As the political debates are in full action, I am certainly aware of the discussion of controversial topics. Although assisted suicide is not among the topics, however I do understand the difficulties of addressing sensitive topics. The following assignment is a reflection on Helping a Suicide When the End Isn't Near. First, I’ll introduce the debaters as well as their background and position on this controversial topic. Next, I will address my view and rationale pertaining to the topic.
An opinionated article, Helping a Suicide When the End Isn't Near, published by the New York Times includes segments from both Mark Kleiman and Ira Byock who share their opinions on whether or not assisted suicide should be legal in the United States. Kleiman, who insist that laws prohibiting assisted suicide must be erased, is a professor of public policy at New York University's Marron Institute of Urban Management, whereas Byock, who is completely opposed to any law change, is a professor of medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College. Kleiman and Byock have compelling, but opposing viewpoints on this controversial subject, and each rule the other to be highly unethical.
In the article, Kleiman states his belief that "laws prevent people who need help in dying -
…show more content…
After reviewing both segments between the debaters, It’s hard to definitively state whether I support or oppose the legalization of assisted suicide. With that being said, I see both sides of the argument, however, if put on a spectrum, I lean more towards the support of assisted suicide. I believe if the patient is competent as well as the one who has requested to take this course of action, it certainly can be justified. In addition, I personally believe in quality of life, not longevity. There are many incurable diseases out there, making people’s life intolerable, stealing their sense of life and giving a strong incentive to
Daniel Sulmasy is a Professor of Medicine and Ethics at the University of Chicago and has a particular interest in end-of-life care. He harshly criticizes Physician-assisted suicide and claims that this violates not only ethic principles but is also bad medicine and undermines the intrinsic worth of human life. He identifies patients as being vulnerable and helpless and even implicates rising costs of health care as a possible reason for the medical community wanting to legalize assisted suicide. I am disappointed by his superficial reasoning and I will quote Dr. Sulmasy to exhibit a one-dimensional point of view that overlooks the desperate situation of a terminally ill patient wishing to end his or her life in dignity as a personal
Over the years since the first approval of physician assisted suicide, the opposition has challenged this ruling, but in stance to find common ground, the Washington State Medical Association created 13 panel physicians and of Life task force with a sole purpose to find that common ground. According to the article Finding Common Ground, “By putting both issues on the table-but not insisting they are causally linked-physicians came together to talk over a range of urgent clinical concerns and search for common ground” (Back, Colley, & McGough, 1997). The future depends on finding that common ground, though it will not be an easy path forward, the notion of physician assisted suicide will still present a challenging fight.
The actual patients’ examples of assist suicide in Woodman’s book, they are strong enough evidences to convince the reader why physician-assisted suicide should be legal in society. Like stories she provides, so many patients and their families are hoping to end their life in dignity and even though they decide to die, so many countries and states banned their last rights because of ethical reasons which actual patients do not care.
Imagine having a relative with a terminal illness; perhaps this person feels that their only option is assisted-suicide. Now, put yourself into their shoes. Would you choose to live the rest of your days in pain, or would you choose to die with a sense of dignity? Physician-assisted suicide has been prohibited for many years and many physicians have given their input on the subject, enlightening many on the fundamentals of assisted-suicide; others have stated their opinions on the topic and the way that it violates many people’s moral judgement. Although opposing viewpoints argue that physician assisted suicide is not a beneficial treatment for medical patients, the medicalization of suicide should be legalized
Assisted suicide is an extremely controversial issue both in Canada and countries around the world. In most of the world, assisted suicide is still illegal, but there appears to be some movement towards its legalization. Regardless of this shift towards the possible legalization of assisted suicide, there is still substantial resistance and debate regarding the issue. On one hand, those who support assisted suicide mostly use the ethical argument that everyone should have the right to choose how and when they die and that they should be able to die with dignity. Another factor is the “quality of life” issue, which means a person should no longer have to live, if they feel their life is no longer worth living. On the contrary, the argument against
In current society, legalizing physician assisted suicide is a prevalent argument. In 1997, the Supreme Court recognized no federal constitutional right to physician assisted suicide (Harned 1) , which defines suicide as one receiving help from a physician by means of a lethal dosage (Pearson 1), leaving it up to state legislatures to legalize such practice if desired. Only Oregon and Washington have since legalized physician assisted suicide. People seeking assisted suicide often experience slanted judgments and are generally not mentally healthy. Legalization of this practice would enable people to fall victim to coercion by friends and family to commit suicide. Also, asking for death is unfair to a doctor’s personal dogma. Some
