Assisted Suicide
In thousands of homes across the nation victims of terminal illnesses sit in pain due to their sicknesses. Should these people have to go through all of that pain and suffering just for the end result of death? Should these people have the right to assisted death, to rid themselves of unbearable pain?
This topic has been one of the great controversies over the last several years.
Not too long ago if someone was found assisting in suicide, it was seen as a felony crime. But recently there have been court cases taken up in two federal appellate courts that ruled terminally ill patients have the right to seek doctor assisted suicide (Carter 1). These cases took place in New York and
Washington. This added two
…show more content…
The ability to perform legal assisted suicide would help to replace some of the dignity which the illness has extracted from a person's life. It would give the person the capability to end matters on his own terms. John Stuart Mill, one of the great philosophers of the nineteenth century, derived a theory which is an excellent example as an argument for the legalization of doctor assisted suicide, or all moral crimes for that matter.
This theory was deemed the "Harm Principle": a person is wholly sovereign over his body. It is no one else's right to invade a person's body. Therefore, since one is fully autonomous over his physical body, one should have the ability to do as he pleases with it. This holds true up until the point where his actions bring harm to another human. Doctor assisted suicide is a perfect example, one's body is his own and only his; therefore, if one chooses not to suffer needlessly for months or even years who is to stop him from utilizing the procedure? Some would argue that this does cause harm to others in an emotional sense, yet this is not the issue, and not how Mill thought it should be interpreted. Now that the moral issues have been discussed, what about the rights which the Constitution of the United Stated guarantees its citizens? Under the provisions of the fourteenth amendment, the same
die an even more painful death at home with no medications because they can't afford them. A
One of the most controversial end-of-life decisions is “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS). This method of suicide involves a physician providing a patient, at his or her own request, with a lethal dose of medication, which the patient self-administers. The ethical acceptability and the desirability of legalization of this practice both continue to cause controversy (Raus, Sterckx, Mortier 1). Vaco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg were landmark decisions on the issue of physician-assisted suicide and a supposed Constitutional right to commit suicide with another's assistance. In Washingotn v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was not unconstitutional.
Imagine a cancer patient on a short rode to death. The pain this patient is experiencing is unreal and unimaginable to most. The pain medicine that can be used does little to take the agony away. The doctors can put the patient in an induced coma, but what kind of living is that? It is not living. The patient does not want to go on. Is it so wrong to ask for a way out? With less than six months to live, the patient’s hope is gone. Many argue that euthanasia is not ethical, but is it really ethical to let someone live in constant, horrifying pain and agony? While in some cases having the right to die might result in patients giving up on life, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all fifty states for terminally ill patients with worsening or unbearable pain.
The thoughts of assisted suicide are very mixed. Some people believe that it is a great way to put terminally-ill patients out of the their pain and suffering. They see it as a way for a person to die with dignity after suffering from a painful disease. Others think it is beyond morally wrong for a doctor to intentionally end a patient’s life. They feel that a doctor should not have unnecessary deaths riding, on their shoulders the rest of their career. Assisted suicide goes way beyond the beliefs of medicine and is morally wrong in so many ways.
Though one is not a supporter of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, circumstances can easily influence the choice to undertake. However, one should not advocate or condone assisted suicide just because a patient feels they should die. The option of assisted suicide (Physician Assisted Suicide) should be left for terminally ill patients, whose death is expected to be slow and painful both to the patient and family around them.
Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial issues of the twenty-first century. Anyone can kill themselves, but what happens when one is not capable of physically doing so and at the same exact time is also terminally ill. When is it okay for a physician to use their medical expertise, and oblige with a incurably patient; to agree that one’s life is worth ending. Where is the line drawn? Legally, physician-assisted suicide is a criminal offense; you are after all killing another human. Morally, is it okay to watch someone die in agonizing pain and stand-by because God told us all too. This essay will explore and analyze the legal aspect of physician-assisted suicide, what does the law say. As well as, the moral implications of physician-assisted suicide, it is ever okay, and the consequences it will have on our society.
