Medical Ethics Research Paper

Abstract: This paper discusses the medical ethics of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). Focusing on the ideas of legal vs illegal, the different views of PAS will both be addressed. While active euthanasia is illegal, passive euthanasia, or allowing natural death, is completely legal everywhere. PAS will help patients end suffering for themselves at the end of their lives, as well as the family's. The price of the drug may be expensive but the price of medical treatments continues to rise. The Hippocratic Oath does not support the aid in ending a life, however it has been changed in the past. Many citizens are afraid that is PAS was considered legal, it would grow into something even more illegal being debated. Also, the religious aspect of the end of life had conflicting views as some believe PAS is ending suffering, a good deed, and other believe PAS is not respecting a human life. PAS is only legal in seven states but has gained the attention of many others and other places around the world.

However, there is immense criticism on the morality of the process, especially because the process denies a patient the right to natural death. The critics of the assisted suicide procedure argue that such a process devalues human life and tends to promote suicide as an alternative to personal suffering. By claiming that the procedure allows terminally ill patients to initiate dignity at death is flawed because the purpose of medical profession is to ensure a dignified life. According to the physicians’ code of ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, physicians are not allowed to do harm to their patients because their role is to allow a dignified health for members of the community. Consequently, legalization of Physician Assisted suicide that requires physicians to assist the patients to die is against their medical ethics. Quill, Cassel, & Meier (2010) provide that although the patients voluntarily ask the medical practitioners to assist in the process, the practitioners have a role to advise the patients against such a procedure. Besides, such a premise is bound to raise awareness of suicide as an alternative to suffering within the public domain, which may encourage such behavior among healthy members of the community that feel that they enjoy the freedom to make such a decision. On this basis, the negative moral implication of assisted suicide makes its legalization unworthy in the

It was in 1990’s when the topic of assisted suicide reached an all-time high. It was the work of Doctor Jack Kevorkian that began in 1960 that sparked the topic of “right to die” legislative action. Doctor Kevorkian was a Michigan doctor responsible for the deaths some 44 suicides for terminally ill patients. Doctor Kevorkian along with many accredited doctors such as Marcia Angell, agree on one main point; terminally-ill patients should have the right to determine how they should end their life. Marcia Angell, states in her article The Supreme Court and Physician-Assisted Suicide-The Ultimate Right that “Although others may consider

When talking about doctors, death and incurable diseases, one of the most controversial topic that comes up is Physician assisted suicide. Webster’s dictionary define it as, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information.” Most of us have experienced the pain of seeing our loved ones dying in a hospital since doctors and modern medicine can only help us so much. Physician assisted suicide not only helps alleviates the never ending pain, but patient also dies with dignity. On the other hand, people who oppose it, have strong religious and ethical beliefs. They think that Physician assisted suicide demeans the human value and violates doctor’s Hippocratic Oath. After researching a lot about this topic, I decided that taking a moderate stance would be the best option because even though I agree that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) goes against medical ethics and religious beliefs I also believe that sometimes PAS is the best option available for people who are fatally sick and want to die with dignity and peace. In this paper I will discuss the history of physician assisted suicide, why is it important to have this option available and how should we limit PAS to make a compromise with people who are against it.

Physicians assisted suicide (PAS) refers to interventions by a doctor that either intentionally assist a patient to die (as in giving the patient the lethal means to end their own life at their explicit request), or directly ends a patient’s life (as in a lethal medication administered by a doctor at the explicit request of the patient – euthanasia). In recent years the debate over a patient’s possible right to the aid of a physician in committing suicide has become one of the most discussed issues in medical ethics. The argument for and against PAS is not something unique to this century. It has been going on since the time of the ancient Greeks. The Hippocratic Oath has been called the most widely known of Greek medical texts. It

Physician-assisted suicide is a prominent topic of discussion in the bioethical community. The main concerns of these discussions are the different types of euthanasia involved in physician-assisted suicide, as well as the legality of a physician’s right to aid in the death of a patient, and the patient’s right to choose death over life when there are no active treatments to forgo. The legalization of active physician-assisted suicide would coincide with a person’s right to self-determination, or autonomy, as well as a person’s right to their own well-being. However, there is concern that legalization would lead to abuse, and would also cause patients to feel pressured into choosing death. The arguments against active physician-assisted suicide are rooted more in hypothetical situation than fact and could be seen as blanket statements rather than cohesive thought. This topic has been unnecessarily broken down and analyzed to the point of exhaustion. After implementing specific guidelines for physicians to follow, the legalization of physician-assisted suicide would be plausible, ethical, and safe.

