PAS Assisted Suicide Case Study

Since 1994, only six additional states and Washington, DC have made PAS legal and many more are considering it. PAS has gained some major attention for debates. Most of the opposition is from a religious standpoint, the slippery slope argument, and disagreement with oaths that doctors take when they receive their medical licenses. Also, this controversial topic gets a lot of attention based on the different names PAS gets. For example, PAS is sometimes called euthanasia but, there are different types of euthanasia that may or may not be legal. Regardless of the name attached, PAS gives terminally ill patients control over their lives, even at the

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

According to Paul J. van der Wal et al. in ¨Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and Other Medical Practices Involving the End of Life in the Netherlands, 1990–1995¨, he addresses that assisted suicide should be legal and regulated. The authors’ purpose of writing this journal article is to make reliable estimates of euthanasia; to describe patients and physicians, and to evaluate changes between 1990 and 1995. Even though assisted suicide is a growing taboo, it is being practiced more each and every day. Paul J. van der Wal et al. chose to conduct two studies to answer their hypotheses.

In 2014, Brittany Maynard became the face for those supporting physician assisted suicide or PAS. At 29 years old and newly married, Maynard was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and immediately underwent a partial craniotomy and partial resection. Her tumor came back much stronger, however, and in April she was given six months to live. Maynard’s only treatment option to slow but not stop the growth of the tumor was full brain radiation, but she opted against this because of the unavoidable side effects of hair loss, first degree burns, and the inevitability of death. In consideration of hospice, Maynard feared becoming resistant to morphine and losing her cognitive, motor, and verbal skills. Even more so, she did not want her family

Physician assisted suicide has been a subject of much controversy in the field of healthcare. A physician’s decision to provide life ending drugs relies on whether or not this practice is legal in their state of residence, the patient’s competence, and whether or not they are suffering from a terminal illness. In a study conducted by Zenz, Tryba, and Zenz (2015), it was found that healthcare providers (physicians and nurses) would rather perform euthanasia on terminal patients over physician assisted suicide. Interestingly enough, this study also found that there is a more general acceptance of this practice than a willingness to perform

In the discussion of Physician-Assisted Suicide you have to make sure that you use the right terminology and make sure that it is clear. Some of the greatest dangers of facing chronic and terminally ill patients are a grey area regarding PAS. There is a strict process to practice PAS. Despite the stringencies, the Council of Ethical and Judicial Affairs (1992) found that 28% of PAS cases in the Netherlands did not meet the specific criteria. The evidence suggests that some of the patient’s lives may have ended involuntarily or prematurely. The problem can be fixed with advance directives. These directives can be written by competent individuals explaining their decision to be aided in dying when

Opponents of this practice feel that patients may be too ill or worried that they will not be able to think through to exercise a real inform consent. The legality of physician-assisted suicide may interfere with good physician-patient relationship. Patients may feel that if their physician is willing to participate in the act, then, society and the doctor would prefer that death occur. This misunderstanding may further imply that the terminally ill people are expected to end their lives. Besides, the legalization of physician-assisted suicide increases the likelihood that death will become acceptable for other people such as the mentally disable, the physically challenged, and the elderly (Weiss & Lonnquist,

In today’s society, suicide, and more controversially, physician assisted suicide, is a hotly debated topic amongst both every day citizens and members of the medical community. The controversial nature of the subject opens up the conversation to scrutinizing the ethics involved. Who can draw the line between morality and immorality on such a delicate subject, between lessening the suffering of a loved one and murder? Is there a moral dissimilarity between letting someone die under your care and killing them? Assuming that PAS suicide is legal under certain circumstances, how stringent need be these circumstances? The patient must be terminally ill to qualify for voluntary physician-assisted suicide, but in the eyes of the non-terminal patients with no physical means to end their life, the ending of their pain through PAS may be worth their death; at what point is the medical staff disregarding a patient’s autonomy? Due to the variability of answers to these questions, the debate over physician-assisted suicide is far from over. However, real life occurrences happen every day outside the realm of debate and rhetoric, and decisions need to be made.