Patient assisted suicide, death with dignity, euthanasia or patient assisted death; whichever one that is used, they all mean the same tragic thing. The life of another human being is more than what comes to eye. For years now, everyone has been arguing whether physicians have the right to assist with patient assisted death. The man who started this epidemic was known as Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Kevorkian was a pathologist who assisted the acute and critically ill with ending his or her life. After Kevorkian spent years battling the legality of his actions with the courts, he ended up spending eight years in prison. Today, there are only 7 locations that allow physicians to do this: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Montana, Colorado, and Washington DC. At the start of this whole situation, doctors would attempt to use very high dosages of analgesic, pain relieving medication, to end a patients life; however, that ended very quickly. Shortly after that time, doctors would use the same drugs administered for lethal injections. Typically a three step process: the first shot induces unconsciousness, the second shot causes muscle paralysis and respiratory arrest, and the final shot causes cardiac arrest, which ceases heart contractions. Currently, doctors use a drug called
In the medical field there are massive amounts of treatments for various diseases. Some treatments are going to help the patient feel more comfortable; however, some are going to counteract the problem, and others are going to help kill the patient. Physician assisted suicide is defined by medterms.com as “the voluntary termination of one 's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician.” Any person wishing to undergo assisted suicide in Oregon must be at least 18 years of age and have a terminal illness. This illness must be within its final stages and leave the patient with less than six months to live.
Since 1994, Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) has been legal in the state of Oregon. The law allows patients diagnosed as having less than six months to live to decide when they will die. Sadly, death is a fact of life. Losing a loved one to debilitating disease or terminal illness is an experience to which an increasing number of Americans can relate. Every day new cases of cancer, ALS, and other painful, potentially fatal diseases are diagnosed in the US. The American Cancer Society estimates that over 22,000 new cancer cases will be reported in 2015 in Oregon alone, with roughly 8,000 subsequently dying. Faced with such overwhelming diagnoses, many patients choose to fight; other patients opt to spend their remaining time with their families,
I believe physician-assisted death is morally permissible if one relied on the philosophical methodology of utilitarianism. Physician-assisted death can be defined as a patient administered form of death prescribed by a physician. Not to be confused with euthanasia, the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent patient for their alleged benefit. Physician-assisted suicide comes with a multitude of legal safeguards to protect certain communities, either physician or patient, who might abuse the practice. In order for a patient to qualify they must fulfill the following: The patient must be at least 18 years of age, must be a resident of the state legalized to practice physician-assisted death, two physicians must evaluate the patient
The topic I chose to write about is Physician-assisted suicide. My position on the topic is that I agree with physician-assisted suicide because it helps terminal ill people end their suffering faster than if they waited until the illness took their life away. Also, the terminal ill person decides that he/she wants to end his or hers life with a clear conscious knowing what is going to happen to them taking the physician-assisted suicide route to end their suffering. By the terminal ill person deciding that they want to end their life with physician-assisted suicide they are helping out their family. They help their family by reducing their pain that they feel and also by helping them financially because it is cheaper to end their life with
It is those ideas that get in mind, what life will be with that illness or disease having on your shoulder not knowing what to do. How to get away from that nightmare that has change not only physically, but mentally as well. Finding another way to stop this and not having to think the worst will happen. As to come with this most people with a terminal disease comes with a solution to end this without having to suffer with the pain that is taking away lives. One of the final solutions most do is the help of a doctor to take away the life of the patient known as physician assisted suicide. Unfortunately, people find this as a way to get away from the illness they have and giving up so the ill won’t have to suffer anymore. Even worse this not
This paper evaluates current arguments for and against physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in the United States using the legislature in Oregon as the primary example. This subject is extremely controversial and there are logical and emotional arguments for either side. PAS is currently only legal in Oregon, Washington State, Montana and Vermont. This issue is coming to the forefront of politics as medical technology advances. It is essential to analyze both sides of the argument in order to take a position on the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.
Hospice care has not been around for very longs but it is one of the fastest growing medical fields in the country, with over 1.58 million patients being cared for in 2010 alone. Hospice is an important part of caring for terminally ill patients and helps the families and loved ones to grieve.
Me Before You is a romantic novel written by JoJo Moyes which goes on to show how two people had nothing in common until love gave them everything to lose. There are various thoughts that people with disabilities might have when reading this book. One of the thoughts is that the book is written in a tone that moves the reader. According to Emily May, this book makes a person want to cry after reading the first chapter, and the fact that this book talks about life is touching (Me Before You, 1).