Physician Aid In Dying

Imagine laying in a hospital bed living everyday in extreme pain with no hope of getting better. This scenario explains what many people go through everyday, which is a living with a terminal illness. M. Lee, a science historian, and Alexander Stingl a sociologist, define terminal illness as “an illness from which the patient is not expected to recover even with treatment. As the illness progresses death is inevitable” (1). There are not many options for the terminally ill besides dying a slow and painful death, but assisted suicide could be best option for these patients. Assisted suicide is “any case in which a doctor gives a patient (usually someone with a terminal illness) the means to carry out their own suicide by using a lethal dose of medication” (Lee and Stingl 1). Some feel that assisted suicide is unnecessary because it is too great of a controversy and will only cause problems in society. However, assisted suicide should be legal in the United States as long as there are strict regulations to accompany it.

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

In our country the premise of physician assisted death conjures images of suicidal madmen, hell bent on death and mayhem. The reality is, that could not be farther from the truth. So why is there a stigma on assisting patients with taking their own life? Others look at this as a dignified means to those suffering a terrible fate. There are many issues that weight heavy on the difference between physician assisted and vs. natural death. Is it cruel to let a terminal ill patient who will suffer horrendously until nature take its course? Would it be more humane to allow a patient to pass peacefully without the suffering or enduring painful end? This report will examine physician assisted death

The issues of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) are both emotional and controversial. Some argue PAS is ethically permissible for a dying person who has chosen to escape unbearable suffering at the end of life; it is the physician’s duty to alleviate the patient’s suffering and justifies aid-in-dying. These arguments rely on the respect for individual autonomy. “Individual autonomy is an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one's own person, to live one's life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one's own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces.” (STANDFORD REF)

It cannot be established with ease whether the decision to have physician-assisted suicide is voluntary or is influenced by others. Even physicians are not able to establish the time of death and guarantee whether there is a likelihood of remission through the use of advanced treatments. This means that conducting physician-assisted suicide would translate into numerous illegal deaths that could have been prevented (Boudreau & Somerville, 2013). Critics argue that legalizing physician-assisted suicides could appear like encouraging violation of the law and promoting the lack of trust between patients and physicians. Moreover, the practice would cause deterioration in medical care in addition to causing victimization of the people who are susceptible in this society (Diekstra, 2008). Apart from these weaknesses, critics echo that there are other areas where physician-assisted suicide could be

The process of assisted suicide, or physician-assisted death, is a hotly debated topic that still remains at the forefront of many national discussions today. Assisted suicide can be described as the suicide of patient by a physician-prescribed dose of legal drugs. The reason that this topic is so widely debated is that it infringes on several moral and religious values that many people in the United States have. But, regardless of the way that people feel, a person’s right to live is guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution, and this should extend to the right to end their own life as well. The reasons that assisted suicide should be legalized in all states is because it can ease not only the suffering of the individual, but the financial burden on the family that is supporting him/her. Regardless of opposing claims, assisted suicide should be an option for all terminally ill patients.

Radical assumptions have been made on whether or not physician-assisted death should be legalized in the United States because of its citizens’ uncertainty about this delicate subject. Physician-assisted suicide is the method by which an individual is provided with the drugs or equipment needed to commit suicide. The terms “aid in dying” or “death with dignity” are preferred over “suicide” due to their distinction from "suicide," where assisted or not, it remains illegal while “aid in dying” is permitted. This allows for the patient to have control over their life and have the right to be able to choose whether to live a life filled with tedious pain and/or suffering, or end their misery and be able to rest in peace.

