be only healers focuses too much on the physician, and not enough on the patient.† (Angell 2). Focusing on the patients needs and wants is more important because it should be the patient’s choice if they want to solve their health problems by passing away peacefully. More emphasis should be directed towards what the patient wants not on how the physician feels. In cases where healing and curing patients is unreachable, doctor’s should find ways to alleviate that suffering patients are experiencing. When it gets to the point when the patient is suffering and there’s no plausible way that the patient could recover and heal, then that is the time that he or she should be able to decide if medically passing away is the right option for them. In the end, if the decision is to voluntarily be put to rest then so be it . The best decision for the patient is the most important and he or she should be able to make that choice. The physicians role in this can be explained with the help of the Hippocratic oath that will be discussed as well. The Hippocratic Oath is an oath that has been taken by physicians throughout history and goes like this: I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow. Swearing by this oath could prevent someone from helping a patient with their assisted death but the procedure can always been discussed if it is legal in the state where the patient resides. Theres people that tell me why are you doing this [advocating for PAS], youre supposed to cure, youre supposed to help this person, my answer to that is some people need help dying. To prolong a death in some cases is not helpful, it can be counter productive. My objective is that given the Hippocratic Oath, Im not going against it† (Irwin par. 4). He is not going against the oath because that is was he works by, also he does everything through his work so there is no chance that his work or job could be jeopardized by thinking about assisting a suicide. This oath where the body of it forbids the killing of a human being and also bans the help in suicide. The family has to constantly have the thought in the back of their head that a loved one is in a great amount of pain. Financially, there are many complications that could arise with keeping a suffering man or woman in a hospital along with their treatment. For people who have gone through the decision of euthanasia, they would want to acknowledge if he or she has a legal right to do so. â€Å"Savings to governments could become a consideration. Drugs for assisted suicide cost about $75 to $100, making them far less expensive than providing medical care. This could fill the void from cutbacks for treatment and care with the treatment of death†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Nordqvist 3) Keeping the patient in the hospital can exceed the cost of the procedure of helping the patient with assisted suicide. Prolonged payments go to waste if the patient is not going to get better or is going to pass soon. This money could be put to a more beneficial use if assisted suicide is allowed. The drugs bought to help the patient with assisted suicide or euthanasia are much less expensive than the treatment to keep them at the point of survival but not truly living. For some families, choosing assisted suicide is the only affordable choice for people who cannot cont inue to pay. The patient may also feel obligated to choose the route of ending the financial drought of their family if that is what it comes to in order to relieve that burden from their family. The typical procedure of death by euthanasia or assisted suicide is unknown to many individuals in our society today because so little conversation about it is being discussed. However, Many people worry that if voluntary euthanasia were to become legal, it would not be long before involuntary euthanasia would start to happenIn general form, it says that if we allow something relatively harmless today, we may start a trend that results in something currently unthinkable becoming accepted.† (Irwin par. 9). If the laws and people start practicing and going along with assisted death, either voluntary or involuntary, then soon enough that is what people would turn to first and more often possibly without the necessary reasons and thoughts. Overall, there has been an overview of several pros of Euthanasia such as the legalization from medical perspectives, the new knowledge of the Hippocratic Oath and who is represented by the oath, and the financial motivations of the participants in the talk of euthanasia. Euthanasia should be legal to anyone who is suffering because of an incurable medical condition or if they are terminally ill, as long as the patient gives consent and has a true understanding of what the procedure is. By making this choice legal, this would provide a better solution to people with terminal illnesses. The importance that people have the choice to go through with assisted death with reason is very significant because it could be a life-changing decision that affects more than just the patient. Having this ability to choose to end one’s own suffering can relieve their own stress along with the stress of their family. Work Cited Angell, Marcia. May Doctors Help You to Die?† Senior Lecturer in Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, New York Review of Books, Oct. 11, 2012 â€Å"Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.† NHS Choices, National Health Services, 29 June 2017. Irwin, Michael. â€Å"Euthanasia: The Right to Die Should Be a Matter of Personal Choice.† Mirror, Irish Mirror, 19 Aug. 2013. Nordqvist, Christian. â€Å"Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: What Are They and What Do They Mean?† Medical News Today, MediLexicon International, 17 Dec. 2018, medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951.php.

