Physician Assisted Death Essay

Others have argued that physician assisted suicide is not ethically permissible, because it contradicts the traditional duty of physician’s to preserve life and to do no harm. Furthermore, many argue that if physician assisted suicide is legalized, abuses would take place, because as social forces condone the practice, it will lead to “slippery slope” that forces (PAS) on the disabled, elderly, and the poor, instead of providing more complex and expensive palliative care. While these arguments continue with no end in sight, more and more of the terminally ill cry out in agony, for the right to end their own suffering.

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

One of the most controversial end-of-life decisions is “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS). This method of suicide involves a physician providing a patient, at his or her own request, with a lethal dose of medication, which the patient self-administers. The ethical acceptability and the desirability of legalization of this practice both continue to cause controversy (Raus, Sterckx, Mortier 1). Vaco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg were landmark decisions on the issue of physician-assisted suicide and a supposed Constitutional right to commit suicide with another's assistance. In Washingotn v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was not unconstitutional.

Imagine a cancer patient on a short rode to death. The pain this patient is experiencing is unreal and unimaginable to most. The pain medicine that can be used does little to take the agony away. The doctors can put the patient in an induced coma, but what kind of living is that? It is not living. The patient does not want to go on. Is it so wrong to ask for a way out? With less than six months to live, the patient’s hope is gone. Many argue that euthanasia is not ethical, but is it really ethical to let someone live in constant, horrifying pain and agony? While in some cases having the right to die might result in patients giving up on life, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all fifty states for terminally ill patients with worsening or unbearable pain.

Ezekiel Emanuel once said, “Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia have been profound ethical issues confronting doctors since the birth of Western medicine, more than 2,000 years ago.” Physician assisted suicide (PAS) should be available as a dignified option for the terminally ill because it can be built in to the palliative care plan formulated by patient and Doctor, may alleviate some medical costs for the incurable, and it’s a moderated and humane way to end a person’s suffering.

With self-interest, patients inquire a legal doctor about their privilege of a controlled death by oral medication. Physician-Assisted Suicides allow “a competent adult resident of the state to obtain a prescription from a physician for a lethal dose of medication, for the purpose of causing death through self-administration” (Ganzini 77). Aid in dying is a term commonly used for physician-assisted suicide. In other words, Physician-Assisted Suicides permit terminal patients and physicians to work together to accommodate a licit planned death. Furthermore, with the permission of AID, “a physician writes a prescription for the life-ending medication for a terminally ill, mentally capacitated” (Orentlicher, Pope, and Rich

In the medical field there are massive amounts of treatments for various diseases. Some treatments are going to help the patient feel more comfortable; however, some are going to counteract the problem, and others are going to help kill the patient. Physician assisted suicide is defined by medterms.com as “the voluntary termination of one 's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician.” Any person wishing to undergo assisted suicide in Oregon must be at least 18 years of age and have a terminal illness. This illness must be within its final stages and leave the patient with less than six months to live.

Physician assisted suicide for the terminally ill is one of the most debated policies in America. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is only considered a when a patient has a terminal illness and expresses their right to end their life with a physician. This scenario typically takes place when a patient is suffering severely from a terminal illness and it is only a matter of time before they will die. Advocates for PAS have typically had a loved one who is or was suffering through their final stages of life. Each individual state has specific laws and policies regarding the process of PAS; however, the requirements for a patient to be considered for PAS are similar (Death with Dignity, n.d.).

Physician assisted death is a physician aiding in a patient’s death by prescribing a lethal dosage or informing a patient on a lethal amount of medication. This is not a new phenomenon, over the ages of medicine physicians have been asked by patients to end their suffering. More than half of physicians in today’s society have been asked in some form of way to participate in physician assisted death. People should be able to choose rather or not to end their life through terminal illness or in their own manner.

Terminally Ill patients across the world all want a way to end what they are going through, but not all doctor’s want to help them achieve those goals. The right to die is a patient’s ability to choose their own time and means of death. A patient’s death can be caused through injections of lethal drugs or even by taking them off of their life support by the request of the patient. Some people support this law because they believe that a patient should have the right to choose whether or not they would want a “dignified death” or a death not caused by an illness. The people opposing this law take the side of the sanctity of life and upholding the integrity of the medical profession by “maintaining bans on physician-assisted suicide” (Right to Die).

Quality versus quantity: which is more important? A year of suffering or a few more pleasant weeks of living? The decision is yours. Or is it? In the United States citizens’ rights to life, liberty and property are protected under the constitution. Yet, the right to die is a gray area, complicated by varying degrees of moral and ethical opinions. The current debate questions the legality of physicians’ assisted suicide, the ability of doctors to medically assist the dying for a more peaceful death. Many politicians, religious leaders and humanists question its morality. However, the terminally ill should be able to die on their own terms, with the help of physicians’ assisted suicide.

Euthanasia is one of the most pressing social issues of our current times. It is a concept that has been under discussion for centuries due to its scientific, legal, and moral ambiguities. An ancient Greek tragedian once stated, “Death is not the worst evil, but rather when we wish to die and cannot...” (Torr 12). There will be a time in everyone's life where they will pass away, but the decision of when and how should ultimately be an individual’s choice. With that being said, doctors should be allowed to aid patients in physician-assisted suicide to give them an opportunity to go without suffering, and have a painless death.

Because of remarkable advances in medical technology pharmacology that can artificially prolong a patient’s life, the field of medical ethics has been confronted with a new controversy: the legalization of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The word Euthanasia comes from the Greek word for “eus” which means godly or well, and “thanathos” which literally means death (F.A. Davis Company, 2001, p. 476). Before its contemporary use, the word euthanasia meant a peaceful, quiet way to depart from earth. However, in modern times, this concept has sparked an incredible controversy. Today, the word euthanasia also commonly, but wrongfully, used for the practices of physician-assisted suicide (PAS).

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are actions that hit at the core of what it means to be human - the moral and ethical actions that make us who we are, or who we ought to be. Euthanasia, a subject that is so well known in the twenty-first century, is subject to many discussions about ethical permissibility which date back to as far as ancient Greece and Rome , where euthanasia was practiced rather frequently. It was not until the Hippocratic School removed it from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate? More so, euthanasia raises

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.