Physician Assisted Suicide And The Rights Of Patients

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.

The word suicide gives many people negative feelings and is a socially taboo subject. However, suicide might be beneficial to terminally ill patients. Physician- assisted suicide has been one of the most controversial modern topics. Many wonder if it is morally correct to put a terminally ill patient out of their misery. Physicians should be able to meet the requests of their terminally ill patients. Unfortunately, a physician can be doing more harm by keeping someone alive instead of letting them die peacefully. For example, an assisted suicide can bring comfort to patients. These patients are in excruciating pain and will eventually perish. The government should not be involved in such a personal decision. A physician- assisted suicide comes with many benefits for the patient. If a person is terminally ill and wants a physician assisted suicide, then they should receive one.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle establishes that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” and explains this through the dialectic of disposition, particularly between vice and virtue. In chapter four, Aristotle affirms that since “all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good”, we inherently seek the highest form which is known to both the masses and the educated as happiness through both living and acting well . Thus regardless of whether man is inherently evil or good, we aspire for the highest form of happiness. Through the implications and discourse of vice and virtue, this paper explores the relevance of Aristotle’s moral philosophy in modern day and will be applied to the contemporary ethical issue surrounding physician assisted suicide. By exploring Aristotle’s work through primary and secondary sources, this paper will discuss the greater good and happiness as it relates to not only the patient or physician, but as a member of a greater social circle and that of society because to Aristotle the role of the individual is less important than their social obligations and role. This paper aims to use the rationale of natural law and of Aristotle to explore the prospects of physician assisted suicide as for the greater good and as a modern ethical obligation.

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).

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 a controversial moral issue that I feel should be allowed in all states not just a few. Right now there are only five states that have some type of death with dignity law; one which has some extra steps that need to be taken to be able to use the law. Over the last year there has been more media coverage on this topic because of a young woman named Brittany Maynard, who decided to tell her story with needing this option. The real question though should be do we have the right to tell someone that they do not deserve to have this choice?

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.

When dealing with Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) ethical dilemmas can come into place. Known as Euthanasia allows physicians to cause death to a terminally ill patient. There are many states that passed the law to allow PAS Oregon and Washington are just two of them. There are five total that allow PAS and they are Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Montana, and California. With Montana PAS is a court ruling meaning that you well must go to court and present your case. While, CA, OR, VT, and WA are legislation. You must be least eighteen. a resident of the state, and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within mouths. On October 27,1997 Oregon created the “Death with Dignity Act”. It allowed people who were terminally ill

If one is mentally examined and all other options have been offered to the patient and the patient is terminally ill than one should be allowed to end their life. By placing rules and regulations for physician assisted suicide one eliminates the slippery slope objections biggest worry, and actually protects and helps patients considering suicide to make a rational decision and not be pressured into ending their life to save money and loved one’s pain. With Rules in place people who are experiencing short lived pain, or emotionally trauma that one can overcome will not be eligible for physician assisted suicide (Dworkin, Nagel, Nozick, Rawls, and Thomson, et

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.

“A hospital bed is a parked taxi with the meter running” Groucho Marx. The argument that physician-assisted suicide would dampen the value of life can go both ways. How is life valued when a patient doesn’t have much life to live? For a patient to be eligible, as stated earlier, they must be diagnosed with a terminal illness and six or less months to live. So though assisting these patients’ results in dying a premature death, the question is how much value is there in these last months of their lives? Every patient is different, and some use their last 6 months to go and do the things they’ve always wanted to do. Unfortunately, not every terminally ill patient is mobile or capable of taking care of himself or herself. It should be the right of the patient to die with dignity rather than being forced to live in a withered away body. The question is what’s more important: quality or quantity? For some of these patients it’s much more comforting knowing they have the option not to suffer, they can live their last little bit full of life before losing control of their bodies.

Some people believe that physician assisted suicides are necessary. They are for it because it puts people out of their misery. That group of people would most likely come from the ones who wish to commit suicide upon themselves. They see it as a sign of relief for them, especially if they are suffering from any serious disease. Others could also want to do it because they are in deep depression. They also need help from a physician, which they believe would be more “safe” because they won't be physically hurting themselves. Also, some physicians believe that's the right thing to do because they are basically helping them get rid of the pain with drugs to commit suicide.

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

As American citizens, we are protected by individual liberties and the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is simple; it is to ensure that the American citizens are guaranteed a substantial number of personal freedoms. What if a person’s dying wish was to die on his or her own terms? Dying on peoples own terms, seems like it would be a constitutional freedom, but sadly, it is not. Image a loved one, a friend, or a family member struck with immeasurable pain faced with a terminal and intolerable illness. This patient would have to go through agonizing pain to fight a battle they cannot win, for the disease has already won. When faced with pain and death, neither the government, nor doctors should have a say other than the patients themselves when choosing to end their life. The decision or ‘the Right To Die’ is solely for that person to make. The decision to end one’s life should be a personal freedom.