Nuela, Jayson G.
BSBA-II

CAUSES OF EUTHANASIA
The causes of euthanasia are usually advanced illness and a person's desire to end the suffering. The effects vary. Those who assist suicides can face criminal charges. They also have to live with ending a life, especially the life of a loved one.
What is the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide?
Euthanasia and assisted suicide can be distinguished by considering the act without which the death would not occur. If a third party or a person performs the last act that intentionally leads to patient’s death, then it is called euthanasia. For example, giving a patient a lethal injection or putting a plastic bag over her head to suffocate her would be considered euthanasia.

On the other hand, it is an assisted suicide when the patient himself performs an act that leads to death, but has been assisted by a doctor or some other person. Thus it would be assisted suicide if the patient dies after swallows the overdose of drug provided by his doctor for the purpose of causing death.

METHODS OF EUTHANASIA
When, however, an action or medication is withheld from a patient for the primary purpose of causing or hastening death, this is passive, or indirect, euthanasia. These measures may include the with-holding or withdrawal of ordinary measures such as food, water (hydration) and oxygen.
Examples of passive euthanasia are: when food and water is withheld from sick or disabled newborn babies who might otherwise have lived with-holding or withdrawing food and water from someone who is diagnosed as being in a 'persistent vegetative state,' has dementia, or who is not improving fast enough (e.g. from a stroke)
'do not resuscitate' orders written on patients' charts
Drugs
In Oregon, a doctor can write a prescription for drugs that are intended to kill the patient. When the prescription is filled, directions centre around making certain that the patient understands about taking all the pills in a single dose, dies after taking the prescription.
The lethal drugs are covered by some Oregon health insurance plans. They are paid for by the state Medicaid program under a funding category called "comfort care."
Research into euthanasia in the Netherlands claimed people awake from comas after taking supposedly fatal drug doses and suffer side effects such as vomiting and gasping.
To reduce the chances of the euthanasia drugs being vomited up, an anti-emetic must be given.
The study showed that when patients tried to kill themselves using drugs prescribed by a doctor, the medication did not work as expected in 16% of cases. In a further 7% of cases there were technical problems or unexpected side effects.
Problems surface so often that doctors felt compelled to intervene in 18% of cases, according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine. Even when the doctor directly performed euthanasia, complications developed in 3% of the attempts. Patients either took longer to die than expected or woke from a drug-induced coma that was supposed to be fatal in 6% of cases. 2
Injections
In the Netherlands, the practice is an injection to render the patient comatose, followed by a second injection to stop the heart.
First a coma is induced by intravenous administration of barbiturates, followed by a muscle relaxant. The patient usually dies as the result of anoxemia caused by the muscle relaxant. When death is delayed, intravenous potassium chloride is also given to hasten cardiac arrest.
Starvation and Dehydration
Right-to-die activists often advocate the withdrawal of food and water in order to hasten death. This means of death is frequently approved when application is made to the courts. Proponents of euthanasia recommend the use of what is known as Terminal Sedation in combination with the withdrawal of food and water.
Terminal sedation allows for the measured use of sedatives and analgesics for the necessary control of symptoms such as intolerable pain, agitation, and anxiety, in order to relieve the distress of the patient and of family members.

If all food and fluids (nutrition and hydration) are removed from a person -- whether that person is a healthy Olympic athlete who takes food and fluids by mouth or a frail, disabled person who receives them by a feeding tube -- death is inevitable. That death will occur because of dehydration.
Dr. Helga Kuhse, a leading campaigner for euthanasia, said in 1984: "If we can get people to accept the removal of all treatment and care - especially the removal of food and fluids - they will see what a painful way this is to die and then, in the patient's best interest, they will accept the lethal injection."
Gases, plastic bags and the 'peaceful pill'
This method, referred to as 'self deliverance,' is most commonly advocated by right-to-die activists such as Derek Humphry and Dr Philip Nitschke. In Humphry's book Final Exit describes the method and has been found in the possession of people who have used the method to commit suicide.
Dr Nitschke developed what he calls the 'CO Genie' - an apparatus that turns out lethal carbon monoxide that can be made at home. Nitschke has held workshops in Australia and New Zealand teaching people how to manufacture such devices for themselves.
Dr Nitschke's latest initiative is a barbiturate-based 'peaceful pill.' Nitschke's Peanut Project (named for an old street term for "Barbiturate") intends holding workshops for small groups of elderly and seriously ill Exit members from different countries to make their own Peaceful Pill.
PLACE THAT LEGALIZED EUTHANASIA
Euthanasia is illegal in most parts of the world. The state of Oregon in the USA and The Netherlands are the only two jurisdictions in the world where laws specifically permit euthanasia or assisted suicide. Oregon permits assisted suicide. The Netherlands permits both euthanasia and assisted suicide. In India, neither act is legal.

