Euthanasia: Cancer and Dr. Philip Nitscke Essay

Submitted By besoztlc6661
Words: 1077
Pages: 5

In January of 2010 my grandfather was diagnosed with cancer. My grandpa had a tumor the size of a tennis ball in his liver. As a family we talked with a doctor about my grandfather’s options for survival. The doctor gave us a few options for terminating the tumor. Our options for terminating the tumor were chemotherapy with radiation, surgery with a high risk of death, and no treatment at all. At the age of seventy-nine my grandfather’s body was not healthy enough to handle the chemotherapy and radiation. My grandpa had just had his foot amputated, so major surgery was ruled out. Our last option was receiving no treatment for the cancer. We brought my grandpa home to die a slow, agonizing death. It took my grandfather three months to die at home with our family. In those three months he turned into a skeleton. The only muscles he could use were the ones in his throat to moan from the pain. My grandpa had an hourly dose of morphine for the pain. Bringing my grandpa home to pass away was very costly to my family and my family is still paying for his home healthcare. My family thought that bringing my grandpa home was more comfortable for him and more comfortable for us than paying hospital bills. It wasn’t until a few days before my grandfather died that my family found out about euthanasia. If the doctor had offered this as one of our options we would have taken it based on my grandfather’s choice. Knowing about euthanasia would have saved my grandpa a great deal of pain and suffering as well as my family. Euthanasia should be permitted in all fifty states, terminal illness that is constantly declining, and when treating a non-restorative health is too costly for the patient and their family. Euthansia should be permitted when all of the requirements from the Death With Dignity Acts apply to the patient. This leads me to inform you about how stage three cancer patients should automatically be given euthanasia as an option. For example, a woman who had a cancerous tumor in her nose cavity was deforming her face. The tumor was so large that it pushed the eyeball out of her head. She no longer had jaws, trouble sleeping, and suffered major hemorrhaging in the head. Doctors chose not to operate to remove the tumor, because the chances of the woman’s survival were slim to none. This woman went before her government requesting that they give her doctor parliament for euthanasia. The government denied her request for euthanasia. This woman died from the tumor squishing her organs until they were no longer functional. This woman was told she was going to die either from the surgery or defiantly when the tumor was too large for her head. This woman was allergic to all pain medications that she was prescribed, so the last few months of this woman’s life were horrifically painful. This woman should have been granted euthanasia, because she knew she was going to die anyway. The woman went beyond the requirements for the Death With Dignity Acts. I don’t think the government should have a say in whether or not this woman could be a patient of euthanasia. Most government officials do not have an understanding as a doctor would in her case, so this should automatically disqualify for any government officials say that they have with this woman’s request. Secondly, healthcare funding departments, shortages of beds and nursing staff, as well as an increasing elderly population in the future, will influence policy makers and doctors to look at euthanasia as a means of cost containment. For example, a patient who has Medicaid and has been diagnosed with terminal cancer should qualify for lethal dose medication that will terminate their life. They know that their health is going to spiral out of control and the pain and suffering may not be worth it to them, or it may not be worth being paid for by Medicaid. Medicaid could easily give the patient a thirty-five dollar pill to terminate their life as they requested, or Medicaid could waste an