Ethics Case Study Physician Assisted Dying

According to the American Medical Association (1996), physician-assisted suicide (PAS) occurs when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing either the means or the information necessary to aid in the patient performing the life-ending act. PAS has had a long and controversial history dating back to the ancient Greeks and Romans. They believed that there was no reason to prolong life if continued pain and suffering was the only prognosis. The term euthanasia, in fact, stems from the Greek meaning "a good death". It was not until Hippocrates and his Hippocratic Oath, cautioning against deadly medicine towards patients, that a different view was seen.

While many Americans assume “assisted suicide” or physician aid-in-dying (PAD) is unethical, they may not be fully aware of what it is and how it helps people. Imagine a loved one of yours was near the end of their life. The doctors predict only six months or less remain of their life and these next six months will consist of excruciating pain and will be almost too unbearable to comprehend. As the six months progress this person will lose the ability to eat. They will be forced to a diet of flaky ice chips which will put them in a state of relentless hunger making their body weaker and more painful than it had been before. They will also lose the ability to care for themselves and will find themselves relying on family members or complete strangers at times to care for their most private needs. After all this treatment, pain, embarrassment, and utter helplessness the patient will feel as if they have lost their dignity, they will feel as if they are a burden to everyone around them and will even become depressed in some cases. If the loved one lives in Washington State, Oregon, or Vermont they will then be faced with two options regarding the next six hypothetical months they can decide to take on the most unbearable six months of their life or they can resort to an alternative called “Death with Dignity” in which they will be administered a dose of medication from their physician that will take their life. The process is painless and can only be administered to patients

Suicide is one person’s personal decision; physician-assisted suicide is a patient who is not capable of carrying the task out themselves asking a physician for access to lethal medication. What people may fail to see however is that the physician is not the only healthcare personnel involved; it may include, but is not limited to, a physician, nurse, and pharmacist. This may conflict with the healthcare worker’s own morals and there are cases in which the patient suffers from depression, or the patient is not receiving proper palliative care. Allowing physician-assisted suicide causes the physician to become entangled in an ethical and moral discrepancy and has too many other issues surrounding it for it to be legal.

Pain is universal. In life, everyone will feel pain; it is inevitable and cruel. Physical or emotional, insignificant or severe, it is there. The pain continues mounting into an unbearable amount of suffering. Suffering that blots out everything of worth, such as family, love, aspirations, and optimism. Hopelessness seizes any will to endure. With no way to subside or control the pain, often one will go to extremes in order to be free of it. Many take their life, in order to escape the horror. Committing suicide is a traumatizing experience for any and all involved. Life is precious. The chance to live is only given once, and cannot be taken for granted. Preventing even a single life from ending early is imperative and obligatory

For anyone who has not seen the movie Me Before You, it starts off with a young man, William, who was paralyzed from the neck down. He wakes up miserable everyday with no desire to continue life. He has made arrangements to end his life through physician-assisted suicide. However, before he goes through with ending his life, his parents hire a young lady, Louisa, as his caregiver. Louisa finds out about William 's wish to die and does everything she can to change his mind. The two fall in love, making each other happy. Louisa helps William live life to the fullest, and yet he chooses to go on with his wish and ends his life.

their patients, or to assist them in ending their lives? Many people may believe that physicians would never perform the latter, but in actuality one practice does so. Physician assisted suicide is the intentional ending of one’s life brought on by lethal substances prescribed by a doctor. In the majority of cases, the patient is terminally ill and simply does not desire to live any longer. Their physician provides the medication necessary to end their life. Many supporters aver that this practice is merely an act of compassion as terminally ill persons may suffer extreme pain that eradicates any will to live. They also assert that the decision to die is of the patient’s

Over the past 18 years, the controversy of Physician assisted death (PAD) has swept the world. Since 1997, four states in the united states have legalized PAD and several countries in Europe have passed similar laws. PAD is slowly becoming more and more popular among Americans, but for those people who are still highly opposed to the idea, why? Research has proven that PAD is not considered abuse because physicians are required to give their patients informed consent. Many terminally ill patients are requesting PAD and the choice to partake in the new phenomenon is completely up to the patient, even after the pills are administered. The prerequisites are many and the majority of people in fact do not qualify. on

Critics of PAD have expressed concern about abuse and error in assisted death, but less so about the same margins when it comes to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. They say that there is a clear difference between the act of ending one’s life and simply withdrawal of treatment. (K) However, it is also important to note that this does not mean that those against PAD are for preserving life at all costs, as witnessed by withdrawing care that does no more than prolong suffering. (F) Proponents argue that the act of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is just as likely to lead to death as a physician giving a lethal dose of a substance, so why are physicians legally required to respect one choice, but not the other? (K) The end result of PAD is comparable to actions that are legally performed by physicians, such as aggressive palliative care, and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. (K)

Legalizing PAD doesn’t mean legalizing euthanasia. The key difference between these two practices is who administers the lethal dose; Euthanasia requires the physician or other party to administer the lethal dose, which places the responsibility of the physician, whereas PAD requires the patient to take the dose him/herself. In other words, with euthanasia the physician is in control, while with PAD the patient is in control of his own destiny.

