Physician Assisted Suicide And The Hippocratic Oath

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.

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

Abstract: This paper discusses the medical ethics of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). Focusing on the ideas of legal vs illegal, the different views of PAS will both be addressed. While active euthanasia is illegal, passive euthanasia, or allowing natural death, is completely legal everywhere. PAS will help patients end suffering for themselves at the end of their lives, as well as the family's. The price of the drug may be expensive but the price of medical treatments continues to rise. The Hippocratic Oath does not support the aid in ending a life, however it has been changed in the past. Many citizens are afraid that is PAS was considered legal, it would grow into something even more illegal being debated. Also, the religious aspect of the end of life had conflicting views as some believe PAS is ending suffering, a good deed, and other believe PAS is not respecting a human life. PAS is only legal in seven states but has gained the attention of many others and other places around the world.

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

Physician-assisted suicide or PAS for short is one of the most controversial subjects we as a society discuss. Not only is it a controversial subject, but an ethical dilemma faced by patient and physicians alike. There are two types of terms associated with this type of death, physician-assisted suicide, and euthanasia. PAS is a term to describe a death where a physician prescribes a medication that is administered to the patient to assist in ending one’s life. As for

Prior to the fifteenth century, early civilizations upheld the right of citizens to kill themselves rather than endlessly suffer. According to Friend (2011, p. 110), upon request, physicians often provided poison to their patients. Doctors of the Hippocratic School oft challenged the practice and acceptance of euthanasia, but

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial issues of the twenty-first century. Anyone can kill themselves, but what happens when one is not capable of physically doing so and at the same exact time is also terminally ill. When is it okay for a physician to use their medical expertise, and oblige with a incurably patient; to agree that one’s life is worth ending. Where is the line drawn? Legally, physician-assisted suicide is a criminal offense; you are after all killing another human. Morally, is it okay to watch someone die in agonizing pain and stand-by because God told us all too. This essay will explore and analyze the legal aspect of physician-assisted suicide, what does the law say. As well as, the moral implications of physician-assisted suicide, it is ever okay, and the consequences it will have on our society.

Physician assisted suicide is defined as a doctor intentionally killing a person by the administration of drugs, at that person’s voluntary and competent request. Research has been conducted in different countries to determine under what conditions this practice is acceptable. Most health care practitioners agree that this is only suitable when the patient in question is suffering from a terminal illness. This study is aimed to examine whether a physician’s responses would differ if physician assisted suicide became legal. A positive relationship is expected to be recorded between the numbers of “yes” responses if this practice was legal in the state of Texas.

For those that oppose Physician Assisted Suicide, their concerns are practical. An article from Newsweek points out that, when a doctor takes the Hippocratic Oath it proclaims, “I will keep the sick from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked

Physicians assisted suicide (PAS) refers to interventions by a doctor that either intentionally assist a patient to die (as in giving the patient the lethal means to end their own life at their explicit request), or directly ends a patient’s life (as in a lethal medication administered by a doctor at the explicit request of the patient – euthanasia). In recent years the debate over a patient’s possible right to the aid of a physician in committing suicide has become one of the most discussed issues in medical ethics. The argument for and against PAS is not something unique to this century. It has been going on since the time of the ancient Greeks. The Hippocratic Oath has been called the most widely known of Greek medical texts. It

It is understandable that some patients in extreme pressure such as those suffering from a terminal, painful illness may come to decide that they would rather die than live. However, allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer and would be difficult or impossible to control.

Thesis: When it comes to the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), some experts believe that an individual should have the option of ending their life in the event that they have been given six months to live with a terminal illness or when the quality of their life has been vastly changed. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question whether physician-assisted suicide is medically ethical, would be overly abused to the point where doctors might start killing patients without their consent. Whereas some experts are convinced that just improving palliative care would decrease the need for someone to want to end their life before it happened naturally.

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.

The Hippocratic Oath addresses the issue of abortion and physician assisted suicide. The Hippocratic Oath advocates the idea of not performing any procedures or treatments that are harmful and focus on benefitting the patients. With these premises, the Hippocratic Oath continues to extend these claims into the highly debated topics of abortion and physician assisted suicide. Because a physician must avoid harm and do good, a physician must not carry out abortions nor prescribe deadly medicine to patients that asked because in both cases, these actions are harmful to the patient. The Hippocratic Oath clearly shows a preference for beneficence and non-maleficence.

Doctor assisted suicide is a topic that has recently become a much larger debated issue than before. A timeline put together by Michael Manning and Ian Dowbigging shows that prior to Christianity, doctor assisted suicide was something that was tolerated, and was not heavily questioned (2). Yet, in the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas had made a statement about suicide as well as doctor assisted suicide, and his words shaped the Catholic teaching on suicide into what they teach today. Beginning in the 17th century, Common Law tradition frowned upon suicide, as well as assisting in suicide, and the colonies had adopted the Common Law principles. (2) In 1828, New York passed a law completely outlawing the assistance of suicide, and made it to where whomever assisted in the suicide could be tried for murder. In 1976, California became the first state to allow patients to withdrawal themselves from life saving medicines, and this Natural Death Act was seen as a gateway to assisted suicide. (3-7) As controversy about California 's Natural Death Act increased, Pope John Paul II released a statement in 1980 which opposed to killing someone out of mercy, but allowed the increased use of painkillers (8). Although, in 1994 Oregon passed their Death with Dignity act, and with it came incredible amounts of backlash. Yet, in 2008 Washington state passed the same act to legalize doctor assisted suicide. (10-12)