Arguments Against Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia is defined as the deliberate ending of one's life by means of either administering prescribed lethal drugs or withholding life-sustaining treatment. The word itself is derived from the Greek roots "eu," meaning "good,” and "thanatos," meaning "death." Consequently, the issue becomes controversial, as euthanasia advocates argue a "right to die a good death" whilst others deem the killing of another being, regardless of motives, unethical and unlawful. Is it moral to end a life to end suffering? Can one truly die a good death? Is a so-called “good death” dignified? Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide suicide suggest so, yet they are a threat to society and defeat the intended purpose of the medical profession. Euthanasia (physician-

Assisted suicide is a topic that has ignited a severe debate due to the controversy that surrounds its implementation. Assisted suicide occurs when a patients expresses their intention to die and request a physician to assist them in the process. Some countries like Oregon, Canada, and Belgium have legalized the process terming it as an alternative to prolonged suffering for patients who are bound to die. Unlike euthanasia where a physician administers the process, assisted suicide requires that the patient voluntarily initiates and executes the process. Although there exists concession such a process is important to assist patients die without much suffering, there has emerged criticism on its risk of abuse and as an expression of medical

Many people in the world are suffering from illness that cannot be cured. They live their last days in pain and suffering wondering when and why it happened to them. Instead of suffering, many people dream of suicide to take their pain away but they know no one would understand. In very few states, it is legal for people to get assistance to put them out of their pain and suffering. It is called assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is the help from a physician to end their patients’ lives with their permission. The patient must have a terminal illness with less than six months to live to qualify. Many people are against assisted suicide because they believe that it is just a cover for murder. People should be thought of as dying with dignity

A patient who has a terminal illness suffer tremendously every day. Since there is no cure for any terminal illness, doctors ease the patient's pain by prescribing them pain medication up to their final days. If it is acceptable for a beloved pet to be put euthanized, how is it any different for a terminally ill patient to end their life by physician-assisted suicide? Currently, terminally ill patients are fighting for their right to die. There is a hand full of states that have passed the law that allows terminally ill adult patients, who have six months to live, to end their lives by euthanasia or better known as physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is when a doctor performs a patient a lethal amount of substances into a patient, to end their life. The state of Virginia

When it comes to end of life care, there are several options that can be discussed between a patient, their family, and the physician. Whether the patient expresses a desire to fight their disease and escalate care to the fullest extent, or if the patient would prefer to deny treatment and keep themselves comfortable in their last days, options exist. But what about those that are undeniably suffering from a terminal illness that is causing them immense amounts of pain that cannot be controlled strictly with palliative measures and wish to end their own life, by their own hands? Currently, there is no federally approved option

Many people have been faced with having to deal with hard truths of both life and death. One of these decisions that can be fronted to a person with a terminal illness may be what to do next. With what can be considered looming doom, one has to ingest the decisions of self, family and the pain that lies ahead. The debate over physician assisted suicide has been a long time argument wielding both positive and negative views exactly how a person should proceed once a decision has been made. Three questions are often asked in the attempt to argue the case for physician assisted suicide, that of legality, ethicalness, and morality. In the long run, the debate between the cause, effect and personal ideology that is social

Physician assisted suicide is an issue that has been debated for many years. Many people argue that people have the right to die by any means possible while others argue that human life should be precious and should be protected at all cost. While that is true that doesn't mean you can force someone to stay alive. Do you believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal for the terminally ill?

Physician assisted suicide does not lead to abuses or down the hypothetical slope. Peter Rogatz, a physician, states that requesting someone to be taken off a ventilator is socially acceptable. What is the difference between assisted suicide and ending a ventilator? Does one have to be in coma or brain dead to allow him to die with dignity? These are the questions that patients and society are asking today. Rogatz asks these questions from a physician’s point of view and explains the pain that he has seen through suffering patient’s eyes. These questions alone are one factor that Rogatz is sickened by because he does not understand what in the world the difference should be between these two tragic events. The next point Rogatz explains is that people should see assisted suicide as a merciful end rather than killing. The word killing has such a strong meaning and that does not have any place in the right to die debate because killing is intentional without consent (134). Rogatz believes that the physicians who understand the plea for assisted suicide are doing good not harm. More often than not, the physicians responding to assisted suicide will handle the situation correctly. Rogatz does accept that there will be someone who will abuse this power, but that will not happen with everything physicians have as guidelines. According to Rogatz, physicians also have a strict criterion to even think about mentioning assisted suicide. The patients must qualify for assisted suicide. This factor alone also helps to eliminate abuses because physicians only can administer to a select number of terminally ill patients (134). Assisted suicide is not an act of murder and does not lead down a hypothetical slope.

