Euthanasia Vs. Physician Assisted Suicide

Thirdly, from the medical morality perspective, euthanasia is assisting suicide that violates the morals and values of the medical world. Current mindset of doctors is to heal their patients. They have the goal to fight to the end for the lives of their patients. But, if euthanasia is allowed, doctors will be put in a mindset which implies to only help patients if they measure up to a certain standard. Therefore, life is so devalued that it no longer deserves to be fought for until the end. This mentality that once life hits a certain point, it is a hopeless situation and should be brought to an end immediately sets the medical world in the pathway that leads to all types of immoralities.

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.

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?

Being able to decide the fate of your own life is not an easy decision to make, and is not something to be toyed with. However, when someone is in a desperate situation, and must choose before they lose their mind (quite literally), death may be more appealing, instead of living, and being forced to suffer. By legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, we would provide “vulnerable” patients with better overall protection and health care, give patients (who are excruciatingly suffering and have no chance of recovery) the option to end their lives before they ever needed to go through such an ordeal and giving them peace of mind, and spare the families of the patients the emotional pain of watching their loved one slowly and painfully passing away. For these reasons, I believe that euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide should be legalized in Canada.

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,

Albert Camus once quoted, “But in the end, one needs more courage to live than to kill them self.” Today I will be discussing the topic of Euthanasia also known as “assisted suicide.” The word originated from the Greeks, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia refers to the ending of one’s life, primarily to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and generates many political and religious debates. Although euthanasia is illegal in Canada, in some jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, euthanasia is a legal and common practice.

Physician-assisted death has been a hotly debated subject in the later 20th and early 21st century. The subject of physician-assisted death and euthanasia brings about a multitude of ethical dilemmas and causes people to dig deep into personal morals and self-evaluation. In this paper the different types of euthanasia will be defined, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act and similar the laws enacted in Washington, Montana, and Vermont will be assessed, and the roles and viewpoints of healthcare professionals will be discussed.

Keating discusses the differences between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Euthanasia is where the doctor gives the lethal medication, where physician-assisted suicide, the patient presses the bottom that gives them the medicine. She mentions Brittany Maynard, who took advantage of the “death with dignity act,” and states she would be loved to the very end, implying she should not have used PAS. Also, she states that the Netherlands was the first country to have passed euthanasia legally. The last final point that was given was the use of the word “dignity.” Dignity implies honor or choice, meaning death without the use of PAS is none worthy. This author seems to be biased and not very detailed. Also, she seems to just state facts,

In any discussion of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) it is important to differentiate between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Although they may have similar goals, they differ in whether or not the physician participates in the action that finally ends life. In physician-assisted suicide the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act (e.g. the physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide). However, in euthanasia the physician performs the intervention themselves. Currently, just four states (Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana) allow physician-assisted suicide.

This paper discusses why the U.S. should implement the availability of physician assisted suicide/death and voluntary euthanasia. It discusses countries that have this legally, how they do not abuse the fact, and the percentages of both physicians and patients that are affiliated with PAS/VE. It continues with the legal moral issues it has within the United States. It also touches on the majority of the opposing viewpoints and why they have no merit in stopping the allowance of PAS/VE in the states. The paper also discusses why PAS/VE are often requested by many patients that have debilitating diseases or syndromes.

In the debate over euthanasia, the opponent concludes that euthanasia should be illegal because it is goes against nature, dignity, personal-interests and has a practical effect. On the other side of the debate, the supporter concludes that euthanasia should be legal because moral principles, what it really mean to kill, end suffering, the difference between injury and not injury. In this essay I will conclude that euthanasia should be legal.

The controversy of euthanasia and assisted suicide are moral issues, legal issues, and economical issues. People who are pro euthanasia believe that people should be able to die sooner rather than later to maintain their dignity. There are many aspects when determining when someone’s illness and suffering are prolonged. Pro euthanasians also believe that they should legally be able to determine time of death. Courts have varied opinions on the criteria for allowing euthanasia and assisted suicide, which can be relaxed with time. Medical professionals are also put in a circumstance to make a decision that is unwanted. Society argues that allowing people to determine time of death can affect someone’s financial obligation among other things.

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many different opinions have been formed. From doctors and nurses to family members dealing with loved ones in the hospital, all of them have different ideas for the way they wish to die. However, there are many different issues affecting the legislation and beliefs of legalizing euthanasia. Taking the following aspects into mind, many may get a different understanding as to why legalization of euthanasia is necessary. Some of these include: misunderstanding of what euthanasia really is, doctors and nurses code of ethics, legal cases and laws, religious and personal beliefs, and economics in end-of-life care.