Fighting the Legal System on Assisted Death

The recent decision by British Parliament to overwhelmingly reject the right to die law that would have allowed terminally ill adults to end their lives with medical supervision preserves the Suicide Act 1961 that protects vulnerable people from exploitation and abuse by those who might have an interest, financial or otherwise, in their deaths.

The promotion of physician assisted suicide has sparked a debate throughout the world. From my point of view, assisted suicide is doctors assist patients who could not endure the pain of diseases and are voluntarily given lethal amount of substances resulting in death. However, physician assisted suicide might be considered to be deviant in many countries currently due to the religions, laws and the negative image. Also, the physicians who assist their patients to suicide might be labelled as "killers". For instance, Jack Kevorkian, who was known for successfully assisting more than 130 patients to end their lives, was charged with second degree murder and was

There are currently three states that have adopted legislation supporting “Death with Dignity”, also known as physician-assisted suicide. Oregon, Washington, and Vermont have each enacted laws that enable a terminally ill, mentally competent, adult to decide and dictate end of life decisions up to and including the time of their death. Oregon was the first United States (U.S.) to enact legislation and other states in the union have followed suit.

A woman suffering from cancer became the first person known to die under the law on physician-assisted suicide in the state of Oregon when she took a lethal dose of drugs in March, 1998. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act passed a referendum in November, 1997, and it has been the United States ' only law legalizing assisted suicide since then. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, more than 4,000 doctors have approved of the assisted suicide law (cited in "The Anguish of Doctors,” 1996). The law allows terminally ill patients who have been given six months or less to live and wish to hasten their deaths to obtain medication prescribed by two doctors. The most important thing to notice is that this law does not include those who have been on a life support system nor does it include those who have not voluntarily asked physicians to help them commit suicide. The issue of doctor-assisted suicide has been the subject of the heated dispute in recent years. Many people worry that legalizing doctor assisted suicide is irrational and violates the life-saving tradition of medicine. However, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized because it offers terminally ill people an opportunity for a peaceful death and recognized the inadequacy of current medical practice to deal with death.

Over the past 18 years, the controversy of Physician assisted death (PAD) has swept the world. Since 1997, four states in the united states have legalized PAD and several countries in Europe have passed similar laws. PAD is slowly becoming more and more popular among Americans, but for those people who are still highly opposed to the idea, why? Research has proven that PAD is not considered abuse because physicians are required to give their patients informed consent. Many terminally ill patients are requesting PAD and the choice to partake in the new phenomenon is completely up to the patient, even after the pills are administered. The prerequisites are many and the majority of people in fact do not qualify. on

Physician-assisted suicide needs to be recognized by the federal government to show terminally ill patients that their right to autonomy is not being ignored. The Bill of Rights of Patients was constructed to outline just this. According to the American Cancer Society, “the American Hospital Association drafted a Patients’ Bill of Rights to inform patients of what they could reasonably expect while in the hospital.” One of the notes stated in the Bill of Rights of Patients is the right to autonomy. The right to autonomy specifically states that “patients have the right and ability to make their own choices and decisions about [the] medical care and treatment that they receive” (US Legal). If this right to autonomy is ignored what rights do terminally ill patients have? The answer is little to none. Physician-assisted suicide and the right to autonomy go hand in hand. The more knowledge that people have, the greater their ability to make educated and insightful decisions about the medical choices that are accessible to them and their families. Physician- assisted suicide should be like any other treatment someone can ask for, and the right to autonomy protects this doctor-patient agreement.

In Canada it has historically been a criminal offence to assist another person in ending his or her own life. This includes the inability of a person to seek a physician-assisted death. This law was recently overturned with the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General)[1]. The main issue was whether the prohibition on physician-assisted dying found in the Criminal Code[2] violated the claimants' rights under sections 7 and 15[3] of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms[4]. The claimants defined physician-assisted death and physician-assisted dying as a "situation where a physician provides or administers medication that intentionally brings about the patient's death, at the request of the patient."[5]

Brittany Maynard, a young newlywed, was diagnosed with aggressive and fatal brain cancer. She moved to Oregon with her husband so she could have control at the end of her life under Oregon’s death with dignity law.

