Euthanized Patients

Assisted suicide is an ethical topic that has sparked up many controversies. Individuals have heated disputes on whether or not patients who are suffering should have the right to die. Some worry that legalizing euthanasia is irrational and would violate some religions, while others argue that it provides a peaceful death towards terminally ill patients who are suffering from pain. Physician-assisted suicide is a contentious matter, in which there are many positive and negative aspects, whether or not it should be committed is a complex decision.

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

When deciding the most righteous type of way to appropriately end a life of a love one, many thoughts come through as weather the practice of euthanasia is an ethically correct medical procedure. There are many decisions that must be made regarding how to properly treat a individual who want to end there own life. Controversial views have always been made against those who suggest that terminally ill or incurably suffering people should be allowed to ask for and receive help to die if they so wish. The same set of arguments in opposition toward euthanasia is, that life is sacred and by legalizing physician assisted suicide would lead to abuses by the medical field. A fundamental question concerning hastening the death of a terminally ill patient are, evaluating if this act is a virtue of kindness prompted by a sense of mercy and respect for an individual's wishes? If this is not a act of a moral virtue thought then, it is an act of murder and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Some patients who decide that they wish to commit suicide are unable or unwilling to accomplish the act without assistance from their physician. Physician-assisted suicide helps them to die under conditions, and at the time, that they choose. PAS is currently legal only in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. In other states, terminally ill individuals who want to die must continue living until their body eventually collapses or until a family member or friend commits a criminal act by helping them to

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

Since 1993, Compassion in Dying, which is a nonprofit charitable organization, has provided information, consultation, and emotional support to patients that were terminally ill and wanted to consider assisted dying by self-administration of medication as one of their end of life options. The team for this organization includes nurses, psychologists, physicians, and clergy as was as laypeople from the community who help patients, their families, and their physicians examine the choices available to achieve peaceful and humane deaths (Lee). To be eligible to use this Act a person must be a resident of Oregon, 18 years or older, capable of making and communication health care decisions for him or herself, mentally competent, and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. This article uses data from the files of Compassion in Dying, and they describe 34 individuals who approached Compassion wanting to use the Death with Dignity Act and who died during the first year of the Act’s implantation. A downfall to this Act that has caused some problems is delays in processing a

P3:2 “Assisted Suicide: Make Assisted Suicide Legal for the Terminally Ill In America,” a document written in English 1010 addresses legal and ethical issues of legalizing assisted suicide for terminally ill patients and posits the question “assisted suicide mercy or murder.” Terminally ill patients should have the right to choose how and when they die. There are three reasons patients should have the right to choose death; the first, some patients experience uncontrollable pain; the second, loss of quality of life; the third, palliative care requires the direct intervention of a physician, but assisted suicide allows a physician to write a prescription and the patient chooses when they die. Although some patients have positive results with

Imagine living with a terminal illness that causes immense pain and suffering. It’s likely that many of us have not given it much thought. It’s much easier to believe that it won’t happen to us. The reality, however, is that people are diagnosed with these terrible illnesses every day. So, what options do patients have? For many years’, members of the medical community have discussed the practice of physician assisted suicide. This would allow terminally ill patients, many of whom have cancer, to make the difficult decision to end their lives peacefully. Doctors are able to simply write their patient a prescription, designed to end a person’s life in a non-painful way. Doctors and medical personnel have struggled with this topic, exploring the various consequences and benefits that come with making assisted suicide legal. Currently, physician assisted suicide has been made legal across a handful of states in the U.S; however, many people continue to question the ethicality of this practice. There are many different arguments to explore for and against physician assisted suicide. Some believe that physician assisted suicide will lead to involuntary euthanasia, while others say patients should have the choice to live or die. While each individual conviction may seem vastly different, they do share something in common: Their concern for the well-being of others.

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.

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.

Opposing viewpoints argue that human euthanasia is inhumane and unethical to patients and the doctors responsible. Many doctors feel that physician assisted suicide stands against everything they stand for. Physicians feel that they have a responsibility to treat patients not murder them. This viewpoint is concerned incorrect to those whom support the Right to Die movement because a doctor's first responsibility to a patient is not only to heal but as quoted in the Hippocratic Oath is to,"First do no harm” which includes allowing an individual to suffering in longing

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

Is the role of a medical professional to ensure the health and comfort of their patients, or to help them end their lives? Since Dr. Kevorkian assisted in the suicide of Janet Adkins in 1990, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) has been one of the most controversial issues in the medical field today. While some view it as an individual right, others view it as an unethical issue that goes against medical ethics and religious values. Mr. H. M. is an elderly man who is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and no chance of improvement. After excruciating pain and suffering, he has decided to request physician-assisted death in his home state of Oregon. Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (DDA) states that terminally ill patients are allowed to use

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

There are many causes of death, and some of the individuals who lay on their deathbed suffering will often wish to hasten their passing. To be exact, it is about the terminally ill patients and the agony they are facing. Terminally ill patients go through massive amounts of medication, all sorts of therapy, and unimaginable pain. Because of this, the patient will often ask their physician to help them commit suicide. In 2014, Brittany Maynard, 29, was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and is a known person that died by prescribed lethal drugs under the Death With Dignity Act that the state of Oregon passed in November of 1997. It is the only law in the United States that legalized physician-assisted suicide. With this law, terminally ill patients have been given a certain amount of time to live and decide to end their life are given prescribed medication by two doctors that cause the patient to accelerate their death. According to a Ethnics report by Medscape in 2014, about 21,000 doctors from the U.S. and Europe were asked to answer a series of questions in a survey, one of the questions being "Should physician-assisted suicide be allowed?" After tallying up the votes, about 54% of the doctors said yes to this question (Medscape). The issue of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) has been in the world of medicine for years, with both sides explaining their views. There are those who are concerned that physician-assisted suicide is unjustifiable and goes against the

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