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) has fueled a lot of debate ever since it was first legalized in Oregon in 1997. PAS is when a doctor prescribes a medication that the patient can use to end their life. Washington legalized PAS in March of 2009, but only saw 255 individuals in 2012 who acquired the medication necessary to end their life from their doctor, resulting in only 24 of those patients using the prescription (McBride 45). It is debatable whether or not PAS should be seen as the equivalent to the suicide that we have labeled as immoral and have tried to prevent while others also question whether PAS is a reasonable solution to the suffering that terminally ill patients are inevitably being put through. I believe PAS should not be legalized in any other state and should, therefore, become illegal in the four states which now allow it and instead train their doctors to provide better palliative care for their patients.

Physician aid-in-dying (PAD) also known as Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is a widely debated ethical issue that surrounds the American court system (Starks, Dudzinski & White, 2013, p.1). PAD “refers to [the] practice in which a physician provides a competent, terminally ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient's request, which the patient intends to use to end his or her own life” (Starks et al., 2013, p.1). Physician aid-in-dying is legal only in three of fifty states: Oregon, Washington and Vermont. It is permissible under “strict patient eligibility criteria” and mental and emotional competence (Starks, et al., 2013, p.1).

Some people believe that physician assisted suicides are necessary. They are for it because it puts people out of their misery. That group of people would most likely come from the ones who wish to commit suicide upon themselves. They see it as a sign of relief for them, especially if they are suffering from any serious disease. Others could also want to do it because they are in deep depression. They also need help from a physician, which they believe would be more “safe” because they won't be physically hurting themselves. Also, some physicians believe that's the right thing to do because they are basically helping them get rid of the pain with drugs to commit suicide.

This risk should not be taken. Eventually others, like those with mental illness, could seek this treatment as well (Smith). They wouldn’t have the right to decide if they want to go through with euthanasia, so maybe their relative, who is tired of paying for treatment, could petition for euthanasia. If the state has custody they could also pursue the cheapest option. The physician’s ruthlessness could kill many people everywhere. If this is a possibility so much of the hope could disappear. Death is essentially giving up. “Murder and Suicide are both forms of killing,” States M. Scott Peck. Physician assisted suicide could lead to an even worse law.

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are both types of medical assistance aiding in ending a suffering patient’s life. This pain may be due to a terminal illness and suffering as well as those in an irreversible coma. This practice of doctor assisted suicide is illegal in many countries, but is increasing in popularity as people start to recognize the positive aspects that euthanasia has to offer for those that fit the criteria. Euthanasia is essential for those, placed in such life diminishing situations, and whom no longer want to experience suffering. This is where the issue gets complicated, and many religious groups argue that individuals should not have the legal right to choose whether they get to die or not, but that it is simply in God’s hands. Suffering patients argue that they should be given the right to choose whether or not they have to experience this suffering, to end their life with the dignity they still have, and to alleviate the stress that their deteriorating life conditions have on their families, themselves and the entire healthcare system. Therefore, despite the many arguments, euthanasia can have a very positive impact on the lives and families of suffering individuals, as well as the Canadian healthcare system.

The Principle of Autonomy states that patients should have the dignity to be able to make decisions when it comes to their own treatment. (Taking Sides, p. 176). A physician must receive informed consent from their patient before they can move forward with any treatment plan. The Principle of Autonomy also goes on to say that if a doctor were to treat a patient without their consent, they would be treating the patients like an object instead of a human being. If a patient is unable to speak for him or herself then the doctor must perform actions that would be in the patient’s best interest, since the patient cannot make these decisions. (Taking Sides, p.176). Another ethical principle that can be discussed when talking about physician assisted suicide is the Principle of Nonmaleficence. The principle ensures that doctors avoid doing anything that may expose a patient to needless harm. Although this principle states that the physician cannot do anything harmful to the patient, there are certain treatments that can cause harm to patients, for example, surgery. This principle rules out any non-beneficial procedure