In 1995 Australia’s Northern Territory approved a euthanasia bill. It went into effect in 1996 but was overturned by the Australian Parliament in 1997. Also, in 1997, Colombia’s Supreme Court ruled that penalties for mercy killing should be removed.
POINT OF VIEW OF CHURCH ABOUT EUTHANASIA
General Christian view
Christians are mostly against euthanasia. The arguments are usually based on the beliefs that life is given by God, and that human beings are made in God's image. Some churches also emphasise the importance of not interfering with the natural process of death.
Life is a gift from God * all life is God-given * birth and death are part of the life processes which God has created, so we should respect them * therefore no human being has the authority to take the life of any innocent person, even if that person wants to die
Human beings are valuable because they are made in God's image * human life possesses an intrinsic dignity and value because it is created by God in his own image for the distinctive destiny of sharing in God's own life * saying that God created humankind in his own image doesn't mean that people actually look like God, but that people have a unique capacity for rational existence that enables them to see what is good and to want what is good * as people develop these abilities they live a life that is as close as possible to God's life of love * this is a good thing, and life should be preserved so that people can go on doing this * to propose euthanasia for an individual is to judge that the current life of that individual is not worthwhile * such a judgement is incompatible with recognising the worth and dignity of the person to be killed * therefore arguements based on the quality of life are completely irrelevant * nor should anyone ask for euthanasia for themselves because no-one has the right to value anyone, even themselves, as worthless
The process of dying is spiritually important, and should not be disrupted * Many churches believe that the period just before death is a profoundly spiritual time * They think it is wrong to interfere with the process of dying, as this would interrupt the process of the spirit moving towards God
All human lives are equally valuable
Christians believe that the intrinsic dignity and value of human lives means that the value of each human life is identical. They don't think that human dignity and value are measured by mobility, intelligence, or any achievements in life.
Valuing human beings as equal just because they are human beings has clear implications for thinking about euthanasia: * patients in a persistent vegetative state, although seriously damaged, remain living human beings, and so their intrinsic value remains the same as anyone else's * so it would be wrong to treat their lives as worthless and to conclude that they 'would be better off dead' * patients who are old or sick, and who are near the end of earthly life have the same value as any other human being * people who have mental or physical handicaps have the same value as any other human being
Exceptions and omissions
Some features of Christianity suggest that there are some obligations that go against the general view that euthanasia is a bad thing: * Christianity requires us to respect every human being * If we respect a person we should respect their decisions about the end of their life * We should accept their rational decisions to refuse burdensome and futile treatment * Perhaps we should accept their rational decision to refuse excessively burdensome treatment even if it may provide several weeks more of life
End of life care
The Christian faith leads those who follow it to some clear-cut views about the way terminally ill patients should be treated: * the community should care for people who are dying, and for those who are close to them * the community should provide the best possible palliative care * the community should face death and dying with honesty and support * the community should recognise that when people suffer death on earth they entrust their future to the risen Christ * religious people, both lay and professional, should help the terminally ill to prepare for death * they should be open to their hopes and fears * they should be open to discussion

