In The Article, “Euthanasia And Physician-Assisted Suicide

It is the responsibility of those in healthcare to promote wellness, health and quality of live. Yet from early on the concept of promoting life has existed. The Hippocratic oaths states that, “I will not give poison to anybody when asked to do so.” This is a clear statement against euthanasia. The Hippocratic oath interestingly, also does not allow for the use of abortive agents, showing the concern for the sanctity of life. It does also go on to say that I will not put the knife to any patient, which could be interpreted as assisted suicide or pagan practice of cutting and blood letting. As a surgeon today I would take a more liberal stance on this later statement of this part of the oath which is often omitted from modern reading of the oath, as we now are able to cure disease by the use of the knife. Some would also argue the use of poison to treat, such as chemotherapeutic agents which are also acceptable. Pushing this to the extreme, some may say that much of this oath is no longer applicable and euthanasia also falls under a new area of enlightenment. However, most Doctors to believe that it is their job to relieve pain and suffering and cure when possible and this can be obtained without the use of euthanasia. Hospice care is readily available. Patient can establish living wills in order to make their decision known. Patients have a right to refuse treatment and this include, nutrition and hydration. Refusal of these will will result in datth in less than one week. Patient can be kep comfortable without promoting active death and

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 was first made legal in the state of Oregon. (Hendin) In cases of euthanasia, physicians often give lethal doses of a medication to terminate a patient’s life because they’re experiencing intolerable pain. Patients who wish to use the Death with Dignity law in Oregon must be eighteen or older, must be a resident of Oregon, and they must be able to make their own health care decisions. (Sharp 53) However, the law does not require the patient to be in unmanageable pain, they must just have a prognosis of less than six months to live. (Sharp 54) This law seems to be in place to kill patients more quickly to open up hospital space, instead of compassionately ending someone’s suffering.

Support for the participation of physicians in the suicides of terminally ill patients is increasing. Much of the controversy surrounding physician-assisted suicide however focuses on the debate over whether the practice should be legalized. A woman suffering from cancer became the first person known to die under the law of physician-assisted suicide in March of 1998. In 1994, voters in Oregon approved a referendum called the Death with Dignity Act, which was enacted in 1997. This law allows patients who have been given six months or less to live that wish to hasten their deaths to obtain lethal doses of medication prescribed by two doctors. Between 1998 and 2000, ninety-six lethal prescriptions were written, and seventy patients took the

Dr. Jack Kevorkian may have been onto something though. Today, physician-assisted suicide is legal in one state: Oregon. Medical Doctor Suzan Okie stated that Oregon has a set of laws for assisted suicide. The patient must be 17 or older, be able to communicate and make decisions, be terminally ill with less than six months to live, and the request must be written and spoken orally. If the doctor is suspicious of the decision, a psychiatrist can evaluate the patient’s mental condition (1627).

In 1997 Oregon arranged to enact the Death with Dignity Act. This act allows people who are residents of Oregon to end their own life through the voluntary self-administration o lethal medications, as prescribed by a medical professional who specifies in this area of healthcare. The Oregon Death with Dignity act requires that all physicians, patients and other professionals to submit patient information, data, and annual statistical reports to the Oregon Health Authority.

In the article “Safeguards Can Prevent the Abuse of Physician-Assisted Suicide” by Sherwin Nuland, the author describes the encounter with an oncologist who assisted 25 patients in PAS. He remembers hearing the backlash the physician received and sat quietly knowing he helped his patients do the same. It is done for patients who have already established a well relationship with their doctor and know that death is the only relief they can get. The author describes it as an act of murder instead of murder. Most people argue that if they allow euthanasia to be used for legal purposes, the criteria for which a patient is a “good candidate” can become less rigid as time goes on. The author states, “Once we permit active euthanasia, where will it take us? Will the rigid criteria loosen? Will we end up turning a blind eye to things that in the present debate we might consider morally questionable?” (124). Physicians fear that sooner or later, the same euthanasia used for a 70-year-old patient with an inoperable brain tumor will be used for a 50 year old patient who has been having major depressive episodes for a number of