The Causes of the American Civil War

The Causes of the American Civil War The causes of the Civil War may be traced to a complex mix of factors, some of which can be traced back to the earliest years of American colonization. Principal among the issues were the following: Slavery Slavery in the United States first began in Virginia in 1619. By the end of the American Revolution, most northern states had abandoned the institution and it was made illegal in many parts of the North in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Conversely, slavery continued to grow and flourish in the plantation economy of the South where the cultivation of cotton, a lucrative but labor intensive crop, was on the rise. Possessing a more stratified social structure than the North, the Souths slaves were largely held by a small percentage of the population though the institution enjoyed broad support across class lines. In 1850, the population of the South was around 6 million of which approximately 350,000 owned slaves. In the years prior to the Civil War almost all sectional conflicts revolved around the slave issue. This began with the debates over the three-fifths clause at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 which dealt with how slaves would be counted when determining a states population and as a result, its representation in Congress.   It continued with the Compromise of 1820 (Missouri Compromise) which established the practice of admitting a free state (Maine) and slave state (Missouri) to the union around the same time to maintain regional balance in the Senate. Subsequent clashes occurred involving the Nullification Crisis of 1832, the anti-slavery Gag Rule, and the Compromise of 1850. The implementation of the Gag Rule, passed part of the 1836 Pinckney Resolutions, effectively stated that Congress would take no action on petitions or similar relating to the limiting or abolition of slavery. Two Regions on Separate Paths Throughout the first half of the 19th century, Southern politicians sought to defend slavery by retaining control of the federal government. While they benefited from most presidents being from the South, they were particularly concerned about retaining a balance of power within in the Senate. As new states were added to the Union, a series of compromises were arrived at to maintain an equal number of free and slave states. Begun in 1820 with the admission of Missouri and Maine, this approach saw Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Wisconsin join the union. The balance was finally disrupted in 1850, when Southerners permitted California to enter as a free state in exchange for laws strengthening slavery such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This balance was further upset with the additions of free Minnesota (1858) and Oregon (1859). The widening of the gap between slave and free states was symbolic of the changes occurring in each region. While the South was devoted to an agrarian plantation economy with a slow growth in population, the North had embraced industrialization, large urban areas, infrastructure growth, as well as was experiencing high birth rates and a large influx of European immigrants. In the period before the war, seven of eight immigrants to the United States settled in the North and the majority brought with them negative viewpoints regarding slavery. This boost in population doomed Southern efforts to maintain balance in the government as it meant the future addition of more free states and the election of a Northern, potentially anti-slavery, president. Slavery in the Territories The political issue that finally moved the nation towards conflict was that of slavery in the western territories won during the Mexican-American War. These lands comprised all or parts of the present-day states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada. A similar issue had been dealt with earlier, in 1820, when, as part of the Missouri Compromise, slavery was permitted in the Louisiana Purchase south of 36 °30N latitude (the southern border of Missouri). Representative David Wilmot of Pennsylvania attempted to prevent slavery in the new territories in 1846, when he introduced the Wilmot Proviso in Congress. After extensive debate it was defeated. In 1850, an attempt was made to resolve the issue. A part of the Compromise of 1850, which also admitted California as a free state, called for slavery in the unorganized lands (largely Arizona New Mexico) received from Mexico to be decided by popular sovereignty. This meant that the local people and their territorial legislatures would decide for themselves whether slavery would be permitted. Many thought that this decision had solved the issue until it was raised again in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Bleeding Kansas Proposed by Sen. Stephen Douglas of Illinois, the Kansas-Nebraska Act essentially repealed the line imposed by the Missouri Compromise. Douglas, an ardent believer in grassroots democracy, felt that all the territories should be subject to popular sovereignty. Seen as a concession to the South, the act led to an influx of pro- and anti-slavery forces into Kansas. Operating from rival territorial capitals, the Free Staters and Border Ruffians engaged in open violence for three years. Though pro-slavery forces from Missouri had openly and improperly influenced elections in the territory, President James Buchanan accepted their Lecompton Constitution, and offered it to Congress for statehood. This was turned down by Congress which ordered a new election. In 1859, the