The topic of discussion is one of the most controversial topics in the last decade physician-assisted suicide. This occurs when a physician assists a terminally ill or disabled person to take their own life. Assisting either by giving the physical means or instructions on what method to use to commit suicide with. There are many moral and ethical arguments; some are based on religious beliefs while others are based on the rules of medical ethics. It can be argued that the terminally ill and the disabled should not be forbidden from taking their own lives. It goes against all regularly accepted laws of medical ethics for a doctor to assist in the suicide of a patient. Physicians pledge to not harm patients (Hippocratic Oath).

Assisted suicide is illegal in Canada. For many years people have brought up the topic of assisted suicide to the Supreme Court, causing a various amount of problems. Part of the Supreme Court’s job is to protect citizens and uphold the right to life as a high standard. This topic is not taken lightly, and there is plenty of controversy surrounding assisted suicide. The public morality of this situation is that assisted suicide is illegal to all citizens in Canada. Whereas many people’s private morality go against this causing conflict between the courts and citizens. With many great arguments on both sides, for and against, I believe that assisted suicide should be legalized in Canada

Another argument against physician assisted suicide is that it violates the oath that all doctors must take the, the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic oath, “specifically notes that the physician will give no deadly medicine”(Fuller 11). Just like any other document with mandating guidelines, there is room for interruption interpretations. If a physician is following the letter of the law, they would follow the literal interpretation of the words in the oath but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law( ##Spirt of the law idea## The over arching idea of the Hippocratic oath is to “do no harm”. In the award winning documentary, “ How to Die in Oregon” Dr. Katherine Morris sheds light on a new outlook on “do not harm”. The documentary

The equal protection argument for allowing assisted suicide was a challenge against New York law that only let people who were ill and who decided to sustain from life support were allowed to do so, thus that infringed on the equal protection clause right of people who were also ill and who decided to rush to their death but by the administering of a drug were not allowed to do so. According to equal protection laws the state won’t deny anyone within the jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. The latter’s right of equal protection was infringed upon and by putting the equal protection clause into effect it would allow for assisted suicide.

There is not one person in my world who likes to talk about death. Death equals loss, sorrow, departure, eternal and with it brings grieving. No one knows what happens after a person dies. Some believe in the afterlife, as do I, and some believe there is nothing. I personally like to believe there is something more waiting for us and there is a reason for our existence. Which tends to bring comfort. However, that does not mean that I want to die. But, on the other hand, if I was terminally ill and suffering from a terrible disease like an incurable form of cancer or a progressive disease like COPD and was given six short months to live, then yes, I would want to opt out rather than feel myself slowly die day after

Take a moment to put yourself in their shoes. The one’s slowly dying. The ones in unbearable pain. The ones with the inability to walk. Inability to speak. The one’s in so much agony that even swallowing is a struggle. Laying there, on your deathbed, you think: is the pain worth it? To some it may be. But to many its not. In reality,people deal with this type suffering for years on end. The way to end the pain, is a “good death” called Euthanasia. Euthanasia, also known physician assisted suicide, is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease. Now remember that physician assisted suicide is always with the consent of the patient. They are the primary decision makers. Therefore Euthanasia for terminally ill patients should be legalized in the state of California, because it is one of the most basic human rights which improves the quality of life and has already gained much public support.

Voluntary euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, has been a controversial issue for many years. It usually involves ending a patient’s life early to relieve their illness. Most of the controversy stemmed from personal values like ethics or religion. The euthanasia debate puts a huge emphasis on what doctors should do for their patients and how much a person’s life is worth. Supporters of euthanasia primarily focus on cost and pain alleviation. Opponents of euthanasia tend to focus on morality. Whether euthanasia is legal or not could significantly affect future generations’ attitudes about death. Euthanasia should be legalized nationally because it helps patients that could be in unimaginable pain, offers more options for more people, and it is relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives.