Physician Assisted Suicide : A Right Of The People

Physician Assisted Suicide Is it Right or Wrong? The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial, as it ranks right up there with abortion. Some argue physician assisted suicide is ethically permissible for a dying person who has choosing to escape the unbearable suffering at the end of life. Furthermore, it is the physician’s duty to alleviate the patients suffering, which at times justifies providing aid-in -dying. These arguments rely a great deal on the respect for individual autonomy, which recognizes the rights of competent people to choose the timing and manner of their death, when faced with terminal illness.

It is said that helping somebody who wants to die in a peaceful, painless way should be legal. Choosing how we die is a basic human freedom and if an individual's quality of life is deteriorating, due to a terminal disease such as cancer, they should have the right to stop their suffering via physician assisted suicide. It might be the case that the drugs for assisted suicide are far less expensive than the cost of their current medical care. This allows the government to save money as well as the lift the financial burden from the family of patients who are suffering from serious illness. Some people say that physician assisted suicide decreases the value of human life, but this isn't the case as it actually helps those who are terminal retain their dignity and choose their own death.

Physician Assisted Suicide, the practice of allowing a physician to aid their patient in committing suicide, is ethically wrong. It is stated clearly in the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” This part of the Hippocratic Oath proves that doctors should not aid their patients in suicide because that would have a negative effect on the patient’s health. Rather, they should do whatever is in their power to find another solution to their patient’s problem. In this oath, the doctor swears to attempt to cure their patients of their medical problems, this does not include ending their patient’s life to solve the problem. Breaking an oath

Physician assisted suicide (PAS) has been debated for many years now. Is physician assisted suicide right or is it wrong? Many people have very different views about this issue. Some supporters feel that people should have the moral right to choose freely what they will do with their lives as long as they do not harm others. This right of free choice includes the right to end one's life when they choose. While you have some supporters who oppose any measures of permitting physician assisted suicide argue that physicians have a moral duty to preserve all life. To allow physicians to assist in destroying someone’s life violates the Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm." Opponents of physician-assisted suicide also believe that better pain management

Who gets to make the choice whether someone lives or dies? If a person has the right to live, they certainly should be able to make the choice to end their own life. The law protects each and everyone’s right to live, but when a person tries to kill themselves more than likely they will end up in a Psychiatric unit. Today we hear more and more about the debate of Physician assisted suicide and where this topic stands morally and ethically. Webster 's dictionary defines Physician assisted suicide as, suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of the patient 's intent (Webster, 1977).

Physician assisted suicide is not something that anyone can use, it is for terminally ill patients only. Some state’s death with dignity law makes it so that you have to be terminally ill and receive permission from a judge before acting on the law. If there are regulations as to who can use it and how to be able to use it, I believe this would be a great thing for many people. It would end the suffering of the terminally ill and picking when they would die would allow their family to know when it would happen so they could say their goodbyes. It would also allow for everyone to come together and be supportive of one another, not have family or friends in different areas just hoping to get there in time to say goodbye.

People have been questioning the ethics of physician assisted suicide since the late 18th century. According to medicinenet the definition of physician assisted suicide is “the voluntary termination of one 's own life by administrating a lethal substance with the direct assistance of a physician.” This would typically come into play if/when a critically ill patient wants to end their suffering. Confirming with the State-by-State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide, 5 states have

Physician-assisted suicide is controversial in healthcare and political realms alike. Currently, this end-of-life option is practiced in five states within the United States. Social concerns regarding assisted suicide revolve around ethical quandaries; providing the means to a patient’s death is contradictory to ethical principles of healthcare providers. Political concerns surrounding the legalization of assisted suicide include disparities in healthcare that may lead to certain populations choosing assisted suicide and the stagnation of current care options. While there is no succinct manner in which to declare assisted suicide right or wrong, each individual must address the social and political concerns surrounding the issue when voting for legislation to legalize assisted suicide or pursuing the option for themselves.

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial subjects to discuss or read about within our society. This paper will examine both sides of this discussion, from the aspect of the patient choosing to end their own life based on the quality of their remaining life. Also, the religious factors of the medical staff involved and the moral and ethical duty of the doctors to preserve the life of the patient if there are still means available.

In today’s society, suicide, and more controversially, physician assisted suicide, is a hotly debated topic amongst both every day citizens and members of the medical community. The controversial nature of the subject opens up the conversation to scrutinizing the ethics involved. Who can draw the line between morality and immorality on such a delicate subject, between lessening the suffering of a loved one and murder? Is there a moral dissimilarity between letting someone die under your care and killing them? Assuming that PAS suicide is legal under certain circumstances, how stringent need be these circumstances? The patient must be terminally ill to qualify for voluntary physician-assisted suicide, but in the eyes of the non-terminal patients with no physical means to end their life, the ending of their pain through PAS may be worth their death; at what point is the medical staff disregarding a patient’s autonomy? Due to the variability of answers to these questions, the debate over physician-assisted suicide is far from over. However, real life occurrences happen every day outside the realm of debate and rhetoric, and decisions need to be made.

Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.

Is physician assisted suicide morally right? This has been a controversial subject for some time now. People are wondering whether or not it is the most humane thing to do. If dogs can be putdown, why not people? The reason is in that question. They are people. Every life is important, no matter how long it may be. Instead of finding a way to get rid of people faster, the government could put those efforts in something more positive. If other people are considering whether or not the patients’ life is valuable, the patient could question it as well. Physician assisted suicide will put pressure on terminally ill people to die more quickly because it’s cheaper and because the patients may have low self-esteem.

There are a few different forms of physician-assisted death, such as active, passive, and assisted suicide. To some people they may mean the same thing but in reality, they are quite different. Active euthanasia is when a physician physically injects the patient with a drug that ends their live or in some way is the direct result of the patient’s death. Passive euthanasia is the result of something taken away from the patient that results in their death, such as removing a breathing tube or stopping treatment. Physician assisted suicide is the result of lethal medication given to the patient for them to take on their own time when they are ready to end their life. Some people see these different forms as being the same while others see them as being different. There are four ethical principles that become involved in conflict with these forms of euthanasia. These principles are beneficence, autonomy, non-maleficence, and justice, which act against each other sometimes in the cases of euthanasia. Beneficence is the duty of the physician to have the welfare of the patient is their first concern. This principle sometime goes against euthanasia because of the fact the physicians are stopping treatment, which results in the death of the patient. Many argue this act is the result of not thinking of the patient’s welfare. Another principle is autonomy, according to Steve Pantilat, “Autonomous individuals act intentionally, with understanding, and without controlling influences”

Physician assisted suicide, the suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose. The question of whether or not this practice should be made legal in the United States has been one of controversy since 1997. Beginning with the case of Washington v. Glucksberg, where the United States Supreme Court ruled that the matter of the constitutionality of a right to a physician’s aid in dying, was best left up to the states. Then gaining even more controversy when Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, which allowed terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives by the practice of physician assisted suicide. (CNN.com) Proponents of physician assisted suicide

It is immoral to kill people just to relieve their pain. Pain is temporary which will soon go away while death is permanent. No people can come back after they passed away. So taking permanent decision in a temporary painful situation is a foolish act. It is immoral to intentionally end someone’s life in order to relieve his/her pain. It is not just medical ethical problem; it also has psychological, emotional, religious and legal issues.