Persuasive Essay On Malpractice

Physician Assisted Suicide, the practice of allowing a physician to aid their patient in committing suicide, is ethically wrong. It is stated clearly in the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” This part of the Hippocratic Oath proves that doctors should not aid their patients in suicide because that would have a negative effect on the patient’s health. Rather, they should do whatever is in their power to find another solution to their patient’s problem. In this oath, the doctor swears to attempt to cure their patients of their medical problems, this does not include ending their patient’s life to solve the problem. Breaking an oath

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 their lives as long as they do not harm others. This right of free choice includes the right to end one's life when they choose. While you have some supporters who oppose any measures of permitting physician assisted suicide argue that physicians have a moral duty to preserve all life. To allow physicians to assist in destroying someone’s life violates the Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm." Opponents of physician-assisted suicide also believe that better pain management

Suicide is one person’s personal decision; physician-assisted suicide is a patient who is not capable of carrying the task out themselves asking a physician for access to lethal medication. What people may fail to see however is that the physician is not the only healthcare personnel involved; it may include, but is not limited to, a physician, nurse, and pharmacist. This may conflict with the healthcare worker’s own morals and there are cases in which the patient suffers from depression, or the patient is not receiving proper palliative care. Allowing physician-assisted suicide causes the physician to become entangled in an ethical and moral discrepancy and has too many other issues surrounding it for it to be legal.

The thoughts of assisted suicide are very mixed. Some people believe that it is a great way to put terminally-ill patients out of the their pain and suffering. They see it as a way for a person to die with dignity after suffering from a painful disease. Others think it is beyond morally wrong for a doctor to intentionally end a patient’s life. They feel that a doctor should not have unnecessary deaths riding, on their shoulders the rest of their career. Assisted suicide goes way beyond the beliefs of medicine and is morally wrong in so many ways.

Even if assisted suicide were to be permitted under some conditions, a second issue is whether physicians should ever participate in it. This is where the moral and ethical issues arise? Physicians may not want to have the burden of essentially killing a human being. A life is sacred and doctors avoid putting patients in severe pain. The law can get involved if a physician does administer this lethal dose of medication to their patient. For example, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was arrested for performing physician-assisted suicide on his patients. He clearly did not view assisted dying as an immoral type of procedure. “The site of most activity surrounding physician-assisted suicide is Michigan because Dr. Kevorkian practiced physician-assisted suicide there despite its illegal status. From 1990 to 1999, when he was convicted and imprisoned, Kevorkian assisted in more than 130 physician-assisted suicides” (Grosswald, 2002).

Physician assisted suicide is murder. Using euthanasia, increased dosage of morphine or injecting patient’s with a lethal combination of drugs to slow his/her breathing until he/she dies is also murder. Physician assisted suicide is morally wrong. The classical theory for physician assisted suicide is utilitarianism because according to Mosser 2010, “utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines the moral value of an act in terms of its results and if those results produce the greatest good for the greatest number.” Utilitarianism will solve the physician assisted suicide problem if all of the physicians will stand by the oath they say. According to the Hippocratic

The United States is a nation founded on freedoms and liberties, giving each citizen the ability to make their own life decisions. This freedom includes all aspects of one’s life, including medical care. With freedom comes responsibility, and this is true in terms of physician-assisted suicide. The ongoing struggle between those in favor and those opposed to this subject has ravaged the medical field, bringing into question what is morally and ethically right. The fact of the matter is that physician-assisted suicide is neither morally nor ethically acceptable under any circumstance. Not only is it a direct violation of a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath, but it is not constitutionally binding. Physician-assisted suicide would also lead to

There are many facts or opinions brought up against the physician-assisted suicide. One of the most impactful oppositions is that the law goes against the Hippocratic Oath that states first do no harm. In the oath, the quote “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” The counter to that statement is that it is more harmful to do nothing for a terminally ill patient and force them to endure endless pain and suffering when their choice is to end their life (Pros & Cons, 2016). Another opinion against physician-assisted suicide is that by having it as an option it puts pressure on ill patients to take it, so that they are not a physical or financial burden to their families. Some religions see that the physician-assisted suicide is morally unethical. The Catholic Church views the law as morally wrong, killing of a human being, even by an act of omission to eliminate suffering, violates divine law, and offends the dignity of the human person (Death with Dignity.org, 2016). The pope has quoted “Freedom to kill is not a true freedom, but a tyranny that reduces the human being into slavery.” Another opposing viewpoint considers the chance for abuse or misuse by family for monetary gain. One of the hypothetical scenarios is that the family may influence or fool a dying patient into thinking that the suicide is the best for everyone so that they may collect on an inheritance or insurance policy

Physician-assisted suicide has been a topic discussed since the beginning of modern medicine. Any topic that involves someone’s life and decisions that they may make about it usually becomes controversial. Physician-assisted suicide is an end of life option where people can voluntarily request medicine to end their life (Death With Dignity). There are many different opinions about the topic, and some people believe that it should be illegal because of the fact that it’s suicide. Also, many people’s religious or spiritual beliefs inhibit them from supporting this idea. Physician-Assisted Suicide should be legal because people should have control over their lives, there are many requirements to meet, and making it illegal has not stopped people from practicing it.

