Annotated Bibliography On Death With Dignity

However, there is immense criticism on the morality of the process, especially because the process denies a patient the right to natural death. The critics of the assisted suicide procedure argue that such a process devalues human life and tends to promote suicide as an alternative to personal suffering. By claiming that the procedure allows terminally ill patients to initiate dignity at death is flawed because the purpose of medical profession is to ensure a dignified life. According to the physicians’ code of ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, physicians are not allowed to do harm to their patients because their role is to allow a dignified health for members of the community. Consequently, legalization of Physician Assisted suicide that requires physicians to assist the patients to die is against their medical ethics. Quill, Cassel, & Meier (2010) provide that although the patients voluntarily ask the medical practitioners to assist in the process, the practitioners have a role to advise the patients against such a procedure. Besides, such a premise is bound to raise awareness of suicide as an alternative to suffering within the public domain, which may encourage such behavior among healthy members of the community that feel that they enjoy the freedom to make such a decision. On this basis, the negative moral implication of assisted suicide makes its legalization unworthy in the

Brittany Maynard was one of the people to use the Death with Dignity Act in Organ and once said,“To have control of my own mind…to go with dignity is less terrifying. When I look at both options I have to die, I feel this is far more humane” (Sandeen, 2014). No matter what, we will all eventually die, but we should have the right to die as humanely as possible. The Death with Dignity Act is an end-of-life choice possibility for terminally ill patients to be given the freedom to decide for themselves what it means to die with dignity. This act allows them to die with dignity by providing them with lethal medications prescribed by a physician (The Oregon Department of Human Services, 2006). The Death with Dignity Act started to allow people with six months or less to live, the right to die in a manner and at the time of their own choosing. Also, even though modern medicine has benefited humanity greatly, it cannot completely resolve the suffering and distress that comes with the dying process, so Death with Dignity can provide a painless end-of-life choice for suffering individuals (Humphry, 2009). Although Death with Dignity is a controversial topic I feel it can be very beneficial especially since people go through a long process just to try to get the medication and the ones that get it really need it. I chose this topic because death always has been interesting to me and I one day hope to have a career

There are numerous articles regarding Death with Dignity and Physician-Assisted Suicide. Friend (2011) investigates the history of physician-assisted suicide, the Hemlock Society, and the ethical considerations to physician-assisted suicide. A wealth of information was made available from the www.oregon.gov defending the state’s decision of enacting and the subsequent legal defense of the Death with Dignity legislation. Finally, van Gennip, Roeline, Pasman, Kaspers, Oosterveld-Vlug, Willems, Deeg & Onwuteaka-Philipsen, (2013) performed a survey study in Amsterdam, a country with a markedly different attitude toward Death with Dignity than that of Americans.

Today, assisted suicide also known as the Death with Dignity Act has become legal in nearly four U.S. States, the act has legalized the ability for terminally ill patients to determine the time of their death. Since the act becoming legal the amount of patients that participated in it grew 65 percent. The act does come with it’s flaws, but it does ensure major things such as; patients can put an end to pain and suffering when they no longer have hope to of recovering, they can arrange for final good-byes with loved ones, and the act prevents in humane suicides.

For a terminal patient, life can become very painful and uncomfortable. For the majority of those patients, the end isn’t very bright. Patients with terminal illnesses may resort to Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) as a means to end their their life. In this paper, we will be discussing what PAS is, why patients may use it, and how it affects the human body. We will also look into the history of PAS and how that history translates to the present day. Finally, we will be looking at the legality of PAS in the United States.

In today’s society, suicide, and more controversially, physician assisted suicide, is a hotly debated topic amongst both every day citizens and members of the medical community. The controversial nature of the subject opens up the conversation to scrutinizing the ethics involved. Who can draw the line between morality and immorality on such a delicate subject, between lessening the suffering of a loved one and murder? Is there a moral dissimilarity between letting someone die under your care and killing them? Assuming that PAS suicide is legal under certain circumstances, how stringent need be these circumstances? The patient must be terminally ill to qualify for voluntary physician-assisted suicide, but in the eyes of the non-terminal patients with no physical means to end their life, the ending of their pain through PAS may be worth their death; at what point is the medical staff disregarding a patient’s autonomy? Due to the variability of answers to these questions, the debate over physician-assisted suicide is far from over. However, real life occurrences happen every day outside the realm of debate and rhetoric, and decisions need to be made.

