Autonomy And Assisted Suicide: Article Analysis

Abstract: This paper discusses the medical ethics of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). Focusing on the ideas of legal vs illegal, the different views of PAS will both be addressed. While active euthanasia is illegal, passive euthanasia, or allowing natural death, is completely legal everywhere. PAS will help patients end suffering for themselves at the end of their lives, as well as the family's. The price of the drug may be expensive but the price of medical treatments continues to rise. The Hippocratic Oath does not support the aid in ending a life, however it has been changed in the past. Many citizens are afraid that is PAS was considered legal, it would grow into something even more illegal being debated. Also, the religious aspect of the end of life had conflicting views as some believe PAS is ending suffering, a good deed, and other believe PAS is not respecting a human life. PAS is only legal in seven states but has gained the attention of many others and other places around the world.

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

It is the responsibility of those in healthcare to promote wellness, health and quality of live. Yet from early on the concept of promoting life has existed. The Hippocratic oaths states that, “I will not give poison to anybody when asked to do so.” This is a clear statement against euthanasia. The Hippocratic oath interestingly, also does not allow for the use of abortive agents, showing the concern for the sanctity of life. It does also go on to say that I will not put the knife to any patient, which could be interpreted as assisted suicide or pagan practice of cutting and blood letting. As a surgeon today I would take a more liberal stance on this later statement of this part of the oath which is often omitted from modern reading of the oath, as we now are able to cure disease by the use of the knife. Some would also argue the use of poison to treat, such as chemotherapeutic agents which are also acceptable. Pushing this to the extreme, some may say that much of this oath is no longer applicable and euthanasia also falls under a new area of enlightenment. However, most Doctors to believe that it is their job to relieve pain and suffering and cure when possible and this can be obtained without the use of euthanasia. Hospice care is readily available. Patient can establish living wills in order to make their decision known. Patients have a right to refuse treatment and this include, nutrition and hydration. Refusal of these will will result in datth in less than one week. Patient can be kep comfortable without promoting active death and

Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.

In a Netherlands report it tells, “Many physicians who had practiced euthanasia [form of assisted suicide] mentioned that they would be most reluctant to do so again” (Stevens 189). Everyday these physicians are faced with decisions of how to best save their patient. Now they also, have to determine if they can come to terms with ending their lives. The impact on these physicians is tremendous. Kenneth R. Stevens the Vice President of Physicians for Compassionate Care concludes, “Doctors who have participated in euthanasia and/or PAS [Physician-Assisted Suicide] are adversely affected emotionally and psychologically by their experiences” (187). Physicians, who have made the decision to help, face the consequences of their actions. They have helped someone take a life, even if it their own. Death always leaves an impression. Imagine what it must be like to be directly involved with a death. Those men and women in time will have to come to terms with their participation in Physician-Assisted Suicide.

According to Joe Messerli, “Assisting in suicides would be a violation of that oath, and it would lead to a weakening of doctor-patient trust” (3). If doctors violate the oath, especially the above stated portions, patients may be inclined to question what other standards of medicine are being breached. Assisted suicides contravene medical ethics, as evidenced by the multiple violations of the Hippocratic Oath.

When talking about doctors, death and incurable diseases, one of the most controversial topic that comes up is Physician assisted suicide. Webster’s dictionary define it as, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (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.” Most of us have experienced the pain of seeing our loved ones dying in a hospital since doctors and modern medicine can only help us so much. Physician assisted suicide not only helps alleviates the never ending pain, but patient also dies with dignity. On the other hand, people who oppose it, have strong religious and ethical beliefs. They think that Physician assisted suicide demeans the human value and violates doctor’s Hippocratic Oath. After researching a lot about this topic, I decided that taking a moderate stance would be the best option because even though I agree that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) goes against medical ethics and religious beliefs I also believe that sometimes PAS is the best option available for people who are fatally sick and want to die with dignity and peace. In this paper I will discuss the history of physician assisted suicide, why is it important to have this option available and how should we limit PAS to make a compromise with people who are against it.

Euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, is an important and controversial topic in our society today, and (under the correct conditions) should both be considered legal and morally acceptable. In fact, throughout history euthanasia has been a debate in many countries, some areas accepting the practice, whereas others find it unacceptable. Many people and professionals continue to refer to the Hippocratic Oath, an vow stating the proper conduct for doctors, and it's famous words "Do no harm." However, when it comes down to whatever holds people back, whether it is their views on religion or oaths from many years ago, it should be considered a correct practice. In fact, in the case of Vacco v. Quill, one point raised was that "Over time, the Hippocratic Oath has been changed, and deleted. In order to "do-no-harm" one would end suffering instead of prolonging it." With the use of Supreme Court cases, and professional psychologist and medical quotations, one can see the clear reasons that this topic must be allowed. In the end, euthanasia should definitely be considered correct both legally and morally due to one's legal rights, sensible ethical values, and the multiple positive benefits upon the legalization of euthanasia.

The United States is a nation founded on freedoms and liberties, giving each citizen the ability to make their own life decisions. This freedom includes all aspects of one’s life, including medical care. With freedom comes responsibility, and this is true in terms of physician-assisted suicide. The ongoing struggle between those in favor and those opposed to this subject has ravaged the medical field, bringing into question what is morally and ethically right. The fact of the matter is that physician-assisted suicide is neither morally nor ethically acceptable under any circumstance. Not only is it a direct violation of a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath, but it is not constitutionally binding. Physician-assisted suicide would also lead to

Physicians assisted suicide (PAS) refers to interventions by a doctor that either intentionally assist a patient to die (as in giving the patient the lethal means to end their own life at their explicit request), or directly ends a patient’s life (as in a lethal medication administered by a doctor at the explicit request of the patient – euthanasia). In recent years the debate over a patient’s possible right to the aid of a physician in committing suicide has become one of the most discussed issues in medical ethics. The argument for and against PAS is not something unique to this century. It has been going on since the time of the ancient Greeks. The Hippocratic Oath has been called the most widely known of Greek medical texts. It

The Hippocratic oath states, “first, do no harm.” Physician Assisted Suicide is in direct contrast of that, as deliberately killing a patient. Proponents of Physician Assisted Suicide state that the Hippocratic oath should be modified according to an individual patient’s needs. A physician should be able to provide a lethal drug for a suffering patient who chooses to ingest the lethal prescription. Physicians who provide assistance in death are adhering to the medical practices, to care for and met the needs and desires of a patient in all stages of the patient’s life. By allowing a terminally ill patient a lethal prescription to end ones suffering adheres to the patients needs and wants, which is to end the suffering by taking ones life. Significantly, the activities a physician undertakes in providing assistance in death are the same as those often carried out by a physician who oversees a withdrawal of treatment. The physician who prolongs their patient’s life, but who then aids in the patient’s request to die, has not violated the Hippocratic oath, and in fact has fulfilled the physician’s duty to heal. The physician is adhering to the terminally ill patients needs, by giving the patient medication to end their suffering. Therefore Physician Assisted Suicide does not violate the Hippocratic

In the fourth century B.C. doctors followed the Hippocratic Oath, which was an oath that said the rules of the medical industry and the doctor’s policy. Those who took the oath were mostly incoming doctors or people who were in the medical industry. The Hippocratic Oath states “I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” (End of Life: Ethical Considerations paragraph 32) This directly states that the doctors back then were not allowed to perform assisted suicide at any cost. Although, in modern times the Hippocratic Oath now states “Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be

If it is true that only God has the power to give and take away life, that health care professionals take an oath that ethically binds them to preserve life, and that we as a society value the sanctity of life and equal rights for all, then how can euthanasia be considered “good death?” Allowing euthanasia delivers the authority over death into human hands which do not hold the wisdom required to make decisions that only God should make. To continue, health care professionals are entrusted to do their best to heal illness and disease, not to give up when the prognosis is grave. In addition, it is a common practice for new doctors to take an oath of ethics based on the original Hippocratic Oath. How can our society expect health professionals

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are actions that hit at the core of what it means to be human - the moral and ethical actions that make us who we are, or who we ought to be. Euthanasia, a subject that is so well known in the twenty-first century, is subject to many discussions about ethical permissibility which date back to as far as ancient Greece and Rome , where euthanasia was practiced rather frequently. It was not until the Hippocratic School removed it from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate? More so, euthanasia raises

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many people believe that doctors should not prescribe any medication that ends a person’s life since it is considered to be against the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath states that doctors are professionally obliged to save lives. Some consider euthanasia to be immoral and others say that it is murder. Euthanasia should