Physician assisted suicide, or PAS, has always been a very controversial topic. This touches upon the healthcare side of the large spectrum of social problems today in America. An individuals view on this issue might vary depending on their political ideology. Modern conservatives might not necessarily agree with physician assisted suicide because of their traditional beliefs and values. Conservatives might say it is wrong because it goes against the teachings of the bible which states a life is created at the moment of conception and is always precious.

Death is an uncomfortable subject to talk about for most people. They're afraid for what lies after death, whether that be Heaven, Hell, or nothing; It all depends on your views. But one of the least talked about ways of dying is Physician Assisted Suicide. Only four states offer Physician Assisted Suicide: Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the latest to allow is California. There are those who don't agree with this route of death but there are those who support it. I'm here to tell you that this is a acceptable route of dying. This paper will support one's right to die by Physician Assisted Suicide. The key points we'll cover is one's eligibility to death with dignity, exhausting all other care options, and lastly the obtaining and ingesting

id you know, from “1998 to 2003, 171 patients died using AS” according to The Oregon Department of Human Services (Ersek, 50). AS stands for Assisted Suicide and Physician Assisted Suicide is the practice of providing a terminally ill patient with a prescription for medication to use with the main intention of ending his or her own life. “These actions included delivering the prescription for a lethal drug dose to the patient’s home, helping the patient take the lethal dose by crushing a medication and adding it to ice cream or pudding, placing the medication in the patient’s mouth, or instilling the medication into an enteric tube” (Ersek 51). The right to assisted suicide is an important topic that alarms people all over the US. The controversies

Physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, has been a hot topic as of late. If you do not know what this is, physician-assisted suicide is the taking of ones life. This usually occurs when a patient is in a irreversible state, and must live through a tube. With multiple cases occurring in the past, current and the more to occur the in the future, this looks to remain a hot topic. Some of those cases include Terri Schiavo, and Scott Thomas, which have both resulted in court cases and conversation all around the globe. Physician-assisted suicide is one of those topics that can be looked at multiple ways, and have multiple different solutions. Someone could look and justify it through the lens of Natural law and could bring up the doctrine of double effects, or the preservation of human life. Another person could go against it by using utilitarianism and could bring up how it maximizes the good, and produces the greatest overall good. Whether you find it to be murder/suicide or just a smarter decision if you cannot life properly, you must realize this is an issue that does need to be discussed more. Even with the attention it has gotten, it still is not discussed politically, and is not up there with other popular topics in our media today. If someone is in a state where he or she has to live off a tube is he or she really even alive?

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

There have been many debates over time of if suicide is murder, but what about Assisted Suicide? Assisted suicide is when a person helps another person end their life. Helping with the death of someone who wanted to die. Act Utilitarianism sets basis of right or wrong based on if the action causes more pleasure or pain overall. Every person is accounted as equal. This means if an action brings pleasure to one person but harms two people. The action would be deemed as bad because it brings about more pain. This analysis will attempt to answer the lingering questions about Assisted Suicide by using the theory of Act Utilitarianism.

‘What kind of lawyer do I want to be’ is a very wide question open to a whole range of interpretations. Choosing to study Law at university almost certainly means becoming either a barrister or a solicitor will be the route to follow, but this choice as well as deciding whether to practice civil or criminal law is one which requires substantial thought. Having carried out work experience at my local Crown Court, and visited the Exeter Crown Court, it has impacted how I see my future. Additionally, my independent research coupled with seminar tasks in negotiation and advocacy have also helped to shape my decision. These experiences have brought to my attention a range of ethical concerns within the courtroom, however there are two issues in particular that have stood out. The first being cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses and defendants, for example, the elderly, rape victims, and children, and the second issue being legal aid and its impact. Learning about legal aid within the legal foundations course has opened my eyes to the struggle of the ‘ordinary person’ unable to obtain legal advice, and the significant, increasing divide between city firms advising corporate clients and the ‘high street firm’ advising the everyday citizen. Both of these issues have impacted on how I see my future as a lawyer.