The author is extremely compelled that aid in dying should be legal in every single state and that more than a minority of people should support or accept this controversial topic. Span is constrained by the belief that the federal government should cover the cost of the lethal drugs because many patients cannot pay such a high fee (Span). This causes a gap to form between some readers because Span ties a split political viewpoint to aid in dying and everyone is not going to see eye to eye with her solution to the high fee of the medication. The author gives an authoritative and a compelling argument about the positive side of assisted suicide such as the patient’s peaceful death and the choice they can make concerning the way they die (Span). In doing so, she uses first hand experiences from differing viewpoints of aid in dying including the doctors’, patient’s, and family
id you know, from “1998 to 2003, 171 patients died using AS” according to The Oregon Department of Human Services (Ersek, 50). AS stands for Assisted Suicide and Physician Assisted Suicide is the practice of providing a terminally ill patient with a prescription for medication to use with the main intention of ending his or her own life. “These actions included delivering the prescription for a lethal drug dose to the patient’s home, helping the patient take the lethal dose by crushing a medication and adding it to ice cream or pudding, placing the medication in the patient’s mouth, or instilling the medication into an enteric tube” (Ersek 51). The right to assisted suicide is an important topic that alarms people all over the US. The controversies
Not Dead Yet is a disabilities rights group that opposes the legalization of assisted suicide. This organization also likes to think of themselves as the Resistance. The activists of this group feel as if assisted suicide is a deadly form of discrimination. One of the points that they listed on their main webpage, is that “physicians [can] misjudge [the] quality of life (Not Dead Yet para. 8).” What this means is that an individual with disabilities, who may or may not require a caregiver, would be treated differently than the average person that wants to commit suicide. Every life should be valued, whether they are the average joe or they have a mental or physical disability. Physicians are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, which they are to follow to the best of their ability. Mr. Tony Y. Yang and Curlin A. Farr argue that in regards to “physician-assisted suicide, the physician is to disregard what is perhaps the most universal moral injunction—do not kill—and write a lethal prescription with the express intent of helping patients kill themselves (247).” Mr. Yang is strong opposer to the practice of physician-assisted dying. Opponents of assisted suicide say that because physicians are bound by this oath, they should to the best of their ability keep their patient alive and are to not administer any drug that would kill their patient, even if the patient begs for them to do
These laws are deeply rooted. In recent years, however, these assisted suicide bans have been reexamined and, reacknowledged. Because of advances in medicine and technology, people today are more likely to die in hospitals from chronic illnesses. Public concern and democratic action are focused on how best to protect dignity and honor at the end of life, there have been many significant changes in state laws and in the attitudes these laws reflect. Many states, for example, now permit "living wills, surrogate health care decision making, and the withdrawal or refusal of life sustaining medical treatment.” voters and legislators continue for the most part to backup their states' prohibitions on assisting suicide.
The issues surrounding assisted suicide are multifaceted. One could argue the practice of assisted suicide can appear to be a sensible response to genuine human suffering. Allowing health care professionals to carry out these actions may seem appropriate, in many cases, when the decision undoubtedly promotes the patient's autonomy. From this viewpoint, the distinctions made between assisted suicide and the withholding of life-sustaining measures appears artificial and tough to sustain. In many cases, the purpose and consequences of these practices are equivalent. On the contrary, if
As David Sclar mentions in the conclusion of his article, “The opinion [of the Court] does not even consider establishing a right to physician-assisted suicide” (643). Sclar’s point is that because of this, the issue of physician-assisted suicide will be revisited in the courts and legislatures—federal and state—alike. Undoubtedly, in future debates in favor of and against physician-assisted suicide, the topic of “suicide” will be a
Assisted Suicide has become one of the most controversial topics due to the sensitivity of the topic involving loved ones. What is Assisted Suicide, “suicide by an individual facilitated by means or information (as a gun or indication of the lethal dosage of a drug) provided by someone else aware of the individual's intent” (Assisted Suicide, 2015). Assisted suicide is a felony and could be charged with manslaughter in most states, but Oregon and Washington. Oregon and Washington are the only states allowing someone to use the “Oregon Death of Dignity Act” this allows a patient to commit suicide, but with the help of a physician (Assisted Suicide Laws in the United States, 2012). What makes assisted suicide a controversial topic? Moral, ethical
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
Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics discussed among people every day. Everyone has his or her own opinion on this topic. This is a socially debated topic that above all else involves someone making a choice, whether it be to continue with life or give up hope and die. This should be a choice that they make themselves. However, In the United States, The land of the free, only one state has legalized assisted suicide. I am for assisted suicide and euthanasia. This paper will support my many feelings on this subject.