POINT OF VIEW OF SOCIETY IN EUTHANASIA
It's possible to argue about the way we've divided up the arguments, and many arguments could fall into more categories than we've used.
Ethical arguments * Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life * Accepting euthanasia accepts that some lives (those of the disabled or sick) are worth less than others * Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable * Euthanasia might not be in a person's best interests * Euthanasia affects other people's rights, not just those of the patient
Practical arguments * Proper palliative care makes euthanasia unnecessary * There's no way of properly regulating euthanasia * Allowing euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill * Allowing euthanasia undermines the committment of doctors and nurses to saving lives * Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill * Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill * Euthanasia undermines the motivation to provide good care for the dying, and good pain relief * Euthanasia gives too much power to doctors * Euthanasia exposes vulnerable people to pressure to end their lives * Moral pressure on elderly relatives by selfish families * Moral pressure to free up medical resources * Patients who are abandoned by their families may feel euthanasia is the only solution

SANCTITY OF LIFE
This argument says that euthanasia is bad because of the sanctity of human life.
There are four main reasons why people think we shouldn't kill human beings: * All human beings are to be valued, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, social status or their potential for achievement * Human life is a basic good as opposed to an instrumental good, a good in itself rather than as a means to an end * Human life is sacred because it's a gift from God * Therefore the deliberate taking of human life should be prohibited except in self-defence or the legitimate defence of others
We are valuable for ourselves
The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else. The fact that we are human has value in itself.
Our inherent value doesn't depend on anything else - it doesn't depend on whether we are having a good life that we enjoy, or whether we are making other people's lives better. We exist, so we have value.
Most of us agree with that - though we don't put it in philosopher-speak. We say that we don't think that we should use other people - which is a plain English way of saying that we shouldn't treat other people as a means to our own ends.
We must respect our own value
It applies to us too. We shouldn't treat ourselves as a means to our own ends.
And this means that we shouldn't end our lives just because it seems the most effective way of putting an end to our suffering. To do that is not to respect our inherent worth.

MY POINT OF VIEW IN EUTHNASIA
This is a tough decision unless if you are affected by someone in your life that has gone through insuperable pain and suffering before they died. Death is final what would happen if you found the cure of what the person suffering from in a few months time after they went through euthanasia. It could mean a whole life wasted. But it depends on situation. Example if your love one suffering a coma because of car accident and you haven’t enough money to purchase the medical bills. Another example is your grandparents suffering a disease of cancer. For me, I must prefer to go my grandparents in the process of euthanasia. Because I don’t want to see them suffering because they are too old enough to take that risk. Euthanasia to me is very complex and if done should have every option looked at and taken into consideration not only on the person that wants to go through with it. This is not a matter of life versus death, but about the timing and manner of an inevitable death.

The National Book Company founded by Delia de los Reyes is a book publishing company that specializes in collegiate textbooks. Due to her expertise and effective marketing promotion, her company grew from making P/ 10,000.00 during her first year to P/ 10,000,000.00 in its fifth year in existence. The company excels in marketing its products. In fact, the company grew by 1000% in a five year period. However, internal conflict between old and new employees threaten to undermine said success.
The conflicting and unharmonious state between the old and new employees is a great threat to the company. It would hinder the productivity of the latter due to the lack of oneness of the company employees. Quality of work will be low and quotas would not be met. Due to this, other competitors who are more organized and harmonious would have more time to spend satisfying the needs of its clients.
The partners of Ms. De los Reyes are also having a hard time convincing her to explore the possibility of clear cut policies and programs to guide decision making.
With many problems confronting the company, it should be sooner than later that said problems would cripple the company’s operation and thus makes profit plunge.
The company should be dynamic and policy compliant. Big companies implement strict polices. Integrate what is best for the company. The most effective way to do this is to merge the best practices of the past with the futuristic and efficient ways of the future and apply it to the present. Example for this is Shoemart or SM. Mr. Henry Sy started humbly with a small shoe store in 1948 in Cariedo. Now, SM has become one of the biggest companies in the country. Owning the biggest mall in Asia and having more than 20 branches, and billions of revenues, did not come easy for the Tycoon. He has to make some adjustments. He has to adapt to new business strategies, concepts and give in to the latest ways and means of making his venture more efficient, service oriented that indeed cater to the needs of the general public. He has to change to new methods and meet the challenge of the present scenario.
The National Book Company, if willing to be as successful as Mr. Sy must follow his tight path to success. The company must undergo serious policy integration and impose rules on decision making. Incorporate the values of discipline, goal oriented, perseverance, and good inter personal relationships would be a stepping stone to greater success.