Assisted Suicide Debate Analysis

Over the last thirty years the fight over assisted suicide has earned a spot in the national spotlight, for both positive and negative reasons depending on your stance on the issue. There have been challenges made based off the constitution, the right to privacy and moral reasons for both sides. While there have been many notable persons of interest during this time some have helped the cause as others have hindered progress.

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

Assisted suicide has been an issue for many decades. There are views of it being considered murder and against God’s will but there are also views of it being a sympathetic release from life. The debating of this topic has not come to any concrete resolution about the legality of the practice. Assisted suicide should be legal even though the act of killing is involved. It provides the escape from life that the person wants and does not harm anyone else in the process. The views on this issue when debating have been outdated for far too long.

     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.

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 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 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

Even with the legalization of assisted suicide, reasonable laws can be constructed which prevent abuse and still protect the value of human life. Josh Sanburn in “The Last Choice” argues against the preconceived notion that suicide devalues the life of a human, but

Assisted suicide is a subject on which many people argue whether it should be legal or not. If a person has his mind set to one side of the discussion, that person should be aware of the argument given by all sides of the matter. There are two sides to this argument and the first is the side that is against legalizing assisted suicide. The individuals who are against allowing assisted suicide contend that society has an obligation to secure and to safeguard all life. To permit individuals to help others in ending their lives damages a principal obligation we need to regard human life. A general public focused on

One of the most contentious issues in the entire field of healthcare and end-of-life care is the notion of assisted suicide, wherein the individual who wishes to end his or her own life is assisted by someone else, usually a physician. As Werner (2005, p. 135) notes, "straightforward answers to the difficult questions concerning the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide are not yet available," but one can at least have a more robust conception of the issue's history, which in turn allows one to confront the contemporary discussion with greater insight. In the United States the topic rose to widespread prominence in the 1990s with the case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who helped over forty people commit suicide before being convicted of second-degree murder. However, the debate regarding assisted suicide has been raging since at least the beginning of the twentieth-century, when the odd confluence of concerned citizens and eugenics advocates began arguing for legalized assisted suicide. This origin has tended to taint the discussion regarding the practice, and by tracing the history of assisted suicide in the United States, it will be possible to understand how the contemporary discussions of the issue represent a kind of backlash against the admittedly cruel and inhumane Social Darwinism of the early twentieth century.

A common viewpoint on this topic is people deserve the right to assisted suicide if they are terminally ill and are suffering. Two factors create this point-of-view, the idea of ending terrible suffering, and trying to keep patient’s families from falling into a financial debt due to the continued medical treatment. “If terminal patients have the option of assisted suicide, they can ease their families’ financial burdens as well as their suffering” (Torre). These patients are both suffering and piling debt from medical bills unto their families. The after effects

Today, the biggest controversy issue going on globally is assisted suicide. Many people feel that it isn’t right for people, regardless of their health condition. Others feel it is their right to choose how and when they die (Barrett Kelli). Medical technology has given us the power to sustain lives of patients whose physical and mental capabilities cannot be restored (Velasquez Manuel, Andrews Claire).

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.

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