Pressing for families and their loved ones, an act to be decided for somebody suffering from pain – physician-assisted suicide is a touchy subject for many. In cases where the intolerable suffering can be judged by the patient, physicians should extend their hands to initiate euthanasia through ethical means. I would say that it can be justified when terminal illnesses restrict the patient in a hospital bed with only the plug binding themselves to their bodies. I would say that it can be justified when the hastened death of somebody would benefit others, when the burden of a human, so sick, carries onto others. It is a fact that a life support program for somebody without the will to live can cost thousands of dollars, in contrast to the smaller

Physician-assisted suicide is the act of aiding an individual end their life by means of a lethal dose of medication prescribed by a physician. The term assisted suicide was first coined after an infamous pathologist named Jack Kevorkian would devise a machine that would aid terminally ill patients end their lives. Dr. Kevorkian would go on to help over one hundred people end their lives, earning him the nickname Dr. Death (“Jack Kevorkian”). Society has come a long way since the invention of the suicide machine. This is a sensitive topic that can be quite personal for many individuals, but nonetheless, is a subject of many heated conversations. Aid in dying has been a topic many have been divided on, but if we can put in place an improved

The actual patients’ examples of assist suicide in Woodman’s book, they are strong enough evidences to convince the reader why physician-assisted suicide should be legal in society. Like stories she provides, so many patients and their families are hoping to end their life in dignity and even though they decide to die, so many countries and states banned their last rights because of ethical reasons which actual patients do not care.

The concept of physician assisted suicide is a very divisive issue in modern times. The fact that modern medicine can prolong life has been seen throughout recent generations, but now that lives have been extended for so long some people would like to use modern medicines to put an end to their own lives prematurely. There are many strong opinions about this issue on either side of the argument, but it seems that those who oppose the practice are doing so without allowing themselves to see the full scope of the issue. What they are failing to acknowledge is both a patient’s right to choose the treatments that they feel are best for them and what should be an intrinsic human right to die with dignity. What the advocates for the legalization of physician assisted suicide need to consider as well, however, is the fact that in arguing for this practice to be accepted by society ought to be also defining the practice that they are fighting for. If both sides of the debate allow themselves to settle on an operational definition of physician assisted suicide that takes great care to ensure that this practice is never carried out frivolously or without care while allowing patients the freedom and dignity to truly decide when to let go.

“At least 36 terminally ill people died last year after taking lethal medication prescribed by doctors under the Washington State’s new physician assisted suicide law passed in 2009” (Caplin et all). This law makes euthanasia and assisted suicide an option for the terminally ill patient without the interjection from others. Due to the physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia law, terminally ill patients have been requesting physician-assisted suicide more frequently due to the hospital fees, the mental and/or physical health of themselves, and their friends and family. Euthanasia should be passed into law in all fifty states for the well-being of the patients and their families. In the course of this paper the reader will learn the importance and information needed about euthanasia and how it could possibly affect the public in their near or far future.

Assistive suicide, also known as euthanasia, “is suicide committed by someone with assistance from others, typically to end suffering from a severe physical illness” (American Heritage Dictionary, 615). This action is most commonly committed between doctor and patient interactions. This controversial issue depicts suicides as a helpful solution to personally benefit terminally ill patients, as opposed to a forbidden social issue. Assistive suicide has become a major debate of legalization. “This is an act of a physician prescribing a drug to a patient which drug the patient is able to take on his or her own without the assistance of a medical provider or another person. This drug generally results in unconsciousness within five minutes and death within thirty” (Levin, May 08, 2002). My concern with this matter has reached high limits. Due to the fact that is still illegal in certain states many patients aren’t able to relieve their pain or suffering. Assistive suicide is meant as a solution to end personal suffering, its not to involve the public’s opinion or decisions. This should be a personal choice. Assistive suicide should be an elective choice for anyone and everyone facing terminal illness. Not enabling assisted suicide violates human rights and infringes inalienable rights.

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

     Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics discussed among people every day. Everyone has his or her own opinion on this topic. This is a socially debated topic that above all else involves someone making a choice, whether it be to continue with life or give up hope and die. This should be a choice that they make themselves. However, In the United States, The land of the free, only one state has legalized assisted suicide. I am for assisted suicide and euthanasia. This paper will support my many feelings on this subject.