Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide

Physician-assisted suicide is a topic that hits home to many people, both in the United States and across the world. Currently, five states have legalized physician-assisted suicide in the United States and it is crucial that every state reconsiders their stance on the issue. Each state needs to look at the pros and cons, as well as the implications of their decision on their stance on physician-assisted suicide. Citizens also have a critical role, as they must tell their legislators their stance on physician-assisted suicide so that the legislators can properly represent their states. This paper looks to show the major arguments for both the groups that support physician-assisted suicide as well as the groups that oppose physician-assisted suicide, while also taking other issues into consideration, such as different pressures legalization of physician-assisted suicide would have on different demographics.

The American Medical Association (AMA) formally rejects the validity of physician-assisted suicide. In appropriate times it

Imagine laying in a hospital bed with a terminal illness, attached to many machines that are keeping you alive, family members and friends taking turns visiting, doctors constantly doing their routine check up, having no desire to eat or drink and being fed through tubes. The doctors have gave you the word that there is no chance of survival, it could be months, weeks, days, or even hours before you say your goodbyes. Would you not want all the suffering to stop and want your life to be over as soon as possible? In Canada as well as many other countries physician assisted suicide also known, as euthanasia is illegal. However, as some would like to call it mercy killing is legal in countries such as Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg under certain regulations such as the patient must be under an unbearable condition that is alleviated. Physician assisted suicide should be legalized in Canada as well for many reasons. People that are under constant suffering whether it is at the hospital or at home can die with dignity. One of the most important reasons physician assisted suicide should be legal in Canada is that it is a humane way for terminally ill patients to end their lives without suffering any longer. Patients that cannot enjoy their last days on earth due to suffering should have a choice, if they know that there illness is incurable then he or she is looking forward to dying since there is no chance of life. Additionally, the patients as well as family members and

In this case, “Doctor-Aided Suicide and “Vulnerable Groups,”” general public raised concerns on legalizing physician-assisted suicide in believe of it will impact vulnerable patients. Lead author Margaret Battin and her team analyzed data collected from both Netherland (1989-2005) and Oregon (1998-2006) on assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia cases recorded in these two states. They found that there were no significant changes in amount of cases among vulnerable patients such as elderly, women, psychiatric patient and uninsured people except for AIDS patients. Furthermore, cases for physician-assisted suicide had an averaged seventy years of age and

The decision to choose death over life should not be regulated by law, but rather be an individual’s afforded right. Therefore, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all 50 states. Debates on legalizing physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have increased dramatically in recent years, however there has been little action taken on state and federal levels that encourage the reform of this social policy. The main reason for this hesitance lies in the question of whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be regarded as morally acceptable. Many argue that legalizing PAS can bear lasting social effects, but surely the same can be true if our nation continues to deny an individual’s right to autonomy and self-determination.

Preventing one with a terminal illness from physician assisted suicide, defies numerous ethical violations along with principles. An ethical violation here is denying one their rights as a human. Many regulations and strict guidelines are required when resorting to physician assisted suicide, therefore, intensely thorough decisions are made when deciding to aid in this act. Some of those regulations would be that one “must be at least 18 years of age, capable making health-care decisions for

"My life My death My choice" this is so empowering because they are the only ones who can choose how they go. People can think it is murder and that it is wrong, but they also put war and self-defense in a separate category for murder. So why can't the government and everyone let physician assisted suicide fall under the war category. Physician assisted suicide would not be used in a way that the doctors are not healing others. This practice has different elements that people look at when deciding their opinion on physician assisted suicide. The elements are helping to relieve the pain, the morality, and whether it is corrupting medicine practice.

Physician-assisted suicide, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means or by information provided by a physician aware of the patient's intent” (Merriam Webster), has been debated over for many years. It has often been called a death with dignity, “but there’s nothing dignified about the methods they advocate” (Torr et al. 56). Physician-assisted suicide has been a widely publicized controversy, and yet there have been many misunderstandings about the issue. It is not only a means of death for a comatose or dying patient, but it is also a way to kill people with depression and even infants in some places of the world. Although others may argue that physician-assisted suicide is an opportunity for the elderly and the disabled to make a choice about their death, euthanasia would threaten them more than give them freedom. Permitting this malicious practice does not just discard religion and ethics, but it also desensitizes society to killing, advertising physician-assisted suicide as a simple solution.

It is obvious discussing physician-assisted suicide is a very controversial issue that is discussed daily by those who wish to die to avoid loss of dignity and also by those who think it is unethical. For physician-assisted suicide to even be considered, the patient must be of sound mind when they are requesting death with dignity. Physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for people who are unable to end their own lives. However, there should be safeguards to prevent any sort of abuse. There should be the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, but not for active euthanasia. “It should never be contemplated as a substitute for comprehensive comfort care or for working with patients to resolve the physical, personal, and social challenges posed by the process of dying” (Meier, D.E., p. 294). If an incurable patient who is suffering asks for specific help in physician-assisted suicide, physicians should have the obligation to fully scrutinize the request. Not only is it the seriousness of considering medicine as the placement of certain suicide an issue, it is a form of direct killing. Medical advances are surely making it easier to reduce pain and suffering, so why should there be policies devised and sanctioned by the state to kill those in pain and suffering?