As United States citizens, we are guaranteed certain rights. One of these rights is the right to life. A human has a right to live, and a right to not be killed by another human being or themself. This right is established by our forefathers, who developed the Declaration of Independence around this principle. Physician assisted suicide clearly contradicts this right. James Thunder states, “The right at issue is the right of an individual to be treated and valued as a human being up to the moment of natural death, the right of the individual to not have her life denigrated to the point of her doctor, sworn to protect life, administering a lethal injection” (440). This shows that physician assisted suicide devalues life and the means to preserve it. “The Declaration of Independence recognizes that there is a right to life and that it is an inalienable one, meaning it is a right that a person can never give up. It is not a right depended on the largesse of the government or the people. It is not a right dependent on an individual’s mental competence or willingness to give it up. It is inalienable” (Thunder 441). Because the right to life is inalienable, it can not be taken away. Physician assisted suicide takes life, clearly denying the right to life. As physician assisted suicide contradicts the inalienable right to life, it is necessary that it be stopped

Nowadays, in the United States, people face many big controversial issues. Besides problems related to the reality of daily life like health care, government intercepting phone calls, raising the minimum wage, gender equality, human rights, equality, anti-racism ... have practical effect on social life. People are also really concerned about the issue of physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or euthanasia has become a controversial issue today, and that related to consciousness, choices and decisions about life of people. PAS is an action expressing an intention of ending a life to relieve intractable, persistent, and unstoppable suffering. Another idea, PAS is the

The Hippocratic oath states, “first, do no harm.” Physician Assisted Suicide is in direct contrast of that, as deliberately killing a patient. Proponents of Physician Assisted Suicide state that the Hippocratic oath should be modified according to an individual patient’s needs. A physician should be able to provide a lethal drug for a suffering patient who chooses to ingest the lethal prescription. Physicians who provide assistance in death are adhering to the medical practices, to care for and met the needs and desires of a patient in all stages of the patient’s life. By allowing a terminally ill patient a lethal prescription to end ones suffering adheres to the patients needs and wants, which is to end the suffering by taking ones life. Significantly, the activities a physician undertakes in providing assistance in death are the same as those often carried out by a physician who oversees a withdrawal of treatment. The physician who prolongs their patient’s life, but who then aids in the patient’s request to die, has not violated the Hippocratic oath, and in fact has fulfilled the physician’s duty to heal. The physician is adhering to the terminally ill patients needs, by giving the patient medication to end their suffering. Therefore Physician Assisted Suicide does not violate the Hippocratic

Physician-assisted suicide can be the withholding of essential care, but it can also be the administration of lethal drugs either by the patient themselves or by a medical professional to end suffering from incurable diseases (Richmond, 2014). Is it fair to make someone live in chronic pain for the rest of their life when there are options? If someone has tried all options to live and have come to terms with no more options, is it okay to help them end their life? The choices do not come easy and not everyone can make them, there are certain rules and regulations set up by the National Boards and the Supreme Court that must they must follow. These rules are in place to make sure not only the patients are safe, but the healthcare

Although it is illegal for a doctor to help, when a patient is suffering they have to help. This has caused doctors to already help their patients to die in other ways. The doctors are not physically killing them, but coaching them through their lives. According to the internet source Idebate, opinion polls taken show that about fifteen percent of doctors already practice assisted suicide on justifiable circumstances and about half of the profession would like to see it legalized.

There are many legal issues regarding physician-assisted suicide but first, let us clarify some terms. According to the Death with Dignity website, this is not euthanasia, suicide or physician-assisted suicide. Since the patients are going to die anyway, they are not choosing death over life. They are choosing how they die. Better terms are Death with dignity; Physician-assisted death, or physician aid in dying (Death with Dignity). “The American College of Legal Medicine has resolved that “the process initiated by a mentally competent, though terminally ill, person who wishes to end his or her suffering and hasten death according to law specifically enacted to regulate and control such a process shall not be described using the word “suicide”,