Assisted Suicide Debate Analysis

The Right to assisted suicide is a major topic worldwide. Different people have different feeling toward the matter in fact it boils down to say that the patients have the right to die with assistance of a doctor, this is said because of aspects such as a person’s values, morals and general ethics (Esther B. De La Torre).

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

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

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

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.

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

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 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

The debate between Mark A.R. Kleinman and Ira Byock discuss the topic of suicide whether it should be legal or not; Kleinman is arguing for suicide to be legal, which will come to the conclusion that suicide should be allowed for anyone and not have any punishment for an attempt. Byock argues the opposing argument that suicide should be illegal, but the focus of this argument will be Kleiman’s point of view. The exigency, the problem that can be fixed, is viewed in this argument that it is the people’s right to kill themselves and this is due to the depression and/or the feeling of thinking they are better off dead. The audience directed towards this argument is people committing suicide and those who oppose the people committing the ‘crime’ of suicide. Constraints, the biases, in this situation would be ethical beliefs and the people who have witnessed or experienced these suicidal thoughts. Kleinman’s reasoning is the use of emotion and human rights are seen to enhance his argument. Therefore suicide should not be legal, it should be treated instead of encouraged.

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

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.

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 been an argument over time; if people should be allowed to have the option. This was the question that was discussed by the supreme court in the cases of Washington v. Glucksberg on January 8, 1997. This case consisted of Dr. Harold Glucksberg, who is a physician. With four other physicians and three terminally-ill patients. Also helping them was a non-profit organization Compassion in Dying. They all challenged Washington State’s ban on assisted suicide. They argued that assisted suicide and the right to die was a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. I believe that any person who is in extreme pain and has a terminal illness should have the option of assisted 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

     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.