anti-slavery Wyandotte Constitution was accepted by Congress. The fighting in Kansas further heightened tensions between North and South. States Rights As the South recognized that control of the government was slipping away, it turned to a states rights argument to protect slavery. Southerners claimed that the federal government was prohibited by the Tenth Amendment from impinging upon the right of slaveholders take their property into a new territory. They also stated that the federal government was not permitted to interfere with slavery in those states where it already existed. They felt that this type of strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution coupled with nullification, or perhaps secession would protect their way of life. Abolitionism The issue of slavery was further heightened by the rise of the Abolitionist movement in the 1820s and 1830s. Beginning in the North, adherents believed that slavery was morally wrong rather than simply a social evil. Abolitionists ranged in their beliefs from those who thought that all slaves should be freed immediately (William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglas) to those calling for gradual emancipation (Theodore Weld, Arthur Tappan), to those who simply wanted to stop the spread of slavery and its influence (Abraham Lincoln). Abolitionists campaigned for the end of the peculiar institution and supported anti-slavery causes such as the Free State movement in Kansas. Upon the rise of the Abolitionists, an ideological debate arose with the Southerners regarding the morality of slavery with both sides frequently citing Biblical sources. In 1852, the Abolitionist cause received increased attention following the publication of the anti-slavery novel Uncle Toms Cabin. Written by Harriet Beecher Stowe, the book aided in turning the public against the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Causes of the Civil War: John Browns Raid John Brown first made a name for himself during the Bleeding Kansas crisis. A fervent abolitionist, Brown, along with his sons, fought with anti-slavery forces and were best known for the Pottawatomie Massacre where they killed five pro-slavery farmers. While most abolitionists were pacifists, Brown advocated violence and insurrection to end the evils of slavery. In October 1859, financed by the extreme wing of the Abolitionist movement, Brown and eighteen men attempted to raid the government armory at Harpers Ferry, VA. Believing that the nations slaves were ready to rise up, Brown attacked with the goal of obtaining weapons for the insurrection. After initial success, the raiders were cornered in the armorys engine house by local militia. Shortly thereafter, US Marines under Lt. Col. Robert E. Lee arrived and captured Brown. Tried for treason, Brown was hanged that December. Before his death, he predicted that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away; but with Blood. Causes of the Civil War: The Collapse of the Two-Party System The tensions between North and South were mirrored in a growing schism in the nations political parties. Following the compromise of 1850 and the crisis in Kansas, the nations two major parties, the Whigs and Democrats, began to fracture along regional lines. In the North, the Whigs largely blended into a new party: the Republicans. Formed in 1854, as an anti-slavery party, the Republicans offered a progressive vision for the future that included an emphasis on industrialization, education, and homesteading. Though their presidential candidate, John C. Frà ©mont, was defeated in 1856, the party polled strongly in the North and showed that it was the Northern party of the future. In the South, the Republican Party was viewed as a divisive element and one that could lead to conflict. Causes of the Civil War: Election of 1860 With the division of the Democrats, there was much apprehension as the election 1860 approached. The lack of a candidate with national appeal signaled that change was coming. Representing the Republicans was Abraham Lincoln, while Stephen Douglas stood for the Northern Democrats. Their counterparts in the South nominated John C. Breckinridge. Looking to find a compromise, former Whigs in the border states created the Constitutional Union Party and nominated John C. Bell. Balloting unfolded along precise sectional lines as Lincoln won the North, Breckinridge won the South, and Bell won the border states. Douglas claimed Missouri and part of New Jersey. The North, with its growing population and increased electoral power had accomplished what the South had always feared: complete control of the government by the free states. Causes of the Civil War: Secession Begins In response to Lincolns victory, South Carolina opened a convention to discuss seceding from the Union. On December 24, 1860, it adopted a declaration of secession and left the Union. Through the Secession Winter of 1861, it was followed by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. As states departed, local forces took control of federal forts and installations without any resistance from the Buchanan Administration. The most egregious act took place in Texas, where Gen. David E. Twiggs surrendered one-quarter of the entire standing US Army without a shot fired. When Lincoln finally entered office on March 4, 1861, he inherited a collapsing nation. Election of 1860 Candidate Party Electoral Vote Popular Vote Abraham Lincoln Republican 180 1,866,452 Stephen Douglas Northern Democrat 12 1,375,157 John C. Breckinridge Southern Democrat 72 847,953 John Bell Constitutional Union 39 590,631