Doctor-Assisted Suicide And Euthanasia In The United States

of life. Death is inevitable. Why should each of us not have the right to

Physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia is still under scrutiny for a number of reasons. “In spring, 1996, the Ninth and Second Circuits were the first circuit courts in the country to find a constitutional prohibition against laws which make physician-assisted suicide a crime” (Martyn & Bourguignon, 1997). New York was one of the states that followed this prohibition. Eventually, The Ninth and Second Circuit, “allow physician-assisted suicide while attempting to protect individuals from unacceptable harms, such as involuntary euthanasia” (Martyn & Bourguignon, 1997). An assumption can be made, that euthanasia involves a licensed physician to play an active role in this partaking, and it’s where the patient prepares to die at.

Death is a touchy enough subject for people; add in the idea of assisted suicides and there’s an uproar in society. Euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is a very controversial topic in our society today. Physician assisted suicide by definition is “suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent (Merriam-Webster). There are two modes of looking at assisted suicides; either it’s seen as an absurd immoral decision to take away the life of someone or it’s seen as a logical and peaceful release from pain and misery. There’s this idea that asking a healthcare provider to help you end your life is unfair and unnecessary, no matter how much a person is suffering suicide is not justified. People fear patients changing their minds, physicians being severely impacted by this, and families not agreeing with the decision making it hard to cope. On the other side people believe that it’s freedom of choice to choose to be medically assisted with a suicide; this is a right the patient has. Some believe if you’re in pain and dying why should you be forced to stay in a painful state of life. Freedom of choice versus life isn’t ours to take away. If you were in a terminally ill patients position, what would you do?

Physician-assisted suicide is a topic that hits home to many people, both in the United States and across the world. Currently, five states have legalized physician-assisted suicide in the United States and it is crucial that every state reconsiders their stance on the issue. Each state needs to look at the pros and cons, as well as the implications of their decision on their stance on physician-assisted suicide. Citizens also have a critical role, as they must tell their legislators their stance on physician-assisted suicide so that the legislators can properly represent their states. This paper looks to show the major arguments for both the groups that support physician-assisted suicide as well as the groups that oppose physician-assisted suicide, while also taking other issues into consideration, such as different pressures legalization of physician-assisted suicide would have on different demographics.

The legalization of physician assisted suicide (PAS) in Oregon in 1994 changed the face of the argument between those who believe in death with dignity and those who believe in letting nature take its course. It was a major victory for PAS advocates as the first state in America had legalized PAS in the country’s history. In 2008, the neighboring state of Washington followed suit with a similar law and legalized PAS by a 58-42 margin. Vermont legalized it in 2013. PAS has also been decriminalized in the state of Montana. The assisted suicide of a 29-year-old Oregon woman with terminal brain cancer named Brittany Maynard in late 2014 brought light to the debate again.

Physicians Assisted Death, is a death made possible when a physician, provides a terminally ill patient with the appropriate means to terminate their life. In other words, the patient commits the death causing act (Class notes, 10/19). Though Physicians Assisted Death and euthanasia ultimately result in the same ending they are different. euthanasia is a death made possible when a patient who is unable to commit the death causing act by themselves, grants a physician the right to terminate a their life. Thus, the physician administers the lethal drugs. That difference plays a critical role in the legalization of physician assisted death and euthanasia. Currently there are several arguments for and against the legalization of physician assisted death and euthanasia.

Nowadays, in the United States, people face many big controversial issues. Besides problems related to the reality of daily life like health care, government intercepting phone calls, raising the minimum wage, gender equality, human rights, equality, anti-racism ... have practical effect on social life. People are also really concerned about the issue of physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or euthanasia has become a controversial issue today, and that related to consciousness, choices and decisions about life of people. PAS is an action expressing an intention of ending a life to relieve intractable, persistent, and unstoppable suffering. Another idea, PAS is the

In today’s society, suicide, and more controversially, physician assisted suicide, is a hotly debated topic amongst both every day citizens and members of the medical community. The controversial nature of the subject opens up the conversation to scrutinizing the ethics involved. Who can draw the line between morality and immorality on such a delicate subject, between lessening the suffering of a loved one and murder? Is there a moral dissimilarity between letting someone die under your care and killing them? Assuming that PAS suicide is legal under certain circumstances, how stringent need be these circumstances? The patient must be terminally ill to qualify for voluntary physician-assisted suicide, but in the eyes of the non-terminal patients with no physical means to end their life, the ending of their pain through PAS may be worth their death; at what point is the medical staff disregarding a patient’s autonomy? Due to the variability of answers to these questions, the debate over physician-assisted suicide is far from over. However, real life occurrences happen every day outside the realm of debate and rhetoric, and decisions need to be made.