The Hippocratic oath states, “first, do no harm.” Physician Assisted Suicide is in direct contrast of that, as deliberately killing a patient. Proponents of Physician Assisted Suicide state that the Hippocratic oath should be modified according to an individual patient’s needs. A physician should be able to provide a lethal drug for a suffering patient who chooses to ingest the lethal prescription. Physicians who provide assistance in death are adhering to the medical practices, to care for and met the needs and desires of a patient in all stages of the patient’s life. By allowing a terminally ill patient a lethal prescription to end ones suffering adheres to the patients needs and wants, which is to end the suffering by taking ones life. Significantly, the activities a physician undertakes in providing assistance in death are the same as those often carried out by a physician who oversees a withdrawal of treatment. The physician who prolongs their patient’s life, but who then aids in the patient’s request to die, has not violated the Hippocratic oath, and in fact has fulfilled the physician’s duty to heal. The physician is adhering to the terminally ill patients needs, by giving the patient medication to end their suffering. Therefore Physician Assisted Suicide does not violate the Hippocratic

I personally believe that euthanasia contradicts the Hippocratic Oath and the morals/values I’d expect healthcare personnel to have. How can you claim to want to help save or improve lives when you’re bailing out on them as soon as things get a bit tough, by some standard? When a doctor says,

However, this is not the case, since assisted suicide is treated as a crime in states such as Oregon and Washington. It is believed that assisted suicide entails encouraging people with unstable states of mind to end their lives as opposed to mentally competent patients making their decisions.1 Over the past two decades, different states in the United States have joined the push to have the Death with Dignity law passed in order to give family members the freedom to make choices about the lives of their loved ones, as well as their

It is thought that the presumed vulnerable would be left helpless if physician-assisted suicide were legalized, though evidence shows this claim is false. People presumed vulnerable to physician assisted suicide are the uninsured, the poor, people with little education, people older than 80, women, people with mental illnesses, people with physical disabilities, minors and racial and ethnic minorities. There is no evidence supporting the claim that any of these groups have been adversely affected since physician-assisted suicide was legalized in Oregon in 1997. Since the law was passed in 1997, 460 patients have died from ingesting physician prescribed medication under the Death with Dignity Act (Department of Human Services, 2010). In 2009 a total of 59 deaths were from physician-assisted suicide; 98.3 percent were white, 48.3 percent had at least a bachelors degree, 98.7 percent had health insurance, and 78 percent were between 55 and 84 years-old (Department of Human Services, 2010). These statistics clearly show the vulnerable have not been poorly affected by the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

The Hippocratic Oath is a Greek medical text, held sacred by many physicians, stating, “heal not kill” and doctors should not perform any harm towards a patient. Euthanasia may be seen as harming a patient but it is not harmful to take away someone’s pain and misery by setting them free from the pain; therefore, it does not violate the Hippocratic Oath. It would be cruel to deny them the wish of dying peacefully rather than letting them suffer. A doctor who helps with Euthanasia sees the same activities as a doctor who helps a patient withdrawal from a treatment; for example Leukemia. Doctors are here to help and in the end Euthanasia is helping the patient more than causing harm to the patient requesting Euthanasia. Doctors are in business

In 1994, Oregon voters passed the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which exempted, “from civil or criminal liability physicians who, in compliance with specific safeguards, dispense or prescribe (but not administer) a lethal dose of drugs upon the request of the terminally ill patient.” Oregon, to this day, remains the only state within the Union to allow physician-assisted suicide. In 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case that, although there was no constitutionally protected right to physician-assisted suicide, states have permitted to pass laws allowing it. Thus, the issue of euthanasia remains widely open to philosophical, political, legal, and ethical challenges.

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many people believe that doctors should not prescribe any medication that ends a person’s life since it is considered to be against the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath states that doctors are professionally obliged to save lives. Some consider euthanasia to be immoral and others say that it is murder. Euthanasia should

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.