In addition, at a medical perspective, the responsibility of physicians is to save people in all circumstances under the Hippocratic Oath – the oldest binding document in human history. That was another reason for those who believe Assisted Suicide is immoral with physicians, but is this Oath fair when applied to incurable patients? To be honest, death is a natural law that every living creature on the Earth will face one day and it is just a matter of time. In most cases, we usually see the death of our loved ones as an unfortunate occurrence or a painful loss rather than a solution to end the pain, especially with terminally ill patients. Based on a recent PEW Research Center study, the author Gary Stein stated that, "62 percent say suicide is morally acceptable for

Throughout his campaign, Dr. Kevorkian sincerely believed he was providing a needed service. He truly thought he could gain support from the courts and win the publics approval by passionately arguing that self-determination was a basic human right. (Ferguson & Levinson, 2015). His campaign started in 1990, when he assisted a patient suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Janet Adkins, end her life. He continued until 1999, when finally a judge stated, “Consider yourself stopped”, (Ferguson & Levinson, 2015), as he was being sentenced for his conviction of second-degree murder for euthanizing Thomas Youk. Although he was a very controversial figure, his methods and ideology brought this topic into the headlines and generated discussions in the medical and legal communities and in the public arena over the role of physicians in PAS.

Physician assisted suicide is the process of ending one’s life with the administration of lethal injection with the assistance of a physician. Throughout the years, euthanasia has become a controversial topic, determining whether not it is ethical for a doctor to end a patient’s life. On one side of the argument, the negative term suicide creates this illusion of sin and many citizens believe that the task of ending one’s life should not be placed in the hands of a doctor. Doctors have a code that they must follow, promising to do as much as possible to save a life. But when there is nothing more a doctor could do, is physician assisted suicide wrong? Those who support euthanasia often state that this is a form of regaining control of a horrific situation, and with the assistance of their trusted doctor, they are able to die with dignity. Physician Assisted suicide should be the choice of the patient and not the state.

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.

Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is one of the most controversial issues in health care. Euthanasia is intentionally ending one’s life to relieve persistent pain and suffering. Dr. Kevorkian, an assisted suicide activist, was known for using unorthodox methods of terminating a life. As a result, he made headlines in 90’s. Dr. Kevorkian brought dignity to those suffering from unbearable terminal diseases by terminating their life with a lethal dose of potassium chloride. (Schencker, 2015)

The Hippocratic Oath addresses the issue of abortion and physician assisted suicide. The Hippocratic Oath advocates the idea of not performing any procedures or treatments that are harmful and focus on benefitting the patients. With these premises, the Hippocratic Oath continues to extend these claims into the highly debated topics of abortion and physician assisted suicide. Because a physician must avoid harm and do good, a physician must not carry out abortions nor prescribe deadly medicine to patients that asked because in both cases, these actions are harmful to the patient. The Hippocratic Oath clearly shows a preference for beneficence and non-maleficence.

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

Professionals in every field are always confronted with some kind of ethical issues. It has however been noted that these ethical issues become high in magnitude and extent when public officials are involved. Due to the involvement of human life, an industry like healthcare holds ethics in highest regard. Even though these healthcare practitioners are highly trained to deal with issues of these kinds, their decisions can sometimes have a lasting impact on their professional and personal lives (Edwards 2009).

The essay will discuss the ETHICS IN MEDICINE : The Relationship Between Law and Medical Ethics: