Ethical Considerations in Dealing with Changes in the Healthcare System

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 is controversial in healthcare and political realms alike. Currently, this end-of-life option is practiced in five states within the United States. Social concerns regarding assisted suicide revolve around ethical quandaries; providing the means to a patient’s death is contradictory to ethical principles of healthcare providers. Political concerns surrounding the legalization of assisted suicide include disparities in healthcare that may lead to certain populations choosing assisted suicide and the stagnation of current care options. While there is no succinct manner in which to declare assisted suicide right or wrong, each individual must address the social and political concerns surrounding the issue when voting for legislation to legalize assisted suicide or pursuing the option for themselves.

Suicide is one person’s personal decision; physician-assisted suicide is a patient who is not capable of carrying the task out themselves asking a physician for access to lethal medication. What people may fail to see however is that the physician is not the only healthcare personnel involved; it may include, but is not limited to, a physician, nurse, and pharmacist. This may conflict with the healthcare worker’s own morals and there are cases in which the patient suffers from depression, or the patient is not receiving proper palliative care. Allowing physician-assisted suicide causes the physician to become entangled in an ethical and moral discrepancy and has too many other issues surrounding it for it to be legal.

Doctor assisted suicide has been a controversial topic for decades. It is placing value on life and death. This paper examines doctor assisted suicide by using peer reviewed articles that address many of the social and political issues surrounding doctor assisted suicide, including key factors such as the roles that technology and family play in a patient 's decision to use assisted suicide. Brody (1995) gives an in depth view of how doctor assisted suicide works. Emanuel (1997) takes a closer look into the parameters that must be present to qualify for doctor assisted suicide.

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.

Physician assisted suicide becoming legal will not make tons of people go out and use it. Haider Javed Warraich, a clinical researcher, defends this. His article “On Assisted Suicide, Going Beyond ‘Do No Harm’” argues how assisted suicide can be a solution for terminally ill patients who continue to lose control over their lives. Warraich analyzes how barely 35 percent of those who request the medication actually follow through with 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.

Physician assisted suicide is a controversial topic that should be practiced due to one's legal rights as a American, and as a human being. In previous cases in the Supreme Court, euthanasia has been discussed and many decisions about

The recent case of a woman, Brittany Maynard, who chose to end her life before she experienced the severe side effects of Glioblastoma has sparked a debate on whether Physician Assisted Suicide should be made legal in all fifty states. Some people believe that Physician Assisted Suicide violates the Hippocratic Oath, gives a doctor too much power, or leaves vulnerable groups at risk. Others feel that Physician Assisted Suicide will benefit the terminally ill. Physician Assisted Suicide will benefit the terminally ill by offering the option to cease their pain and suffering with a painless medication prescribed by a physician when they feel their quality of life has diminished, and is no longer worth living. With this option available, people can exercise their rights over their body and life, die with a sense of dignity, make organs available to patients who need them if it were legal, and it removes the physician from the death directly leaving it to be a personal exit to one’s life.

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

Physician-assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics in the United States and other parts of the world today. Assisted death allows mentally proficient, terminally-ill adult patients to request access to life-ending medication from their physician. This type of assisted death is promoted by organizations such as the Death with Dignity National Center, who advocate for countrywide advances in end-of-life care and extended options for individuals near death. Although there are various arguments that state it is both immoral and unethical, physician-assisted suicide is a viable and honorable method to provide end-of-life options to the terminally-ill and to provide better support, relief, and comfort to dying patients. This topic

Physician-assisted suicide may change the perception of illness, disease, and pain. Because of this, physicians, patients, and family members may give up on recovery early (Westefeld, et al., 239). In contrast of cooperating in the death of a patient, people will seek to avoid it. This avoidance and denial of death may cause physicians to abandon their patients. This problem would be worsened by legalizing physician-assisted suicide because it would encourage the use of physician-assisted suicide when their disease worsened (Shannon & Kockler, 190). Legalizing physician-assisted suicide would also change the perspective the patient has about him or herself. The moral question of suicide is whether humans should have this responsibility over their own lives. Many argue that this act defies human dignity and that physician-assisted suicide exceeds human responsibility. Also, many people would assume sympathy in this situation, but some people may judge the patient for their use of physician-assisted suicide because it is using suicide to relieve pain (Shannon & Kockler, 191).

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

Another aspect of physician assisted suicide is this procedure devalues the lives of those who are disabled. A family may feel that it would ease their financial burden if their loved one committed suicide and desired to aid them in the process. However, if those are not the true wishes of the individual, how can we put a price on a person's life, the only chance we will ever have to partake in this experience? For a medical doctor, there is a sense of obligation to the individual to ease their suffering. The conflicting problem is that the assisted suicides cannot be effectively and properly regulated; the lines are too fuzzy as to where we can draw the limitations.

In the United States today, there is a considerable amount of debate of whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. Many oppose physician-assisted suicide because they view it to be morally and ethically wrong. Similarly, many support the legalization of physician-assisted suicide because they believe human beings have the right to determine when and how they die. Personally, I believe human beings have the right to determine when they die and that the government should not keep individuals who are in extreme pain and only have a few months to live from ending their life with dignity. Through this paper, I am going to explore the many sides of physician-assisted suicide.