Michael Freeland Case Study

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.

Humans have the obligation to provide and care for their loved ones, whether it is their child or parent. For this reason, having the ability to take away one’s own life because of health related issues should be carefully thought out by the family and affected person. As individuals grow older, the body naturally degenerates and its effects can be very painful for the person and their family members. There are many views regarding how a family and the affected person should go about the ultimate decision of taking one’s own life. John Hardwig believes that as we grow older there is a “duty to die” before one 's illnesses would cause death, in the absence of any terminal illness and sometimes when one would prefer to live. In his essay, “Is There a Duty to Die?” he explains why he thinks that there is a need to take away one’s life to benefit others. Felicia Ackerman disagrees completely in her essay, “For Now Have I My Death: The “Duty to Die” versus the Duty to Help the Ill Stay Alive.” She believes instead that there is a, “duty to aid” and the amount of aid ultimately depends on the family circumstance. Ackerman’s view is illustrated by Jerome Groopman, MD in The Anatomy of Hope where he talks about a man named George Griffin and his success in the fight of a very serious and rare stomach cancer through family support and hope. The decision to take away one’s own life may be very challenging and complex, but there is an absolute obligation for the family to be involved

The word suicide gives many people negative feelings and is a socially taboo subject. However, suicide might be beneficial to terminally ill patients. Physician- assisted suicide has been one of the most controversial modern topics. Many wonder if it is morally correct to put a terminally ill patient out of their misery. Physicians should be able to meet the requests of their terminally ill patients. Unfortunately, a physician can be doing more harm by keeping someone alive instead of letting them die peacefully. For example, an assisted suicide can bring comfort to patients. These patients are in excruciating pain and will eventually perish. The government should not be involved in such a personal decision. A physician- assisted suicide comes with many benefits for the patient. If a person is terminally ill and wants a physician assisted suicide, then they should receive one.

Ethan Remmel, a Bellingham, WA resident, was only 41 when he died on June 13, 2011, a year after being diagnosed with terminal colon cancer that quickly spread to his bones. Ethan was a psychology professor and father of two young sons. He took a lethal dose of crushed prescription sedatives to end his life. He was able to legally obtain that prescription from his physician under the state’s 2009 Death with Dignity Act. The law allows people living with deadly illnesses maintain control over their lives. Having that control maintained seems to improve the quality of life for someone at the end of their life. Dr. Remmel’s quality of life was critical to his happiness.

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

In an article on sixty minutes, Barbara Mancini “helps” kill Joey Yourshaw; her 93 year old father. Mr. Yourshaw was suffering from kidney disease, cardiovascular problems and many other problems. He had lost hope and said he wanted to die. Joey is a strong independant man and his dying wish was to not dye in a hospital. The doctors gave him less than 6 months to live. He was in a hospice center and was being prescribed small doses of morphine for pain killers.

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.

Dying in Oregon uncovers the latitude given to the State’s terminally ill patients in the self-administration of lethal medications. This approach, I believe, is wrong and unethical because it offers an illusion of proper cognitive ability in the patient yet such individuals may make impaired judgments based on their bleak futures. Euthanasia is a common trend in most western civilizations because of the need for dignity in death (Legoute, 2016). In fact, families with such patients cite their frustrations at watching the deterioration of a person’s health, which negates the lifetime achievements made by him/her. Images of disease-stricken relatives are ravaging and belittle the legacies of such loved ones. It is crucial for surviving members

Linda Fleming appears to show an autonomous competent decision in undergoing Physician Assisted Suicide after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Her reasoning to undergo this method is due to her pain becoming unbearable and “only going to get worse”. Unfortunately, one cannot determine if her reasoning to undergo a PSA as being a valid argument, and if or if not her choice too was justifiable. Even though Fleming was lucid, coherent, and awake when making her decision, we have to take into account if the physician explored all possible options in assisting Linda with different alternatives such as a support group or options of palliative care. If Linda had been made aware of these other options, one may question would she had opted out

When reading this, the first question I had, and the first question I will be addressing in this paper, was where this idea had come from. What was the history of people forgoing medical treatment in favor of taking their own lives? Another question, the more pressing, was why should this be illegal? Why shouldn’t people whose lives are without a doubt going to end be given a say in how and when their stories end.

Every capable human being is granted the right of determining the fashion in which to live their life. This fundamental right should naturally be extended towards individuals deteriorating at the hands of their terminal conditions and allow them control over the timing and manner of death they wish to face. It is an essential human prerogative to have management over one’s personal welfare. As a matter of fact, it is crucial towards the means of sustaining and upholding our human rights; our rights to determine our own direction, state of being, and eventual fate. If autonomy is a highly valued principle, it is logical that patients should have the right to participate in all end-of-life decisions (Fraser 16). A democratic society that honors justice and liberty should acknowledge and permit divergent opinions and allow dying people a degree of freedom in when and how it comes to an end (Fraser 18). The lives of terminally ill patients are recurrently demoted to perpetual hospital visits and countless hours of treatments and surgeries. According to Oregon’s Department of Human Resources, 79% of persons who chose physician-assisted suicide did not wait until they were bedridden to take their lethal medication, thus providing further evidence that controlling the manner and time of death were important issues to these patients (Department). How to Die in Oregon is a documentary that examines real life reverberations

Death with Dignity / Suicide Assistance George Langelaan’ s short story, “The Fly”, reveals the intense details of an experiment gone wrong, which ultimately shifted every character’s ideal foundations. Andre Delambre, a French scientist and war veteran, faces a scientific devastation that buries him heap of hopelessness from ever recovering. Out of desperation, he asks his wife, Helen, to carry out his last wish – to commit suicide. Langelaan reveals the physical, moral, and emotional justification of suicide assistance through the perspective of Helen, much reflecting today’s modern version of lethal injecting or prescribing a lethal combination of medication to terminally ill patients at their wish. As perfectly depicted in the movie The Fly, when Andre tells Helen, while giving her precise instructions, “Three knocks means I have your promise. My life is in your hands” (Kurt Neumann), they are loyal to carry out their loved one’s desires to their upmost ability.

Some physicians support Assisted Suicide one-hundred percent with certain circumstances while others support but with a wide variety of circumstances. People who support Physician-Assisted Suicide think it is right, of the patient of a incurable disease, to choose the time and manner of his or her own death. Some letters have been sent in that say “The physician-assisted suicide poses a disproportionate risk of harm to elderly, poor, and disabled people.” Many people who do not support this topic refer to the potential abuse or misapplication of the practice, usually talking about vulnerable and aging patient's.

In “Offering a Helping Hand to Those Who Long to Die,” Nichols starts out the article by giving a history of how Dr. Philip Nitschke got started. “Nitschke, 50, began administering death after territorial legislators made it legal almost two years ago for doctors to assist in the suicide of the terminally ill” (Nichols, 52). The author states how he continued to do it despite federal legislation passed last March. Nichols compares this man with Kevorkian by stating how Kevorkian “has presided over the death of at least 80 people since 1990” (Nichols 52).

The process of making decisions for terminally ill patients at the edge of death is a difficult and complex one. The case study, A Difficult Death draws on Dave, a middle-aged successful man, diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and is terminally ill. Together Dave, his wife Mary, and their daughter Bethany must face Dave’s demise and the emotional toll that it has taken on the family.