Physician Assisted Suicide And Euthanasia Essay

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

Every day in the United States 1,500 people are diagnosed with a terminal illness. These people are given few options when determining if the wish to try treatment and if treatment does not work, how to deal with the end of their lives. (author unknown, “Cancer”) With this horrible future ahead of them many may wish to make amends before it’s too late, however, an increasing number of people are seeking an alternate solution. In states such as Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and soon California a relatively new, legal option is available for people with terminal illnesses. The states of Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana created a law which allows people with a terminal illness and less than six months that are mentally healthy seek professional medical help that will end their lives (Humphrey, Derek) . This topic has created heated debates across the United States with each side have clear and defined reason as to why or why not this controversial law should be processed for the whole country. The people who defend the law believe that people who are losing their lives should be able to leave this world on their own terms, and with the help of physicians they can go in a painless and mess-free way. Supporters also believe that by not wanting to the end it can help save patients, doctors, and insurance time and money that could be better spent on patients who may have options and may not be able to reach them without

****In this article nurses had raised some extended questions, “what is the nursing role in treating patients than physician-assisted suicide?” First, we need to define physician-assisted suicide “the provision to a patient by a medical health professional of the means of ending his or her own life” (Dilemma,2010). As we all know that the patient has the right to deny any kind of treatment at the patient’s proposal so we cannot view it as physician-assisted suicide but other than a respectful manner to the patient’s nobility and one’s own choice. Nurses encounter problems when caring for their terminally ill patient who request for a physician-assisted suicide. The Code of Ethics for Nurses, is a standard principle for nurses to abide by. When the end-of-life questions arises for nurses, “The Code of Ethics for Nurses” is to guide their practice so no

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.).

the problem is much more pressing than it has in the past, and both the

A policeman witnesses a man trapped underneath a burning truck. Desperate and in pain, the man asks the policeman to shoot him and save him the pain of dying a slow and insufferable death. As a result, he shoots. The policeman’s dilemma is commonly referenced in support of physician-assisted-suicide, or PAS. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are interchangeable terms which both lead to the death of an individual. Voluntary PAS is a medical professional, usually a physician, who provides medication or other procedures with the intention of ending the patient’s life. Voluntary PAS is the administration of medicine with the explicit consent from the patient. In terms of this paper, we focus on voluntary physician-assisted suicide in the

Currently, there exists two different kinds of euthanasia: passive and active.  Passive euthanasia is when a physician withholds life saving measures or lets a person die naturally.  For example, when a son decides to take his mother off a life-support machine and this leads to her death, it would be considered passive euthanasia.  On the other hand, active euthanasia occurs when a person causes the death of an individual who is terminally ill.  An instance of this is when an individual proceeds to give a dying patient a lethal injection.  Thus, physician assisted suicide is a form of active euthanasia where the physician is the person that facilitates the death of an individual.

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.

For hundreds of years a doctor was sworn into practice with the Oath of Hippocrates. Although in the present time parts of the oath have oath has come into question on how they should be interrupted. "To do no harm," the question is what does one consider harm? With our modern technology in medicine our medical community has the ability to prolong a person's life for quite awhile. So the question now is to prolong a person's life that is suffering or basically alive from life support harmful? Or is ending that person's suffering harmful? Death is just another part of life. We are born, we live and then we die. But who is the one that decides when, where and how we die?

     Assisted Suicide/ Euthanasia may also be seen as being unethical. The individual?s who lobby against assisted suicide always use the doctor?s oath that they have to preserve life as their first argument. While this may be true, they often leave out the part where they have a duty to act in the best interest of their patient. The activists also use individuals on Medicare, such as the elderly or poor as an argument. They feel that they may be pushed into assisted suicide because caring for them in a hospital would be too expensive and would just eat up government funds.

Assisted suicide brings a debate that involves professional, legal and ethical issues about the value of the liberty versus the value of life. However, before conceive an opinion about this topic is necessary know deeply its concept. Assisted suicide is known as the act of ending with the life of a terminal illness patients for end with their insupportable pain. Unlike euthanasia, the decision is not made by the doctor and their families, but by the patient. Therefore, doctors should be able to assist the suicide of their patients without being accused of committing a criminal offense. This conception is supported by three points of view. The first point defenses the autonomy of people, which covers the right of people to make decision

it be morally right to allow that person to suffer in pain in anguish through

Have you ever thought about what you would do if you became diagnosed with a terminal illness that changed your life completely? There are many choices in the world that one could make, such as seeking physician-assisted suicide or deciding to live with a terminal illness. It is not everyday a person sits around and think about what they would do if an illness became unbearable to them. One could agree with Diane Coleman’s article “Doctor-Assisted Suicide Should Not Be an Option” or one could agree with Kathryn Tucker’s article “People Should Be Allowed To Choose Doctor-Assisted Suicide.” To better understand the authors’ opposing positions concerning physician-assisted suicide, one must examine their differing views on the reasons for

Physician assisted suicide is the person takes the product themselves, this is self-willed and self-inflicted (Boudreau). Another term is euthanasia, and this is self-willed and other inflicted (Boudreau). There are four types of euthanasia. The first is active euthanasia, which is someone other than the patient committing the action to end someone’s life. Example is lethal injection. Then there is passive euthanasia, which is ending someone’s life by withholding treatment. Such as removing them from a ventilator or removing their feeding tube. Voluntary euthanasia is when a person makes their wishes know that they want to end their life. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when someone has no way of making a decision or can not make their decision know. Being in a long-term coma, or having suffered severe brain damage, is some reasons for non-voluntary euthanasia (BBC News).

Euthanasia which is sometimes referred to as mercy killing is defined as the act of intentionally ending a person's life so as to help relieve suffering or pain. Currently in the United States, euthanasia is legal only in 5 states. It is my opinion that euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legalized in all 50 states. However if it were to become legalized, I believe it should also be highly regulated. By regulated I mean steps should be in place to prevent abuse and ensure that a person suffering from a long term fatal disease is mentally capable of making such a decision on their own. Also the procedure should be medically monitored and carried out by a certified physician if possible. But in the case of a physician not being able to be present, the terminally ill person should have the right to have a family member assist them. Consequently, any individual who is suffering from a debilitating disease that is deemed terminal could be given the option to end their own lives. Further, physicians or family members who wanted to assist them to this end would not have to worry about being