Arguments Against Physician Assisted Suicide

Physician assisted suicide (PAS) has been debated for many years now. Is physician assisted suicide right or is it wrong? Many people have very different views about this issue. Some supporters feel that people should have the moral right to choose freely what they will do with their lives as long as they do not harm others. This right of free choice includes the right to end one's life when they choose. While you have some supporters who oppose any measures of permitting physician assisted suicide argue that physicians have a moral duty to preserve all life. To allow physicians to assist in destroying someone’s life violates the Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm." Opponents of physician-assisted suicide also believe that better pain management

Who gets to make the choice whether someone lives or dies? If a person has the right to live, they certainly should be able to make the choice to end their own life. The law protects each and everyone’s right to live, but when a person tries to kill themselves more than likely they will end up in a Psychiatric unit. Today we hear more and more about the debate of Physician assisted suicide and where this topic stands morally and ethically. Webster 's dictionary defines Physician assisted suicide as, suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of the patient 's intent (Webster, 1977).

According to a poll in 2015, 68% of United States residents believe that physician assisted suicide should be legal (“In”). Physician assisted suicide (PAS) gives terminally ill patients a way to end their lives peacefully before they die from whatever terminal illness they have. If physician assisted suicide became legal, many people would be saved from pain and anguish. On top of that, ill people could retain some power and control over their life. And though bringing money into the discussion might be crude, assisted suicide can save millions. Physician assisted suicide should be legal in order to ensure a dignified death for terminally ill patients.

Physician-assisted suicide is a controversial subject all around the world. Although it is legal in some countries and states, such as the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Oregon, Montana, Washington, and Vermont it is not yet legal in most (Finlay, 2011). People travel from all around the world to these locations to receive information. Physician-assisted suicide is when terminally ill and mentally capable patients perform the final act themselves after being provided with the required means and information. The elemental causes found for physician-assisted suicide include: terminal cancer, mental and behavioral disorders, diseases of the nervous system, disease of the circulatory system, and diseases of the musculoskeletal system

For multiple years, the debate on physician assisted suicide has prevailed. Physician assisted suicide is the death of a terminally ill patient, who wants to die on their own terms with the administration of a doctor. This is different than euthanasia because physician assisted suicide is backed by a controlling legal authority (“Physician…”). Some debaters are uncomfortable with the morality issues that arise with doctors killing patients or physician assisted suicide being abused. Others focus on the pain people who are terminally ill suffer from and the control physician assisted suicide gives them. Overall, the right to live or die should not be up to the government. Physician assisted suicide is legal in six states within the United States. Specific regulations are already practiced in five of those six states. Legalizing physician assisted suicide nationally would solve any regulation issue. Physician-assisted suicide should be legal nationwide with strict regulations in order to offer the freedom that the United States stands for.

Every individual has to make choices in life; life can be seen as a plethora of crossroads veering off into different directions with every which way. Choices that can create or destroy life; in the blink of an eye a life could end, but in the same moment a new life could be brought into existence. The choice of physician-assisted suicide provides control, familiarity, and closure to the terminally ill patients. The patient is able to choose where he or she will be, when the time is right, and the ability to be surrounded around loved-ones and gain closure by saying goodbye in a timely-manner.

Most people hate going to the doctors office. Shots, bright lights, blood, and a whole lot of terrifying medical terms. But are they really the bad guys? In my opinion, they are not. Some people look to doctors as a way out, the one person who could help to end their suffering. So another question would be, what do the doctors do to stop these people from a slow, agonizing death? Not medications, not weekly doctors visits; Euthanasia, otherwise known as physician assisted suicide. Some people believe that it is morally unacceptable, but I stand with the patients, residents, and doctors who make this decision.

There is so much controversy about physician assisted suicide. There is even controversy about the wording itself. Some call it physician assisted suicide, while others refuse to use the word suicide at all, in correlation to the meaning of this subject, which I will discuss later. There are a few different ways to say it, but all mean basically the exact same thing; death with dignity, end of life option, aid in dying, and the right to die. No one wants to die. But the harsh reality is that when a person is diagnosed with a terminal illness, it is a life changing diagnosis, literally. No one likes the idea of dying, no matter how it is phrased, maybe the reason it is so terrifying is none of us have ever died before to talk about it,

Brittany Maynard, a young newlywed, was diagnosed with aggressive and fatal brain cancer. She moved to Oregon with her husband so she could have control at the end of her life under Oregon’s death with dignity law.

This line directly refutes the idea of a doctor assisting in the suicide of another living being. By promoting physician-assisted suicide, doctors invalidate their pledge to be the best healer they possibly can. This, in essence, ruins their credibility and their reputation as a physician. The opposition to this idea states that the no harm claim within the Hippocratic Oath allows for a doctor to end a patient’s life if they are suffering. They claim that it is more harmful to the patient to suffer the pain and agony of a terminal illness than for doctors to assist in the death of their patient (Humphry). The problem lies with the definition of no harm. Hippocrates intended for doctors to heal their patients, not kill them. The Hippocratic Oath is clear when it states that no lethal drugs or other methods of assisted suicide should be practiced (“Greek Medicine”). Ignoring these principles goes against the Hippocratic Oath, degrading a doctor’s credibility and character. Not only does physician-assisted suicide discredit a doctor, but it is not constitutionally sound.

Aside from the most prominent arguments that are used in the debate against physician-assisted suicide, the here and now, we need to look into the future and see how the choices made now will ultimately affect the rest of society. As of right now the only people who are requesting an assisted suicide are those that are considered competent and ‘terminally ill.’ According to Investopedia, terminally ill is defined as “a person who is sick and is diagnosed with a disease that will take their life. This person is usually told by doctors that they only have several months or years to live.” Knowing that one only has a short amount of time left on this earth and fearing that they will be nothing but a burden for their family to deal with they will most likely request for an

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 which is also known as PAS has been a topic that has been highly debated for years, it gives patients in critical medical conditions the right to end their lives. Many people think that PAS and euthanasia are the same, while both actions include medications in lethal doses, Physician Assisted Suicide is when a doctor makes a patient’s death less difficult by providing him or her with a lethal dose of medication such as barbiturates or a combination of medications to allow the life ending act or to refrain the patient from receiving treatments that are used to prolong a terminally ill patients life. The physician lends the knowledge but the person does the act. While, euthanasia is when someone actually administers

A policeman witnesses a man trapped underneath a burning truck. Desperate and in pain, the man asks the policeman to shoot him and save him the pain of dying a slow and insufferable death. As a result, he shoots. The policeman’s dilemma is commonly referenced in support of physician-assisted-suicide, or PAS. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are interchangeable terms which both lead to the death of an individual. Voluntary PAS is a medical professional, usually a physician, who provides medication or other procedures with the intention of ending the patient’s life. Voluntary PAS is the administration of medicine with the explicit consent from the patient. In terms of this paper, we focus on voluntary physician-assisted suicide in the

Everywhere in the world, euthanasia and physician assisted suicide has been a controversial topic that everyone has been debating whether to legalize or keep it illegal. Religious values and cultural beliefs are the main factors behind why people support or oppose Euthanasia.