Persuasive Essay On Assisted Suicide

We are culturally ingrained from an early age that life is precious and each day is a gift. Life should not be squandered but preserved.  We are encouraged to live with a purpose, cherish our loved ones and live life to its fullest. But what if life becomes too physically painful to endure, often experienced by many terminally ill patients suffering an incurable disease, or a chronically ill elderly person who lacks the ability to thrive?  For forty-five day’s I watched my chronically ill mother languish away in a hospice care facility. The experience was emotionally and financially draining, and I began questioning whether a person should have the right to choose when and how to end their life. In the United States, assisted dying is a widely debated and passionate issue. Opponents argue preserving life, regardless of how much a person is suffering, is an ethical and moral responsibility, determined only by a higher power.  At the other end of the spectrum are those who support a person’s right to end their life with dignity at a time of their choosing.   Wouldn’t my mother’s suffering been greatly reduced if her doctor was legally and ethically permitted to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs to end her life quickly and painlessly? Wouldn’t the prevailing memory of my mother see her in a better light instead of helplessly watching her undignified death? To deny terminal and chronically ill people the freedom to end their

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.

Who dictates how you live your life? How does one define life and when that life should end? If you become terminally ill, would you like the choice to choose how your life ends? In the United States, assisted suicide, is a highly-debated issue. On one side, there are many in support of allowing a person the right to end their life with dignity at the time of their choosing. While others believe, it is a moral right to sustain life and leave a person’s exit from this world to a higher power. The two opposing viewpoints have both compassionate reasons and disadvantages; nevertheless, a person’s human rights as an individual are the most important aspect to uphold.

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial issues of the twenty-first century. Anyone can kill themselves, but what happens when one is not capable of physically doing so and at the same exact time is also terminally ill. When is it okay for a physician to use their medical expertise, and oblige with a incurably patient; to agree that one’s life is worth ending. Where is the line drawn? Legally, physician-assisted suicide is a criminal offense; you are after all killing another human. Morally, is it okay to watch someone die in agonizing pain and stand-by because God told us all too. This essay will explore and analyze the legal aspect of physician-assisted suicide, what does the law say. As well as, the moral implications of physician-assisted suicide, it is ever okay, and the consequences it will have on our society.

Physician assisted suicide becoming legal will not make tons of people go out and use it. Haider Javed Warraich, a clinical researcher, defends this. His article “On Assisted Suicide, Going Beyond ‘Do No Harm’” argues how assisted suicide can be a solution for terminally ill patients who continue to lose control over their lives. Warraich analyzes how barely 35 percent of those who request the medication actually follow through with it.

Unlike, previous reviews, the author begins by defining physician- assisted suicide death and its differences from other forms of euthanasia. In this article, Ardell also addresses the ethical and moral dilemma between letting people have control over their own bodies through assisted suicide and the state’s decision to prevent individuals from taking their lives. Specifically, Ardell compares two countries, Netherlands and the United States, in which physician-assisted suicide is legal and illegal to assessed how each decision has influence patients with terminal illness. Finally, Ardell also focuses on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act to explain how the court decision of legalizing assisted death has impacted a whole community of people, hospitals and generally end-life care for terminally-ill patients. Although, the author doesn’t offer her opinions or a general conclusion about legalizing physician-assisted suicide, she explains that most Oregon physician assisted suicide cases has been about achieving a “death with dignity” or a death in control, rather than preventing pain. Hence, this article is important for my research paper because it explores both the legal and moral repercussion of legalizing physician -assisted suicide in the context of achieving a “death with

In the ever changing role and dynamic atmosphere that healthcare provides, unique challenges and opportunities constantly arise which are a multi-faceted labyrinth of ethical and moral dilemma. One of the most contested and widely debated topics to be found in the healthcare workplace today is the subject of Assisted Suicide. Altering a person’s course of death into a process driven role, rather than the client’s final life event, creates a myriad of ethical and moral dilemmas.

Physician assisted suicide is an act of compassion that respects patient’s choice and fulfills an obligation of non-abandonment (Sulmasy & Mueller, 2017). Death is the inevitable end of life of a person or organism. As humans, we live the best way we can and with medicine and technology, humans can live a quality and healthy life-style. However, there is no human who is supernaturally immune from diseases and accidents.

(Hallock 1). This decision helps the patient to accept the dying process, knowing that it is not out

"Only because I knew that I could not and would not kill my patients was I able to enter most fully and intimately into caring for them as they lay dying (Doerflinger, Richard M., M.D, and Carlos F. Gomez, Ph.D). In this quote given by a physician, one sees that even from a professional’s standpoint on physician-assisted suicide, one is opposed to that act of helping someone to take his or her own life. When given the opportunity, this physician would rather help to improve the life of the patient rather than ending a life that does not need to end and that is the viewpoint that all should take on this controversial topic. Throughout this paper, one will see just how affected people are by the repercussions

Places all around the world have legalized assisted suicide and it has proven successful in every place. Canada, Japan, Germany, Switzerland the USA, including California, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, and Montana, all these places have experienced and legalized assisted suicide, and every place has had an overwhelming increase in the happiness and welfare of its overall population. Canadian justices, while explaining their change in heart over assisted suicide said, “What has changed...is that other countries, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia and Switzerland, plus four American states, have shown that assisted dying can be well regulated” (Last Rights, 2016, para. 4). This in itself expresses that because of the success other countries have already received, the implementation

A painful death is not a good one, wouldn’t you want to die a peaceful death? If you know you are going to die anyways wouldn’t you want it a lot more quickly and painless. The only person who can help these people are the doctors so you need the doctors to help these people who are suffering in their daily lives. Helping people this way is called doctor-assisted suicide. I believe that doctor-assisted suicide is okay and should be allowed because of.

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

In the United States today, there is a considerable amount of debate of whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. Many oppose physician-assisted suicide because they view it to be morally and ethically wrong. Similarly, many support the legalization of physician-assisted suicide because they believe human beings have the right to determine when and how they die. Personally, I believe human beings have the right to determine when they die and that the government should not keep individuals who are in extreme pain and only have a few months to live from ending their life with dignity. Through this paper, I am going to explore the many sides of physician-assisted suicide.

Assisted suicide is a complex and particularly controversial issue faced by modern U.S. society. When a terminally ill patient requests to be euthanized by a board-certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Is it ethical to end the life of another human being, even if the patient is suffering and has a life expectancy of less than a year? Unlike conventional suicide where an individual intentionally takes their own life, euthanasia involves multiple participants, including the terminally ill patient, a willing doctor, and a non-related witness, where each involved party has corresponding specific legal responsibilities. In order to appropriately consider and understand this situation from a moral and ethical standpoint, each involved party and their responsibilities should be analyzed using the guidelines of one or more ethical frameworks. Even though assisted suicide was not an issue widely discussed during the 1600-1800’s, ethical philosophers of this