Health Authority And Vital Records

Performing a physician assisted suicide is an act of great kindness, not murder as those against it would have one believe. It is compassionate to end people's suffering, especially when they have nothing to live for. When a patient is untreatable and in agony, then the only options is to treat the symptoms and make the patient more comfortable.

Physician Assisted Suicide Is it Right or Wrong? The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial, as it ranks right up there with abortion. Some argue physician assisted suicide is ethically permissible for a dying person who has choosing to escape the unbearable suffering at the end of life. Furthermore, it is the physician’s duty to alleviate the patients suffering, which at times justifies providing aid-in -dying. These arguments rely a great deal on the respect for individual autonomy, which recognizes the rights of competent people to choose the timing and manner of their death, when faced with terminal illness.

Physician assisted suicide (PAS) has been debated for many years now. Is physician assisted suicide right or is it wrong? Many people have very different views about this issue. Some supporters feel that people should have the moral right to choose freely what they will do with their lives as long as they do not harm others. This right of free choice includes the right to end one's life when they choose. While you have some supporters who oppose any measures of permitting physician assisted suicide argue that physicians have a moral duty to preserve all life. To allow physicians to assist in destroying someone’s life violates the Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm." Opponents of physician-assisted suicide also believe that better pain management

People have been questioning the ethics of physician assisted suicide since the late 18th century. According to medicinenet the definition of physician assisted suicide is “the voluntary termination of one 's own life by administrating a lethal substance with the direct assistance of a physician.” This would typically come into play if/when a critically ill patient wants to end their suffering. Confirming with the State-by-State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide, 5 states have

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.

The patient must be at least 18 years of age, a legal resident of Oregon, capable of making and effectively communicating health care decisions, and diagnosed with an illness deemed terminal that will result in death within six months. In order to receive the prescribed medication, the patient must make two oral request to a physician for a lethal medication dose, at least 15 days apart, and provide a written request – signed in front of two witnesses – to an attending physician, the primary doctor responsible for the patient's care and treatment of the terminal illness (Fass, 846). When Oregon's DWDA first became effective in 1997, physicians were not required to inform pharmacists of the purpose of a lethal medication dose. The statute was amended in 1999 to require a pharmacist be informed of the lethal dose of medication's intended use in advance. (Fass, 848)

There are arguments for both sides of the issue. There is fear that the terminally ill would be taken advantage of. If it is closely regulated this should never be an issue. If the state of Florida passes the initiative for Physician-assisted suicide, tremendous pain and suffering could be avoided in many cases. A patient, who has long been denied a death with dignity, would finally have recourse of action to end his or her painful life. Nurses and doctors are certainly more qualified to recommend a painless procedure, than the patient is themselves. If agreed upon by the patient, vital organs could be harvested and used for others before a disease like cancer ravishes them through time. Not only would the patient’s suffering end, but the tortured families of such patients would finally be given the chance for closure and begin to move ahead with their own lives once again. (Messerli)

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.

Terminally ill patients’ requests for physician-assisted suicide are now a viable possibility. Knowing the pathways to answering to those patients, as their requests for assisted death persist, is upmost importance. As of June, 9th 2016 California became the fifth state to allow physician-assisted suicide. The California’s End of Life Option Act authorizes any individual 18 years of age or older, who has been diagnosed as terminally ill and fits specific criteria, to solicit administration of assisted dying drugs at the hands of his/her attending physician. This Act will require specific documentation and data to be submitted to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) by the attending physician

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.

Physician assisted suicide is a topic that promotes debates from all sides. At the core of the physician assisted suicide debate is the idea that people should have the right to commit suicide if they choose to. There are those who feel human beings should have complete control over what happens to their bodies. Then there are those who feel we should strive to save life at all costs. When you add in the idea of a physician who has sworn to do no harm helping a person to end their life, the debate gets even more complicated. One opponent of Physician assisted suicide is Richard Doerflinger. Doerflinger in his article, Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life?, uses the Utilitarian theory of the greater good to explain how the slippery slope idea means physician assisted suicide will ultimately bring about more harm than good. On the other side of the debate Anthony Back, Robert Baker, et al. defend the rights of individuals to choose to end their life with the help of a physician based on a patient’s right to self-govern.

As United States citizens, we are guaranteed certain rights. One of these rights is the right to life. A human has a right to live, and a right to not be killed by another human being or themself. This right is established by our forefathers, who developed the Declaration of Independence around this principle. Physician assisted suicide clearly contradicts this right. James Thunder states, “The right at issue is the right of an individual to be treated and valued as a human being up to the moment of natural death, the right of the individual to not have her life denigrated to the point of her doctor, sworn to protect life, administering a lethal injection” (440). This shows that physician assisted suicide devalues life and the means to preserve it. “The Declaration of Independence recognizes that there is a right to life and that it is an inalienable one, meaning it is a right that a person can never give up. It is not a right depended on the largesse of the government or the people. It is not a right dependent on an individual’s mental competence or willingness to give it up. It is inalienable” (Thunder 441). Because the right to life is inalienable, it can not be taken away. Physician assisted suicide takes life, clearly denying the right to life. As physician assisted suicide contradicts the inalienable right to life, it is necessary that it be stopped

Physician assisted suicide is immoral in the case of people who are alive and desire to terminate their life. However, there are extreme cases when hastening the dying process is justified in the circumstances of individuals who are in intense physical impairment.

Is physician assisted suicide morally right? This has been a controversial subject for some time now. People are wondering whether or not it is the most humane thing to do. If dogs can be putdown, why not people? The reason is in that question. They are people. Every life is important, no matter how long it may be. Instead of finding a way to get rid of people faster, the government could put those efforts in something more positive. If other people are considering whether or not the patients’ life is valuable, the patient could question it as well. Physician assisted suicide will put pressure on terminally ill people to die more quickly because it’s cheaper and because the patients may have low self-esteem.

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