Moral And Ethical Controversies Of Assisted Suicide

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.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle establishes that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” and explains this through the dialectic of disposition, particularly between vice and virtue. In chapter four, Aristotle affirms that since “all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good”, we inherently seek the highest form which is known to both the masses and the educated as happiness through both living and acting well . Thus regardless of whether man is inherently evil or good, we aspire for the highest form of happiness. Through the implications and discourse of vice and virtue, this paper explores the relevance of Aristotle’s moral philosophy in modern day and will be applied to the contemporary ethical issue surrounding physician assisted suicide. By exploring Aristotle’s work through primary and secondary sources, this paper will discuss the greater good and happiness as it relates to not only the patient or physician, but as a member of a greater social circle and that of society because to Aristotle the role of the individual is less important than their social obligations and role. This paper aims to use the rationale of natural law and of Aristotle to explore the prospects of physician assisted suicide as for the greater good and as a modern ethical obligation.

Now that I’ve demonstrated that my ethical theory can be used to make educated decisions in situations that we can potentially face daily, how does my ethical theory fit with issues of life or death? My ethical theory focuses more on issues that an individual will face in their everyday life. It does not directly deal with issues of life and death; however you can still go through the core concepts to make a decision. For instance, let's take a look at assisted suicide.

Additionally, the term “euthanasia” does not mean the same thing as assisted suicide. Often people confuse these processes when they differ immensely. Despite this, they remain similar in their resulting death of a human life through the help of a physician. Euthanasia is the direct killing of a patient by a physician by means of lethal injection and it is completely controlled by the doctor. On the other hand, patients in assisted suicide have full control over the process that leads to their death. For this reason, procedures of these sorts must be eliminated as medical treatments and should not be authorized. Consequently, physician assisted suicide has been proven to lead to euthanasia in some cases. Assisted suicide should become illegal in all fifty states of the United States of America because it raises religious concern, endorses legalized murder, puts vulnerable people at risk of abuse, and

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.

In general, the law has been successful. The in-hospital mortality rate in Oregon is the lowest in the U.S. It is also important to note that legalization does not equate to the promotion of physician-assisted suicide. Because physicians must inform patients of alternative solutions, the patients become more informed of other resources like hospices. In Oregon, admission rates into hospice have increased—forcing the state to devote more resources toward palliative care. Hospitals and other health care systems in Oregon are most advanced in their ability to address pain management.

When dealing with Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) ethical dilemmas can come into place. Known as Euthanasia allows physicians to cause death to a terminally ill patient. There are many states that passed the law to allow PAS Oregon and Washington are just two of them. There are five total that allow PAS and they are Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Montana, and California. With Montana PAS is a court ruling meaning that you well must go to court and present your case. While, CA, OR, VT, and WA are legislation. You must be least eighteen. a resident of the state, and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within mouths. On October 27,1997 Oregon created the “Death with Dignity Act”. It allowed people who were terminally ill

Physician assisted suicide- the voluntary termination of one’s own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician, and euthanasia, the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable, painful disease are both highly emotional and contentious subjects. Some argue physician assisted suicide (P.A.S.) is admissible for someone who is dying and trying to painlessly break free from the intolerable suffering at the end of their life, and some attempt to argue physician assisted suicide is not considered admissible because it violates the doctor’s Hippocratic oath and other reasons. From research, I believe, however, that there are some solutions that take sides with and against P.A.S. and euthanasia, but when they’re debated against each other there is a stronger argument for allowing the legalization and practices of P.A.S. rather than degrading the practice and prohibiting it.

id you know, from “1998 to 2003, 171 patients died using AS” according to The Oregon Department of Human Services (Ersek, 50). AS stands for Assisted Suicide and Physician Assisted Suicide is the practice of providing a terminally ill patient with a prescription for medication to use with the main intention of ending his or her own life. “These actions included delivering the prescription for a lethal drug dose to the patient’s home, helping the patient take the lethal dose by crushing a medication and adding it to ice cream or pudding, placing the medication in the patient’s mouth, or instilling the medication into an enteric tube” (Ersek 51). The right to assisted suicide is an important topic that alarms people all over the US. The controversies

Joni at age 17 had mishap that let in a state of quadriplegic and paralyzed from her shoulder down. To her she had no purpose of life anymore. Her situation causes her to feel that she will be an inconvenience to people, because of her disabilities. Joni had to tolerate suffering and hardship, to her there was no point of living this way and wishes to be euthanized. Her wishes for assisted suicide brings an ethical dilemma in a Christians worldview. The dilemma is that suicide is consider a sin and to assist Joni with her request goes against my beliefs. There is a decision that I have to make I can assist her in her request against my beliefs or I can choose not to do it and explain to Joni why is it important not to commit this sin

The federal government has outlawed the use of federal funds in assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is, however, legal in Oregon, where state law authorizes physicians to write lethal prescriptions at the request of patients who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness reasonably likely to cause death within six months. These guidelines include requiring a second opinion to verify the diagnosis, referral of the patient to a mental health professional if the doctor suspects the patient has a psychiatric or psychological condition that causes impaired judgment, a fifteen-day waiting period between request and prescription, and reporting the assisted suicide to the Oregon Department of Health (deathwithdignity.org). Most current legalization proposals in the United States follow the format of the Oregon law. These guidelines ensure a safe and ethical assisted suicide in regions where it is

Active euthanasia should be permitted as a medical treatment to allow people the right to die with dignity without pain and in peace. Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide or mercy killing, takes on many different forms. When most Americans think of euthanasia, they think of a specific form that is referred to as “active euthanasia” which means to actively do something that will end a patient’s life with or without that individual’s consent. When euthanasia is performed in an involuntary manner it is usually because the patient is comatose, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate whether or not they want to have their life prolonged through artificial means. In such cases, the physician makes an

As a human first with Christian beliefs, physician assisted suicide would be a moral issue for me. It is

This topic of assisted suicide aroused in 1906 in ohio as they drafted a bill to legalize it but it did not succeed. This debate began in 1994, Oregon voters passed the Death with Dignity Act, which legalized physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Since then, it has become legal in 4 more states, including New Mexico. In 2008 in Montana,” a 76 year old truck driver from Billings dying of lymphocytic leukemia asked the court to establish a constitutional right "to receive and provide aid in dying."Judge Dorothy McCarter ruled that a terminally ill, competent patient has a legal right to die with dignity under Article II, Sections 4 and 10 of the Montana Constitution. With that said that gives the right for the physician to give or aid the patient in his or hers suicide and not be arrested or charged in anyway. And also california has just recently passed assisted suicide to be legal in oct 2015.

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.