Some individuals with terminal illnesses find solace in knowing that they can exert some power over their illnesses and choose how they want to die. Just as any individual has the legal right to plan out their healthcare wishes and ensure that their end-of-life concerns are taken care of, terminally ill patients should also have the right to have the choice to want to die naturally or end their lives. Legalizing physician-assisted suicide can give the dying individual comfort in knowing that they have options. Physicians presently are allowed to relieve the dying of their pain and suffering by administering lethal doses of pain medications. Terminally ill patients should be able to access lethal doses of medicine voluntarily through their physician to allow them the choice of death. Strong morals and ethics surrounding this issue have split society on whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be legalized across the United States. Nevertheless, the diagnosis of a terminal illness can create feelings of uncertainty, fear and helplessness and therefore, physician-assisted suicide laws should be passed nationwide to be able to give those who are dying of

This great country, the land of the free, gave each and every person the right to make their own choices. This independence consists of each aspect of a citizen’s life, as well as health care. With independence comes a certain liability, this is also accurate in conditions of physician-assisted suicide. The constant resistance among those supporting and those divergent to this issue have wreaked havoc on the health care field; what is morally and ethically correct? In reality, physician-assisted suicide is never morally or ethically tolerable despite any conditions. It is not only a direct infringement of a physician’s Hippocratic Oath, but also unconstitutionally requisite. Physician-assisted suicide could also lead to superfluous fatalities in order to lessen various health care expenses. Citizens of the United States are warranted the highest of admiration, while taking part in the health care system; approving physician-assisted suicide deteriorates the state of American health care.

As David Sclar mentions in the conclusion of his article, “The opinion [of the Court] does not even consider establishing a right to physician-assisted suicide” (643). Sclar’s point is that because of this, the issue of physician-assisted suicide will be revisited in the courts and legislatures—federal and state—alike. Undoubtedly, in future debates in favor of and against physician-assisted suicide, the topic of “suicide” will be a

In this essay, I will argue that physician assisted suicide should be legalized in the case of a chronic illness, where the patient must take a large amount of drugs to heal themselves and or to subdue pain, and where the patient is living a life that is less fulfilling, or diluted, from their life before. Physician assisted suicide can be to patients who are suffering and wish to end their life, with the help of a physician so the patient could feel more comfortable or safer. As mentioned in class, physician assisted suicide is already legal in some states, such as Oregon. In this means of suicide, the doctor does not administer the fatal dose or press the button; the patient must make that decision and that is what distinguishes it from euthanasia. I will present three arguments for the legalization of PAS in specific cases. First PAS eases the pain of chronically ill, suffering patients. Second, I will argue that the legalization of physician assisted suicide returns autonomy to the patients. Third, I will argue that the limiting of emotional suffering in patients and their loved ones provides a convincing argument for the legalization of physician assisted suicide in certain cases. Finally, I will address the counterargument of the theoretical slippery slope of doctors and physicians losing the ability to stick to the distinction set, and PAS being used on people who do not need it, or too frequently.

Assistive suicide, also known as euthanasia, “is suicide committed by someone with assistance from others, typically to end suffering from a severe physical illness” (American Heritage Dictionary, 615). This action is most commonly committed between doctor and patient interactions. This controversial issue depicts suicides as a helpful solution to personally benefit terminally ill patients, as opposed to a forbidden social issue. Assistive suicide has become a major debate of legalization. “This is an act of a physician prescribing a drug to a patient which drug the patient is able to take on his or her own without the assistance of a medical provider or another person. This drug generally results in unconsciousness within five minutes and death within thirty” (Levin, May 08, 2002). My concern with this matter has reached high limits. Due to the fact that is still illegal in certain states many patients aren’t able to relieve their pain or suffering. Assistive suicide is meant as a solution to end personal suffering, its not to involve the public’s opinion or decisions. This should be a personal choice. Assistive suicide should be an elective choice for anyone and everyone facing terminal illness. Not enabling assisted suicide violates human rights and infringes inalienable rights.

Since the development of medicine, people have requested doctors to end suffering through physician assisted suicide (PAS) (Boudreau 1). PAS refers to the practice in which physicians knowingly provide an individual with the means and/or knowledge to commit suicide, which includes counselling about medication and prescribing or supplying such drugs (Pereira 1). In my opinion, terminally ill patients should be allowed to end their lives through PAS because it affords the patients the choice of whether or not they wish to endure a painful and intolerable illness, allowing them to reclaim some aspect of control over their treatment. However, critics state that one cannot still justify the general practice because the risks of legalizing PAS outweigh the benefits provided to a few (Koenig 4). In this paper, I will critically analyze medical, social and ethical reasons against legalizing PAS, involving ambiguous indications, the slippery slope argument and the existence of legal alternatives.