Death With Dignity Euthanasia

Others have argued that physician assisted suicide is not ethically permissible, because it contradicts the traditional duty of physician’s to preserve life and to do no harm. Furthermore, many argue that if physician assisted suicide is legalized, abuses would take place, because as social forces condone the practice, it will lead to “slippery slope” that forces (PAS) on the disabled, elderly, and the poor, instead of providing more complex and expensive palliative care. While these arguments continue with no end in sight, more and more of the terminally ill cry out in agony, for the right to end their own suffering.

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

Physician-assisted suicide can be described as the act of a terminally ill individual obtaining a lethal prescription in order to exercise their right to die with dignity. Though physician-assisted suicide is highly controversial, it is legally practiced in a small number of states within the United States. Much of the controversy surrounding physician-assisted suicide relates to the social, political, and ethical questions and considerations concerning the practice. Regardless

There are numerous articles regarding Death with Dignity and Physician-Assisted Suicide. Friend (2011) investigates the history of physician-assisted suicide, the Hemlock Society, and the ethical considerations to physician-assisted suicide. A wealth of information was made available from the www.oregon.gov defending the state’s decision of enacting and the subsequent legal defense of the Death with Dignity legislation. Finally, van Gennip, Roeline, Pasman, Kaspers, Oosterveld-Vlug, Willems, Deeg & Onwuteaka-Philipsen, (2013) performed a survey study in Amsterdam, a country with a markedly different attitude toward Death with Dignity than that of Americans.

Physician-assisted suicide: Death with dignity addresses morality and ethics involved with physician-assisted suicide or PAS. History of euthanasia is given, dating back to ancient civilizations. PAS models in other countries besides the United States are explained in detail. The author addresses

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.

Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) has grown into quite a contentious topic over the years. According to Breitbart and Rosenfeld (1), physician-assisted suicide can be defined as “a physician providing medications or advice to enable the patient to end his or her own life.” One may find many articles that are written by physicians, pharmacists, patients, and family of patients who receive PAS; from there, it is possible to gain a better understanding of what PAS is and how it has become a rising issue in the United States. For readers who have not heard about PAS and what it entails, it is important to understand that this is a debatable topic that should be approached lightly and non-aggressively in the United States when factors such as offering terminally ill patients the right to end their suffering, the likelihood of overall healthcare cost to decrease, and the comparison of palliative care to physician-assisted suicide are examined.

Unlike, previous reviews, the author begins by defining physician- assisted suicide death and its differences from other forms of euthanasia. In this article, Ardell also addresses the ethical and moral dilemma between letting people have control over their own bodies through assisted suicide and the state’s decision to prevent individuals from taking their lives. Specifically, Ardell compares two countries, Netherlands and the United States, in which physician-assisted suicide is legal and illegal to assessed how each decision has influence patients with terminal illness. Finally, Ardell also focuses on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act to explain how the court decision of legalizing assisted death has impacted a whole community of people, hospitals and generally end-life care for terminally-ill patients. Although, the author doesn’t offer her opinions or a general conclusion about legalizing physician-assisted suicide, she explains that most Oregon physician assisted suicide cases has been about achieving a “death with dignity” or a death in control, rather than preventing pain. Hence, this article is important for my research paper because it explores both the legal and moral repercussion of legalizing physician -assisted suicide in the context of achieving a “death with

The topic of physician-assisted suicide has become very controversial because of the ethical questions. The physical state of health of the patient, the patient’s personal life, and even the financial pressure of the patient are all factors to consider when contemplating whether or not to legalize this controversial cause of death. Physician-assisted suicide regarding medical ethics states that a physician cannot legally give any patient a lethal injection to end their life, but they can take the patient off of life support in order to increase the process of death. Physician-assisted suicide should be legalized at a federal level and should be morally acceptable for patients who are terminally ill and can no longer be treated to improve their medical situation.

According to data from Washington and Oregon in 2012, there were 160 physician-assisted suicides and 90 percent of these deaths were of patients in hospices care. This poses a unique issue for hospice caregivers because on one hand they are not looking to prolong life, but on the other hand they are also not looking to hasten the process. There will always be a debate in hospices on whether or not physicians should assist in suicide of patients (Campbell & Cox, 26). Because a vast majority of the patients who opt for physician-assisted suicide are in hospice care, Hospice physicians are often referred to when a patient is considering physician assisted suicide. Even with the laws in Oregon allowing physician assisted suicide, many hospices refuse to condone it and many hospices will not perform physician assisted suicide. They refuse to perform assisted death because they seek to remain faithful to the historically formative values of hospice care. These include the philosophy that “death is a natural continuation of the human lifespan, that the dignity of each dying patient should be affirmed, that the quality of a patients remaining life should be promoted through the highest level of caring commitment, and that hospices should evince a distinctive devotion to symptom and pain management.” (Campbell and cox 27). Another reason certain hospices do not allow physician assisted suicide is because they are religiously affiliated. They are restricted from administering physician-assisted suicide because it is against their religion to do

As of January 2015 there are five states in the U.S. that have declared the Death with Dignity Act a constitutional right for a competent, terminally ill patient. Under what conditions is physician assisted suicide morally acceptable, is the question at hand and did these states make the right decision on such a slippery slope debate. This paper will go on to explain one side of this very touchy debate, it will also consider objections from the other side, and ultimately defend the position physician assisted suicide is wrong not only morally but also, ethically.

Some terminally ill patients are left with no choice but to suffer through their illness until their body eventually succumbs to the illness, whatever it may be. In these cases, an organization called Death with Dignity will try to step in and help the patient in need if they are legally allotted to. Death with Dignity is an organization that administers lethal injections, commonly referred to as physician assisted suicide to patients that ask for this.

Imagine having a terminal form of cancer and having no response to treatment. The physicians say there are only a few months left until death. Does one choose to suffer out the last few months of life with family or end his or her life peacefully, with dignity? Physician assisted suicide should be legal because one should have the choice to end his or her own suffering.

What is the right to die, euthanasia or physician assisted suicide? Is there a difference? Should a patient be left to suffer and die? Is there a difference? There is no difference because whether it’s a merciful death, assisted death, natural or artificial death, the patient will eventually die. However, the right to die a much faster and painless death with dignity is wiser. The Improvements in medical technologies enable individuals to delay the inevitable fate of death, but there are patients within the United States who technology cannot delay their fate of death, such patients, terminally patients. These patients should have the right to choose death over life to end their intractable pain, but with dignity. Death with dignity has been