Physician-assisted suicide or PAS are deaths caused by a lethal dose of drug, such as barbiturate, that is prescribed by a physician. The physician does not administer the drug; instead, the patient is responsible for getting the prescribed drug in the pharmacy and taking the medication to end his or her life. This alternative option applies to patients who can make informed decision, suffer from an incurable illness, and experience intolerable symptoms (Canadian Virtual Hospice, 2015)).[Extra bracket] Through the years, many activists, particularly those with terminal illness, fought to legalize physician-assisted suicide in Canada. Among these people include: Sue Rodriguez, Gloria Taylor, and Gillian Bennett (CBC News, 2015). [I don’t think this helps your paper to list peoples names, not necessary] Sue Rodriguez, diagnosed with Amyotorphic Lateral Sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s disease, brought the right to die campaign center stage in 1992. Now, twenty-one years after her death, the Supreme Court of Canada made physician-assisted suicide legal by February 6, 2016 (Dying With Dignity Canada, n.d.). Despite the move toward legalization, however, the debate on this issue rages on among many Canadians. Some people are in favor of the change to protect the patient’s constitutional rights and autonomy, save healthcare dollars, and take away the guilt of a dying patient becoming a burden to their family, friends and healthcare professionals. Although these are reasonable arguments,

Suffering is a constant companion of humans today; people experience it every day, whether it be emotional or physical, internal or external. Living with a terminal illness is also living with suffering, both because of the physical pain that is felt, and also the emotional blows the patient experiences every day. A terminally ill patient has a monumental part of their life taken from them. Few aspects of life still remain in their control, because of doctors, family members, and the illness itself. However, there is a practice that places a final decision, the right to choose the circumstances of death, with the patient. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS), or physician

This act has been morally criticized by some, but still approved and improved by the authorities all over the world. It is part of the New York State's Patients' Bill of Rights and California Health Care Directive. DNR is considered legal in many parts of the world and this practice is considered as an ethical act as it fulfills a patient's will of not bearing the suffering or pain he/she might go through in his/her respective medical state. Any human being has the right to define his/her own limits and if a person does not want to go through some treatment which might be traumatic for him/her, the authorities and his/her loved ones along with the medical institutions/specialists must respect the patient's decision. However, DNR does not mean that the patient's treatment should stop completely. Only CPR and ACLS are to be avoided. DNR rights are only granted to close family members like the patient's spouse, children (if they are legally old enough), parents or siblings. Other than that, a person specified by the patient legally can

Ethical dilemma may also arise in cases where a patient may feel their right to DNR should be carried out when giving direct order. The DNR process, however, is required to be documented by a physician. Andrew Putnam (2003) presents a case where an eighty-eight year old patient’s code status was DNR; “However, the patient has never signed formal advance directive statement or assigned durable power of attorney for her health care to anyone.” (Putnam, 2003, 2025) Ethics can be simply stated as doing the right thing (Roberts, 2002, 242); but in this case ethics is questioned because the physician was faced with the decision to carry out the wishes of the patient or to make a decision based on legality. In this case, it may have been morally right to carry out the wishes of the patient who wanted DNR orders carried out, but it may have been the right choice to do the legal thing and not carried out due to lack of signed documentation.

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 one of the most complex and morally critical health care practice and policy issues that doctors and nurses must face and advocate for (Gardner). Even though doctors and nurses must follow some sort of code of ethics, following those codes can be difficult for some because their personal feelings about end-of-life care come into play making it problematic for them to truly rationalize the situation. Doctors are required to take the Hippocratic Oath, which in relation to euthanasia, states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this

In current times we have made many technological advances that have boosted the medical productivity in hospitals. However, the rapid development of medicine is far from being a long term resolve for many health issues. We have a plethora of people whose quality of life is very low and has no chance of improving. During these situations allowing the person to end their life via euthanasia should be allowed. I will argue that Euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases because there are several moral justifications that argue for ending one’s life.