Physician Assisted Suicide

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.

Daniel Sulmasy is a Professor of Medicine and Ethics at the University of Chicago and has a particular interest in end-of-life care. He harshly criticizes Physician-assisted suicide and claims that this violates not only ethic principles but is also bad medicine and undermines the intrinsic worth of human life. He identifies patients as being vulnerable and helpless and even implicates rising costs of health care as a possible reason for the medical community wanting to legalize assisted suicide. I am disappointed by his superficial reasoning and I will quote Dr. Sulmasy to exhibit a one-dimensional point of view that overlooks the desperate situation of a terminally ill patient wishing to end his or her life in dignity as a personal

When talking about doctors, death and incurable diseases, one of the most controversial topic that comes up is Physician assisted suicide. Webster’s dictionary define it as, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information.” Most of us have experienced the pain of seeing our loved ones dying in a hospital since doctors and modern medicine can only help us so much. Physician assisted suicide not only helps alleviates the never ending pain, but patient also dies with dignity. On the other hand, people who oppose it, have strong religious and ethical beliefs. They think that Physician assisted suicide demeans the human value and violates doctor’s Hippocratic Oath. After researching a lot about this topic, I decided that taking a moderate stance would be the best option because even though I agree that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) goes against medical ethics and religious beliefs I also believe that sometimes PAS is the best option available for people who are fatally sick and want to die with dignity and peace. In this paper I will discuss the history of physician assisted suicide, why is it important to have this option available and how should we limit PAS to make a compromise with people who are against it.

There are instances when people who are terminally ill or severely injured who want to terminate their own lives. Sometimes, due to the state of their injuries or conditions, those people are unable to end their own pain. It is in many of these cases that the patients request assistance in their suicides. This kind of request is like to happen in facilities where the patient receives long term or permanent care. Physician assisted suicide is a hotly contested issue. There is support for those who believe this kind of "assistance" is morally, ethically, and otherwise wrong. There is support from people who believe that a person has a right to choose when his/her life ends. These people believe that physician assisted suicide is a form of altruistic assistance. There are valid points made by people on both sides of this issue and there is certainly room within the debate to be undecided or to be conflicted. Secondary, tertiary, and long term providers/facilities have the power to improve the preservation of life and they have the power to assist with the end of life. The paper presents arguments of this debate and reflects upon the issues at the surface as well as the underlying issues of the debate over physician assisted suicide.

Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) has grown into quite a contentious topic over the years. According to Breitbart and Rosenfeld (1), physician-assisted suicide can be defined as “a physician providing medications or advice to enable the patient to end his or her own life.” One may find many articles that are written by physicians, pharmacists, patients, and family of patients who receive PAS; from there, it is possible to gain a better understanding of what PAS is and how it has become a rising issue in the United States. For readers who have not heard about PAS and what it entails, it is important to understand that this is a debatable topic that should be approached lightly and non-aggressively in the United States when factors such as offering terminally ill patients the right to end their suffering, the likelihood of overall healthcare cost to decrease, and the comparison of palliative care to physician-assisted suicide are examined.

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 is a topic that hits home to many people, both in the United States and across the world. Currently, five states have legalized physician-assisted suicide in the United States and it is crucial that every state reconsiders their stance on the issue. Each state needs to look at the pros and cons, as well as the implications of their decision on their stance on physician-assisted suicide. Citizens also have a critical role, as they must tell their legislators their stance on physician-assisted suicide so that the legislators can properly represent their states. This paper looks to show the major arguments for both the groups that support physician-assisted suicide as well as the groups that oppose physician-assisted suicide, while also taking other issues into consideration, such as different pressures legalization of physician-assisted suicide would have on different demographics.

