Now that I’ve demonstrated that my ethical theory can be used to make educated decisions in situations that we can potentially face daily, how does my ethical theory fit with issues of life or death? My ethical theory focuses more on issues that an individual will face in their everyday life. It does not directly deal with issues of life and death; however you can still go through the core concepts to make a decision. For instance, let's take a look at assisted suicide.
The promotion of physician assisted suicide has sparked a debate throughout the world. From my point of view, assisted suicide is doctors assist patients who could not endure the pain of diseases and are voluntarily given lethal amount of substances resulting in death. However, physician assisted suicide might be considered to be deviant in many countries currently due to the religions, laws and the negative image. Also, the physicians who assist their patients to suicide might be labelled as "killers". For instance, Jack Kevorkian, who was known for successfully assisting more than 130 patients to end their lives, was charged with second degree murder and was
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.
A woman suffering from cancer became the first person known to die under the law on physician-assisted suicide in the state of Oregon when she took a lethal dose of drugs in March, 1998. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act passed a referendum in November, 1997, and it has been the United States ' only law legalizing assisted suicide since then. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, more than 4,000 doctors have approved of the assisted suicide law (cited in "The Anguish of Doctors,” 1996). The law allows terminally ill patients who have been given six months or less to live and wish to hasten their deaths to obtain medication prescribed by two doctors. The most important thing to notice is that this law does not include those who have been on a life support system nor does it include those who have not voluntarily asked physicians to help them commit suicide. The issue of doctor-assisted suicide has been the subject of the heated dispute in recent years. Many people worry that legalizing doctor assisted suicide is irrational and violates the life-saving tradition of medicine. However, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized because it offers terminally ill people an opportunity for a peaceful death and recognized the inadequacy of current medical practice to deal with death.
Brittany Maynard was given six months to live after being diagnosed with the deadliest form of brain cancer; she had recently just turned 29. To make matters worse, doctors had told her she would suffer from the tumor in a slow and painful manner before succumbing to death. Maynard decided she would die on November 1, a few days after her husband’s birthday under physician-assisted suicide. Unfortunately, she had to relocate from California, where her friends and family lived, to Oregon in order to fall under the “Die With Dignity” act. According to euthanasia.procon.org, only four states in the whole country have legalized assisted suicide. Unfortunately, there are many like Maynard, who have to relocate and leave their home or go through a long and strenuous court battle to receive this treatment plant. This is due to the disapproval of physician-assisted suicide.
Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (such as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information, but can be categorized as egregious. The ethical controversy of whether the legalization of physician- assisted suicide should take place in America is one to be disposed of. With no regard to religion, the catastrophe of physician-assisted suicide can be demonstrated through the law, The Constitution of the United States, the ethical controversy in regards to the Hippocratic Oath, and the prolonging of suffering. Rejecting God’s gift of life to us, directly defying the word of
Some states and countries allow physical assisted suicide to patients who are deemed terminally ill. Every year thousands of patients are place in hospice care, only to be given an estimated time frame of how long they have to live. During this time, these patients are suffering from terminal diseases and conditions. In 1994, Oregon became the first state to write the Death with Dignity act into law. For those suffering from terminal illness this was great news. However, this controversial law would soon be repealed in 1997, only to be reinstated in 2006. Ever since then, other states have exercised their rights to adopt similar laws and others have not due to the controversy surrounding this topic. Although some states have endorsed this topic,
Albert Camus once quoted, “But in the end, one needs more courage to live than to kill them self.” Today I will be discussing the topic of Euthanasia also known as “assisted suicide.” The word originated from the Greeks, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia refers to the ending of one’s life, primarily to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and generates many political and religious debates. Although euthanasia is illegal in Canada, in some jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, euthanasia is a legal and common practice.
The topic of assisted suicide is very controversial and is heavily debated upon all around the world. While physician assisted suicide is only legal in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and a few states in the U.S., it is illegally practiced widely by physicians and nurses, such as Dr. Jack Kevorkian. I first heard of physician assisted suicide when the death of Dr. Kevorkian, an assisted suicide advocate and a suicide aid, was on the news in 2011. Kevorkian assisted in the suicide of many patients who could not find any more reasons to live. Many people oppose of his practice, but I believe Kevorkian was trying to help these patients find peace. This topic is important because it can help end the long pain and suffering of patients. Seeing the struggles of the patients Dr. Kevorkian has worked with makes me believe that the legalization of physician assisted suicide it necessary, but not everyone agrees.
In today’s society, assisted-suicide is a highly debatable topic. Due to advancements in medicine and medical technology, that can prolong life and slow down the process of dying, the desire for assisted suicides has increased. Assisted-suicide is when a health care professional provides a patient the knowledge and means to intentionally kill themselves (Harris 2006). An example of assisted-suicide is providing a patient pills to take to end their lives. Patient assisted-suicides are only legal in six states within the United States; Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Montana and Colorado (Hudson 2015). In order for an individual to legally qualify the patient must have the capability to effectively communicate their healthcare decision,
There have been many debates over time of if suicide is murder, but what about Assisted Suicide? Assisted suicide is when a person helps another person end their life. Helping with the death of someone who wanted to die. Act Utilitarianism sets basis of right or wrong based on if the action causes more pleasure or pain overall. Every person is accounted as equal. This means if an action brings pleasure to one person but harms two people. The action would be deemed as bad because it brings about more pain. This analysis will attempt to answer the lingering questions about Assisted Suicide by using the theory of Act Utilitarianism.
The issue of assisted suicide places the advanced practice nurse in a precarious ethical and legal position. While the goal of the nurse is to provide care for the patient and to provide appropriate and safe responses to patient requests, assisted suicide is quite the dilemma in regards to a request to perform acts considered illegal with criminal implications and forfeiture of licensure at stake. Regardless of the nurse’s personal opinion regarding the issue of assisted suicide, whether for or against, the nurse must also consider the legal and ethical ramifications of actions taken. The individual patient that the advanced practice nurse is working with is not the place to implement personal feelings and potential challenges to existing laws. If the nurse is motivated, there are appropriate methods of working within the legislature to challenge or modify laws and statutes. Placing the patient and/or their family in the middle of this personal opinion is inappropriate, even if the family or patient requests assisted suicide.
For this assignment, I read four articles in all—two that are decidedly against what they call “assisted suicide”, and two that are decidedly supportive of what they call “death with dignity”. This has become legalized for terminally-ill patients with prognoses of surviving no longer than six months, first in Oregon in 1998, but since then Washington, California, and Vermont. It has also been legalized in Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxemburg for some years now, in these countries, patients need not even be terminally ill to be granted permission to end their lives under the guidance of a physician. While both “assisted suicide” and “death with dignity” mean the same thing, physician-assisted suicide of patients who, for whatever reason, want to end their lives, the difference in terminology underlies a stark moral conflict, inspiring each side to be blinded by their respective convictions.
"No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.”, this is according to the Indiana Code of Criminal Law and Procedure.