Physician-assisted suicide, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means or by information provided by a physician aware of the patient's intent” (Merriam Webster), has been debated over for many years. It has often been called a death with dignity, “but there’s nothing dignified about the methods they advocate” (Torr et al. 56). Physician-assisted suicide has been a widely publicized controversy, and yet there have been many misunderstandings about the issue. It is not only a means of death for a comatose or dying patient, but it is also a way to kill people with depression and even infants in some places of the world. Although others may argue that physician-assisted suicide is an opportunity for the elderly and the disabled to make a choice about their death, euthanasia would threaten them more than give them freedom. Permitting this malicious practice does not just discard religion and ethics, but it also desensitizes society to killing, advertising physician-assisted suicide as a simple solution.

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is the voluntary termination of one’s own life by the administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. The assistance of a physician for a terminally ill patient to commit their own suicide, has been a much debated topic in developed countries. It is a much bigger topic in developed countries than in developing countries due to the advances of medicine. It is argued that physician-assisted suicide shouldn’t be legalized because of religious and moral reasons. Additionally, PAS is incompatible with the doctor’s role as a healer. However, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized because patients should have the option to choose if they want to end their life. It is a way for people to be able to die with dignity and without indefinite suffering.

For this assignment, I read four articles in all—two that are decidedly against what they call “assisted suicide”, and two that are decidedly supportive of what they call “death with dignity”. This has become legalized for terminally-ill patients with prognoses of surviving no longer than six months, first in Oregon in 1998, but since then Washington, California, and Vermont. It has also been legalized in Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxemburg for some years now, in these countries, patients need not even be terminally ill to be granted permission to end their lives under the guidance of a physician. While both “assisted suicide” and “death with dignity” mean the same thing, physician-assisted suicide of patients who, for whatever reason, want to end their lives, the difference in terminology underlies a stark moral conflict, inspiring each side to be blinded by their respective convictions.

“At least 36 terminally ill people died last year after taking lethal medication prescribed by doctors under the Washington State’s new physician assisted suicide law passed in 2009” (Caplin et all). This law makes euthanasia and assisted suicide an option for the terminally ill patient without the interjection from others. Due to the physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia law, terminally ill patients have been requesting physician-assisted suicide more frequently due to the hospital fees, the mental and/or physical health of themselves, and their friends and family. Euthanasia should be passed into law in all fifty states for the well-being of the patients and their families. In the course of this paper the reader will learn the importance and information needed about euthanasia and how it could possibly affect the public in their near or far future.

During recent years, the conflict in the United States about physician-assisted suicide has increased. Physician-assisted suicide occurs when a physician facilitates a patient's death by providing the necessary means or information to allow the patient to carry out the life-ending act. “Death with Dignity” is the term most commonly used when referring to these chosen deaths amongst terminally ill patients. The Death with Dignity Act is only available in three different states under a certain set of requirements. Suicide is not the correct term for these acts. Some religions have welcomed Death with Dignity as a basic act of compassion, while other religions reject it for having a complete lack of morals. Many polls have been taken and a lot

Medical professional codes have long prohibited physician involvement in assisting a patient’s suicide. However, despite ethical and legal prohibitions, calls for the liberalization of this ban have grown in recent years.(1) When we discuss about the physician involvement, represented by euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, it is very hard to avoid addressing about the human dignity.

The article states that with the right safety measures in place, assisted suicide can help give terminally ill patients a sense of control over their lives as extreme pain and illness torture them. It suggests that instead of using our energies to convince patients who might want to end their lives while terminally ill or suffering horribly, physicians need to reassess how they can help patients achieve their goals when the end is near. We should be able to offer options for those who wish for assisted suicide, so that they can take control of their own death.

When we think of assisted suicide, we many times think of terminally ill patients or patients in deep amounts of pain. Assisted suicide is when a physician provides a patient with an incurable illness the means to commit a relatively painless suicide. In the article “Module 5: Physician Assisted Suicide Debate”, published by Endlink they stated that patients have been asking for physician assisted suicide or euthanasia to end the suffering since the beginning of common medicine. In fact, “57% of physicians practicing today have received a request for physician-assisted suicide in some form or another.” (Module 5: Physician Assisted Suicide Debate”. A webpage titled “Death with Dignity” was published by Death with Dignity

In cases where an individual's quality of life is irreparably diminished by terminal illness, one may seek to end their life with the help of a doctor. This has been a solution for patient suffering in neighboring countries, but there are ethical and legal issues that make it an impractical solution for American healthcare. Considering the results of negative potential of euthanasia practices exposes its flaws, and sheds light on better alternatives. Therefore active euthanasia, not to be confused with physician assisted suicide, should not be legalized in the United States.