Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide

Who dictates how you live your life? How does one define life and when that life should end? If you become terminally ill, would you like the choice to choose how your life ends? In the United States, assisted suicide, is a highly-debated issue. On one side, there are many in support of allowing a person the right to end their life with dignity at the time of their choosing. While others believe, it is a moral right to sustain life and leave a person’s exit from this world to a higher power. The two opposing viewpoints have both compassionate reasons and disadvantages; nevertheless, a person’s human rights as an individual are the most important aspect to uphold.

Is physician assisted suicide ethical? Physician assisted suicide is an up and coming ethical question that examines a person’s right to their own death. Many people support physician assisted suicide, citing that it can save a lot of pain and suffering. Others claim that the concept of physician assisted suicide is a slippery slope. A slippery slope in the sense that if society accepts euthanasia as a rightful death for the terminally ill, they will potentially accept it for other ailments as well.

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.

Ezekiel Emanuel once said, “Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia have been profound ethical issues confronting doctors since the birth of Western medicine, more than 2,000 years ago.” Physician assisted suicide (PAS) should be available as a dignified option for the terminally ill because it can be built in to the palliative care plan formulated by patient and Doctor, may alleviate some medical costs for the incurable, and it’s a moderated and humane way to end a person’s suffering.

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?

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.

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,

Physician Assisted Suicide/Dying is a medical practice surrounding the accelerated process of death among patients who – typically – have a terminal medical disorder that will either end the life of the patient, or have them live in suffering, pain, in a state of life they deem less than minimally good, or less than a life worth living. According to a study done in 1995, approximately 88 percent of physicians interviewed claimed that they had received at the very least, one request for PAS/D. (Maas, et al., 1996) As the practice becomes more commonly considered – and more importantly more commonly accepted – it is logical to assume these percentages will have increased. This increase due to not only more patient requests, but also due to the

Thesis: Physician assisted suicide and euthanasia ethical issues from the prospective of health care professionals and ethicists on both sides of the debate holding implications for the practices of critical care.

The civil argument in the U.S. over whether or not to authorize physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia has reached new levels of vehemence. Oregon, California, Vermont, and Washington (and Montana, via court ruling) have become the first states to legalize physician-assisted suicide. There has, too, been campaigning, ballot measures, bills, and litigation in other states in attempts to legalize one or both practices. Supporters increasingly urge either absolute legalization or another form of legitimation, through claims of “mercy killing” when compared to homicide. As stated by representatives of the Ethics and Human Rights Committee, “Many people fear a painful and protracted death or desire more control over the dying process” (209).

Life and death is a controversial topic. To most, death is negative. Within life you laugh, smile, communicate and create new experiences both good and bad. It is a human right to be alive. Although, if people have a right to live they also have the right to die. Tragic things happen everyday because life has a very dark sense of humor. After certain experiences life becomes more like a continuous cycle of suffering than anything else. The laughs become riddled with pain and life becomes dull in the best moments. With strict restrictions, physician assisted suicide (also known as Physician Aid-in-Dying) will offer a more dignified and comfortable way for terminally-ill patients to end their suffering.

People have different perspectives and views on Euthanasia or Physician-assisted suicide and how they should or should not be legal. In some cases people feel as if the patient who are suffering from a terminal painful disease should have the right to commit suicide in other cases people feel as if the patient is being selfish to end their life when you have loved ones that are going to suffer because they killed themselves. People feel it should or should not be legal because of right to die, living wills, and Hippocratic Oath.

According to the Health Law Institute at Dalhousie University, assisted suicide is “the act of intentionally killing oneself with the assistance of another who provides the knowledge, means or both.” Euthanasia is a “deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending the life of another person to relieve that person’s suffering where the act is the cause of death (Health Law). As of June 17, 2016, both assisted suicide and euthanasia are legal in Canada as long as the established criteria are met. Canada’s government can pave the way for other countries to legalize these practices if they are able to establish specific criteria, evaluate the implications on religious institutions and individual practitioners, and provide viable alternatives to every citizen.

Every day, health care provider’s deals with different patients from different parts of the world, with different worldviews that differs from our own; and as nurses, we must understand that many individuals’ spiritual beliefs or religious beliefs play a significant role towards their health recovery. However, for nurses to better take care of our patients we must understand their religious worldviews, their essential needs in all places and times, and how to satisfy their spiritual needs, and provide comfort for the patients. The author of this paper will be analyzing two different religious worldviews: Christianity and Hinduism, their perspectives on Euthanasia or Physician assisted suicide in the case study scenario of George situation.

Today, voluntary euthanasia is getting closer to being legalized in more than just one state in the United States. “‘Voluntary’ euthanasia means that the act of putting the person to death is the end result of the person’s own free will” (Bender 19). “ Voluntary euthanasia is an area worthy of our serious consideration, since it would allow patients who have exhausted all other reasonable options to choose death rather than continue suffering” (Bender 19). The question of whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be legalized is a major debate that has been around for years. Because the issue of whether people should have the right to choose how they want to live or die is so complex. With the advances in technology today we have made