Physician Assisted Dying Cases Essay

The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling concerning physician-assisted dying in the case of Carter vs. Canada answers the following two questions: 1) Does the current law against physician-assisted dying infringe an individual’s right to life, liberty and security and 2) If the law is a violation of this right, is this violation justified under the Charter of Right’s general limitation clause. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on the first question was in the affirmative. The Supreme Court rules that the prohibition of physician assisted dying is void because it deprives a competent adult of assistance when “(1) the person affected clearly consents to the termination of life; and (2) the person has a grievous and irremediable medical condition

In homes across the world, millions of victims are suffering from fatal and terminal illnesses.With death knocking on their door, should these people have to endure pain and misery knowing what is to come? The answers to these questions are very controversial. Furthermore, there is a greater question to be answered—should these people have the right and option to end the relentless pain and agony through physician assisted death? Physician-Assisted Suicide PAS is highly contentious because it induces conflict of several moral and ethical questions such as who is the true director of our lives. Is suicide an individual choice and should the highest priority to humans be alleviating pain or do we suffer for a purpose? Is suicide a purely

Critics of PAD have expressed concern about abuse and error in assisted death, but less so about the same margins when it comes to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. They say that there is a clear difference between the act of ending one’s life and simply withdrawal of treatment. (K) However, it is also important to note that this does not mean that those against PAD are for preserving life at all costs, as witnessed by withdrawing care that does no more than prolong suffering. (F) Proponents argue that the act of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is just as likely to lead to death as a physician giving a lethal dose of a substance, so why are physicians legally required to respect one choice, but not the other? (K) The end result of PAD is comparable to actions that are legally performed by physicians, such as aggressive palliative care, and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. (K)

Physician-assisted suicide was first made legal in the state of Oregon. (Hendin) In cases of euthanasia, physicians often give lethal doses of a medication to terminate a patient’s life because they’re experiencing intolerable pain. Patients who wish to use the Death with Dignity law in Oregon must be eighteen or older, must be a resident of Oregon, and they must be able to make their own health care decisions. (Sharp 53) However, the law does not require the patient to be in unmanageable pain, they must just have a prognosis of less than six months to live. (Sharp 54) This law seems to be in place to kill patients more quickly to open up hospital space, instead of compassionately ending someone’s suffering.

While many Americans assume “assisted suicide” or physician aid-in-dying (PAD) is unethical, they may not be fully aware of what it is and how it helps people. Imagine a loved one of yours was near the end of their life. The doctors predict only six months or less remain of their life and these next six months will consist of excruciating pain and will be almost too unbearable to comprehend. As the six months progress this person will lose the ability to eat. They will be forced to a diet of flaky ice chips which will put them in a state of relentless hunger making their body weaker and more painful than it had been before. They will also lose the ability to care for themselves and will find themselves relying on family members or complete strangers at times to care for their most private needs. After all this treatment, pain, embarrassment, and utter helplessness the patient will feel as if they have lost their dignity, they will feel as if they are a burden to everyone around them and will even become depressed in some cases. If the loved one lives in Washington State, Oregon, or Vermont they will then be faced with two options regarding the next six hypothetical months they can decide to take on the most unbearable six months of their life or they can resort to an alternative called “Death with Dignity” in which they will be administered a dose of medication from their physician that will take their life. The process is painless and can only be administered to patients

Pain is universal. In life, everyone will feel pain; it is inevitable and cruel. Physical or emotional, insignificant or severe, it is there. The pain continues mounting into an unbearable amount of suffering. Suffering that blots out everything of worth, such as family, love, aspirations, and optimism. Hopelessness seizes any will to endure. With no way to subside or control the pain, often one will go to extremes in order to be free of it. Many take their life, in order to escape the horror. Committing suicide is a traumatizing experience for any and all involved. Life is precious. The chance to live is only given once, and cannot be taken for granted. Preventing even a single life from ending early is imperative and obligatory

A patient has to judge his or her own quality of life, making the action of assessing if a patient’s quality of life is so low that they should be considered for PAD. Although dogs and humans are very different creatures, anatomically and spiritually, PAD is the same concept of putting a dog to sleep. Both beings are loved by others greatly and both experience a low quality of life when they are ill. But why is it better to put dogs down when they are suffering, but it is not ethical for it to be done when a human is suffering? 7.6 million companionship animals were put down last year (2014) (ASPCA). The same idea and process are behind PAD. Physician Assisted Death is not abused by physicians, despite what many people believe PAD is very uncommon, even in states where it is legal. “Approximately 1 of 1,000 Oregonians obtain and use a lethal dose of medication; 17% personally considered it as an option.” (Lachman). But America is not the only place where is a controversy. “85% of 218 nurses in Australia carried out the request the physician’s request for active euthanasia” (Lachman), and “10,000 citizens of the Netherlands, where PAD is legal,

According to the American Medical Association (1996), physician-assisted suicide (PAS) occurs when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing either the means or the information necessary to aid in the patient performing the life-ending act. PAS has had a long and controversial history dating back to the ancient Greeks and Romans. They believed that there was no reason to prolong life if continued pain and suffering was the only prognosis. The term euthanasia, in fact, stems from the Greek meaning "a good death". It was not until Hippocrates and his Hippocratic Oath, cautioning against deadly medicine towards patients, that a different view was seen.

their patients, or to assist them in ending their lives? Many people may believe that physicians would never perform the latter, but in actuality one practice does so. Physician assisted suicide is the intentional ending of one’s life brought on by lethal substances prescribed by a doctor. In the majority of cases, the patient is terminally ill and simply does not desire to live any longer. Their physician provides the medication necessary to end their life. Many supporters aver that this practice is merely an act of compassion as terminally ill persons may suffer extreme pain that eradicates any will to live. They also assert that the decision to die is of the patient’s

In November 2008, Washington State voted to approve an initiative modeled after Oregon's "Death with Dignity" law.

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 U.S. Supreme Court upheld court decisions in Washington and New York states that criminalized physician-assisted suicide on July 26, 1997.12 They found that the Constitution did not provide any “right to die,” however, they allowed individual states to govern whether or not they would prohibit or permit physician-assisted suicide. Without much intervention from the states individuals have used their right to refuse medical treatment resulting in controversial passive forms of euthanasia being used by patients to die with dignity such as choosing not to be resuscitated, stopping medication, drinking, or eating, or turning off respirators.9

In 1994, Oregon voters passed the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which exempted, “from civil or criminal liability physicians who, in compliance with specific safeguards, dispense or prescribe (but not administer) a lethal dose of drugs upon the request of the terminally ill patient.” Oregon, to this day, remains the only state within the Union to allow physician-assisted suicide. In 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case that, although there was no constitutionally protected right to physician-assisted suicide, states have permitted to pass laws allowing it. Thus, the issue of euthanasia remains widely open to philosophical, political, legal, and ethical challenges.

A dignified option became available to terminally ill Americans in 1994. By a vote of 52 to 48 percent, Oregon became the first state to pass The Dying with Dignity Act (Munson, 2016, pp 566). The Dying with Dignity Act, also known as physician assisted death (PAD), allows qualified terminally ill patients to end life in a dignified manner by permitting Oregon physicians to prescribe medications that will induce death (Munson, 2016, pp 566). The passing of this law began a movement for the dignified death. Many states would soon follow Oregon’s lead. Washington, Vermont, Montana, New Mexico, and seven other states would

The legalization of euthanasia has always been a highly debatable topic since it causes philosophical, religious, moral and ethical controversy where some people believe it reduces our respect for the value of human life and it will be a gateway for other immoral actions to be normalized even though it is a basic human right that patients all over the world are denied to this day.