Physician assisted suicide is a controversial topic that should be practiced due to one's legal rights as a American, and as a human being. In previous cases in the Supreme Court, euthanasia has been discussed and many decisions about

Unlike, previous reviews, the author begins by defining physician- assisted suicide death and its differences from other forms of euthanasia. In this article, Ardell also addresses the ethical and moral dilemma between letting people have control over their own bodies through assisted suicide and the state’s decision to prevent individuals from taking their lives. Specifically, Ardell compares two countries, Netherlands and the United States, in which physician-assisted suicide is legal and illegal to assessed how each decision has influence patients with terminal illness. Finally, Ardell also focuses on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act to explain how the court decision of legalizing assisted death has impacted a whole community of people, hospitals and generally end-life care for terminally-ill patients. Although, the author doesn’t offer her opinions or a general conclusion about legalizing physician-assisted suicide, she explains that most Oregon physician assisted suicide cases has been about achieving a “death with dignity” or a death in control, rather than preventing pain. Hence, this article is important for my research paper because it explores both the legal and moral repercussion of legalizing physician -assisted suicide in the context of achieving a “death with

The topic of physician-assisted suicide has become very controversial because of the ethical questions. The physical state of health of the patient, the patient’s personal life, and even the financial pressure of the patient are all factors to consider when contemplating whether or not to legalize this controversial cause of death. Physician-assisted suicide regarding medical ethics states that a physician cannot legally give any patient a lethal injection to end their life, but they can take the patient off of life support in order to increase the process of death. Physician-assisted suicide should be legalized at a federal level and should be morally acceptable for patients who are terminally ill and can no longer be treated to improve their medical situation.

Physician-assisted suicide is a personal, divisive, and greatly debated issue in the United States of America. The contentious nature of physician-assisted suicide makes it ideal to be solved by a national referendum. The American Medical Association defines physician-assisted suicide as “when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and/ or information to enable the patient to perform the life ending act.” Only four states in the United States of America have legalized physician-assisted suicide; however, a recent Gallup poll showed that fifty-one percent of Americans supported legalizing physician-assisted suicide. The distinct divisions among the American public on whether or not physician-assisted suicide

There are many differences between PAS and euthanasia, let 's take a look at some of them. Physician assisted suicide means that the physician makes lethal means available to the patient, that can be used when the patient chooses. PAS is also defined as a patient who died by performing the last act of suicide. Euthanasia would mean the physician takes an active role in carrying out the patient 's request. For the patient to receive PAS, they would have to take the medication when they are still capable of swallowing or able to inject a lethal dosage of medication into his or herself. For the patient to receive euthanasia, the doctor would have to be the direct cause of the patient 's death. Because the patient must be competent of killing his or herself for PAS, one of the fears is that the patient will feel the need to take their life at an unnecessary time so they will still be able to before they become incapable. Euthanasia may give more time for the patient to be talked out of or accept other options for their terminal illness before their life is taken. There is more of a chance that a mistake will be made during PAS than there is for Euthanasia because the doctor will be there the whole time and assist the patient in death him or herself. Both will have the same outcome, they are just different options for the patient.

Since the turn of the 20th century, modern medicine has made significant advancements in treating the progression of disease. Diseases such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, and several cancers are easily managed in today’s medical community. Yet, just a century ago, those diseases would ensure a swift and unfortunate demise. Since the mid 1960s, the emergence of technological advancements and treatment modalities has increased the U.S. population’s life expectancy. Presently, life can be extended for years due to the development and use of ventilators, gastro-intestinal tubes, and hemodialysis in terminally ill patients. With of the spark medical innovation, an unanticipated dilemma has developed within the holds of modern medicine and the U.S.

When discussing the topic of Physician Assisted Suicide, a controversial issue is the debate of whether or not it should be legalized in every state in our county. Physician Assisted Suicide also known as (PAS), refers to the act of when a terminally ill patient requests a lethal dosage of medication intended to end his or her life. This medication will typically be provided by a licensed physician. I believe that people who do not have a chance for long term survival should have the right to decide if they want to continue living a painful life. However, there are some people that disagree and refer to Physician Assisted self-inflicted murder, otherwise known as "Suicide".

Most of the debate in the United States about assisted suicide laws stems from a split between conservative, liberal, prolife, and prochoice advocates (Behuniak 17). Current assisted suicide laws in the United States, according to the National Death with Dignity National Center, “allow mentally competent, terminally-ill adult state residents to voluntarily request and receive a prescription medication to hasten their death” (“Death with Dignity…”). Only three states currently have passed legislation which allows terminally ill patients to make the choice to end their life: Oregon, Washington, and Vermont. Of these three states, Oregon was the first to pass legislation with its 1997 Death with Dignity Act, thus setting the precedent and establishing a template for other states reviewing similar legislation (Sanburn). Advocates for assisted suicide laws believe that doctors have a