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in the United States gained national attention in the early 1990s, when Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a pathologist, conducted over 130 cases of PAS from 1990 to 1998 despite numerous arrests and eventual loss of medical licensure. His first PAS was provided to Janet Adkins, a 54-year-old woman diagnosed with early stage of Alzheimer’s disease (Schneider, 2011). Dr. Kevorkian was then charged with murder, but Michigan’s court of Appeals dropped the case on December 13, 1990, as no laws were in place regarding PAS at that time (Schneider, 2011). In each of the 130 plus cases of PAS, the individuals committed suicide with the devices designed by Dr. Kevorkian. These devices, with the control

On 11/19/16 at 1156 hrs, I was dispatched to Carrollwood 4068 78th Ave Apt 5, Pinellas Park 33781. Reference the complainant’s daughter receiving text messages from her daughter’s boyfriend stating they were going to committed suicide.

Physician Assisted Suicide/Dying is a medical practice surrounding the accelerated process of death among patients who – typically – have a terminal medical disorder that will either end the life of the patient, or have them live in suffering, pain, in a state of life they deem less than minimally good, or less than a life worth living. According to a study done in 1995, approximately 88 percent of physicians interviewed claimed that they had received at the very least, one request for PAS/D. (Maas, et al., 1996) As the practice becomes more commonly considered – and more importantly more commonly accepted – it is logical to assume these percentages will have increased. This increase due to not only more patient requests, but also due to the

Physician-assisted suicide first became legalized in Australia’s Northern Territory on 1 July 1996 (Walker 21). It was later legalized in Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Quebec, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Vermont (Gulu 1). In Michigan, throughout the 1990s, Dr. Jack Kevorkian petitioned to legalize assisted suicide and help over one hundred and thirty people commit suicided in and eight year period (Schneider 1). Dr. Kevorkian was in prison for eight years for second degree murder (Schneider 1). According to Jack Lessenberry, “Jack Kevorkian, faults and all, was a major force for good in this society. He forced us to pay attention to one of the biggest elephants in society’s living room: the fact that today vast numbers of people are alive who would rather be dead, who have lives not worth living”(Schneider 2). Due to Dr. Kevorkian’s assistance in an Oregon schoolteachers death, Oregon passed its Death With Dignity Act (Schneider 2). On the 1 November 2014, Brittany Maynard took advantage of Oregon’s legality of physician-assisted suicide.

In August of 2000, a pregnant woman gave birth to conjoined twins, Jodie and Mary. They were given six months to live, however, if the doctors operated it would be possible to separate them and save Jodie's life but it would mean that Mary would die instantly. The parents argued that they wanted to leave both alive even if it meant killing both in the end, but the Hospital argued that it would be in their best interest to save Jodie and perform the operation. The hospital won the court case and operated successfully on them inevitably saving Jodie, but Mary died. The first side to the argument is that we should save as many people as possible, which in this case would mean sacrificing Mary so that Jodie might live instead of letting of letting

In America, terminally-ill patients in most states have only two options: receive treatments (some experimental) or wait for a natural death. California recently passed the End of Life Option Act, thereby joining Oregon, Washington, and Vermont when it comes to legalizing physician assisted suicide (PAS) via legislation. When comparing the legislations between those four states, they are all very similar to one another. The fundamental requirements consist of the dying patient being at least eighteen years old, a resident of their respective state, capable of self-administering the drugs (so no euthanasia), possess a sound mind to make and communicate health care decisions (not coerced), and be diagnosed with a terminal disease with less than six months to live . Netherlands on the other hand, has a very different take when it comes to tackling the issue of aid-in-dying. Possessing the longest legal model when it comes to the issue of aid-in-dying, this paper will examine Netherland’s approach and compare it to America’s equivalent counterpart (represented by the four states).

The issues surrounding assisted suicide are multifaceted. One could argue the practice of assisted suicide can appear to be a sensible response to genuine human suffering. Allowing health care professionals to carry out these actions may seem appropriate, in many cases, when the decision undoubtedly promotes the patient's autonomy. From this viewpoint, the distinctions made between assisted suicide and the withholding of life-sustaining measures appears artificial and tough to sustain. In many cases, the purpose and consequences of these practices are equivalent. On the contrary, if