Philosophy And Death : An Argument For Physician Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide is an extremely controversial issue both in Canada and countries around the world. In most of the world, assisted suicide is still illegal, but there appears to be some movement towards its legalization. Regardless of this shift towards the possible legalization of assisted suicide, there is still substantial resistance and debate regarding the issue. On one hand, those who support assisted suicide mostly use the ethical argument that everyone should have the right to choose how and when they die and that they should be able to die with dignity. Another factor is the “quality of life” issue, which means a person should no longer have to live, if they feel their life is no longer worth living. On the contrary, the argument against

Assisted suicide is an ethical topic that has sparked up many controversies. Individuals have heated disputes on whether or not patients who are suffering should have the right to die. Some worry that legalizing euthanasia is irrational and would violate some religions, while others argue that it provides a peaceful death towards terminally ill patients who are suffering from pain. Physician-assisted suicide is a contentious matter, in which there are many positive and negative aspects, whether or not it should be committed is a complex decision.

"Who Owns the Right to Die?", authored by Miranda Barbuzzi, lays out an argument about the legal status of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada. Barbuzzi pulls the reader in by examining the controversial and long-contentious topic of assisted suicide and euthanasia. She does this by exploring primarily ethos (ethical/moral aspects), pathos, and logos (logical arguments) through current court findings and appeals in the Canadian court system. She further explores the legal issues through the Netherlands that aids to the authors credibility and further defines her argument. The article compels the reader to absorb and weigh her findings.

In a momentous decision released February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Physician-assisted suicide will be legal in Canada within 12 months. This deci-sion has caused a myriad of controversy. Opponents of physician-assisted suicide argue that the constitution recognizes the sanctity of life and no one has the right to end the life of another person’s. Supporters, on the other hand, argue that patients who experience constant pain and misery due to health issues must be allowed to have the right to die with dignity of their own choices. This means it is necessary for the government to take measures to protect the right of those people who suffer. Though both arguments offer val-id points, it is absolutely crucial that all human beings should be entitled the essential right to be painlessly and safely relieved of suffering caused by incurable diseases.

Advances in medical treatments have raised the average life expectancy of people in Canada. However, it fails to guarantee a perfectly healthy life for people who experience incurable diseases. The rising interest in Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada, is an outcome of the desire of people to have a greater control over their lives in terms of their capacity to determine death when the patients are terminally ill.

At the heart of the debate of doctor assisted suicide is the supreme court trial of Carter v Canada. This was the catalyst which lead to the national legalization of assisted suicide. One of the major arguments against this law was that of the safeguards and regulations needed to protect Canadians from harm. Proponents against physician assisted suicide believe that any bill that are created for such a cause will have “inadequacy of safeguards and the potential to devalue human life” (Carter v Canada, 344). Thus, leaving those who are pro-assisted suicide require to create guidelines and protections for all parties involved with process. Allowing for there to be proper and adequate safeguards for assisted suicide is of vital importance to this law as it is these safeguards are the foundation of the assisted suicide law.

Physician assisted suicide is referred to as the act that defines the prescription of having drug

Albert Camus once quoted, “But in the end, one needs more courage to live than to kill them self.” Today I will be discussing the topic of Euthanasia also known as “assisted suicide.” The word originated from the Greeks, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia refers to the ending of one’s life, primarily to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and generates many political and religious debates. Although euthanasia is illegal in Canada, in some jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, euthanasia is a legal and common practice.

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are both types of medical assistance aiding in ending a suffering patient’s life. This pain may be due to a terminal illness and suffering as well as those in an irreversible coma. This practice of doctor assisted suicide is illegal in many countries, but is increasing in popularity as people start to recognize the positive aspects that euthanasia has to offer for those that fit the criteria. Euthanasia is essential for those, placed in such life diminishing situations, and whom no longer want to experience suffering. This is where the issue gets complicated, and many religious groups argue that individuals should not have the legal right to choose whether they get to die or not, but that it is simply in God’s hands. Suffering patients argue that they should be given the right to choose whether or not they have to experience this suffering, to end their life with the dignity they still have, and to alleviate the stress that their deteriorating life conditions have on their families, themselves and the entire healthcare system. Therefore, despite the many arguments, euthanasia can have a very positive impact on the lives and families of suffering individuals, as well as the Canadian healthcare system.

The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.

Currently, there are patients with severe illnesses and extreme physical incapacitations who believe that death is a far better option than living. As a result, the right to die has been slowly paving the way for individuals to legally cause their own deaths. Free will dictates that humans have mastery of their thoughts, actions and bodies. Democratic societies agree with the logic of free will, so long as individual 's respect the laws stated by society. If so, shouldn 't people be within their right to choose their time of death? In the following essay, we will explore the complexities of choosing death over life. If death is chosen, do the benefits outweigh the price of dying?

The purpose of this paper is to show the many sides and issues that deal with the subject of euthanasia or doctor assisted suicide. A questionnaire has been answered by 20 people over the age of 25. The results have been compared to the results taken from a similar study on doctors in Manitoba. Review of the Manitoba Survey: The original study was prepared by Neil Searles, who is a university law student. This study looks at the use of doctor assisted suicide which has rarely been looked at in Canada before. Legally and professionally euthanasia is prohibited, but doctors still, on occasion, perform it.

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.

The issue of euthanasia is a very emotional subject for most people. When deciding on whether it should or should not be legalized, people must look at the correct definition of euthanasia which is “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.” It is crucial to weigh each side of this issue to gain appropriate knowledge and understanding of what it truly means to use euthanasia. It is important to examine the problems and outcomes of this debatable issue. Although the subject of euthanasia has two sides, a compromise can be reached by putting safeguards in place to make sure these terminal patient’s rights are protected, and they are not abused by giving them complete power and knowledge to make this life changing decision.

Now larger than ever suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States. Over the years, the consideration of physician assisted-suicide and euthanasia has grown. Now present day, six out of fifty states have signed Death and Dignity Acts, that consists with the decision of “assisted-death” through legislation. Assisted suicide is when a physician provides the means for death which ultimately leaves the individual to perform the last act with the intent to end their life. Euthanasia includes a third-party individual, usually a physician, who performs the last act which intentionally causes the death of a patient. Peter Singer, philosopher, and Professor of Bioethics at Princeton university stated, “the view that the right thing to do is the act that will have the best consequences, all things considered, of the options open to you.” The right to die, is a given right to the terminally ill and elderly individuals to avoid the agony, torment, and suffering from the enviable their condition causes. Assisted suicide has been a one of the most controversial topics in congress and in society. To avoid conflict, we as society have shield ourselves away from this debate.