Physician Assisted Suicide And Voluntary Euthanasia

1. (problem – PAS): In today’s society, Physician Assisted Suicide is one of the most questionable and debatable issues. Many people feel that it is wrong for people to ask their doctor to help them end their life; while others feel it is their right to choose between the right to life and the right to death. “Suffering has always been a part of human existence.” (PAS) “Physicians have no similar duty to provide actions, such as assistance in suicide, simply because they have been requested by patients. In deciding how to respond to patients ' requests, physicians should use their judgment about the medical appropriateness of the request.” (Bernat, JL) Physician Assisted Suicide differs from withholding or discontinuing medical treatment, it consists of doctors providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication to aid in the use to end their life.

Physician-assisted suicide is “the voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life” (MedicineNet.com, 2004). Many times this ethical issue arises when a terminally-ill patient with and incurable illness, whom is given little time to live, usually less than six-months, has requested a physician’s assistance in terminating one’s life. This practice with the terminally ill is known as euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia is a controversial topic

Physician-assisted suicide can be described as the act of a terminally ill individual obtaining a lethal prescription in order to exercise their right to die with dignity. Though physician-assisted suicide is highly controversial, it is legally practiced in a small number of states within the United States. Much of the controversy surrounding physician-assisted suicide relates to the social, political, and ethical questions and considerations concerning the practice. Regardless

The promotion of physician assisted suicide has sparked a debate throughout the world. From my point of view, assisted suicide is doctors assist patients who could not endure the pain of diseases and are voluntarily given lethal amount of substances resulting in death. However, physician assisted suicide might be considered to be deviant in many countries currently due to the religions, laws and the negative image. Also, the physicians who assist their patients to suicide might be labelled as "killers". For instance, Jack Kevorkian, who was known for successfully assisting more than 130 patients to end their lives, was charged with second degree murder and was

Medical ethics and patient care go hand and hand. As health care providers, it is their duty to see that the patient 's needs are met. We are charged to insure comfort and proper recovery. The question here is whether there is a difference for patients who request voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide. These patients have the same rights to quality care of their bodies as we all do. Although, the United States constitution ensures us the right to life, it doesn 't mean that the right to die is taken away. Five states currently allow physician assisted suicide. In each state there has been controversial and contentious debate as to whether states should follow the lead of states that have allowed PAS.

This paper discusses why the U.S. should implement the availability of physician assisted suicide/death and voluntary euthanasia. It discusses countries that have this legally, how they do not abuse the fact, and the percentages of both physicians and patients that are affiliated with PAS/VE. It continues with the legal moral issues it has within the United States. It also touches on the majority of the opposing viewpoints and why they have no merit in stopping the allowance of PAS/VE in the states. The paper also discusses why PAS/VE are often requested by many patients that have debilitating diseases or syndromes.

Physician assisted suicide was brought to mainstream attention in the 1990’s due to Dr. Kevorkian’s “suicide machine," who claims to have assisted over 100 suicide deaths of terminally ill patients with Alzheimer’s disease (Dickinson, p. 8). In the early 1990’s, for the first time in United States history the issue was brought to the voting polls in California, Washington, and Oregon (Dickinson, p. 9). The bill was passed in Oregon; legally allowing physicians to facilitate death of the terminally ill, but voters fails to pass the bill in Washington and California (Dickinson, p. 9). In 2008 voters in Washington State passed the Washington Death with Dignity Act (Dickinson, p. 277). Today

Imagine sitting in the doctor’s office waiting to hear the results of a recent test that was done. The doctor comes into the room and breaks the news that you have a debilitating illness that will continue to progress quickly, eventually leaving you in a vegetative state. Knowing that there is no cure, and not many options for treatment, what would be the next step to consider? If you had the option to die, would you take it? Physician-assisted suicide remains a controversial topic in today’s society. With its political, social, and ethical issues, many questions arise on the topic of whether more states should legalize it or not. This paper will discuss the ethical, social, and political

Albert Camus once quoted, “But in the end, one needs more courage to live than to kill them self.” Today I will be discussing the topic of Euthanasia also known as “assisted suicide.” The word originated from the Greeks, meaning “good death”. Euthanasia refers to the ending of one’s life, primarily to end suffering and pain. Euthanasia is a controversial topic and generates many political and religious debates. Although euthanasia is illegal in Canada, in some jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and the American states of Washington, Oregon and Montana, euthanasia is a legal and common practice.

Ethics are the moral standard one holds to guide them through right and wrong. Yet not everyone believes the same things. One moral to one person may not be the same to another. What people use to determine those wrongs and rights are laws and set standards such as the US Constitution, however, there are grey areas that can be left to interpret whether something is right or wrong such as Euthanasia and DNRs. Euthanasia is doctor-assisted suicide used most often in the instances of older people unable to function in their daily lives and are susceptible to life ending situations (such as heart attacks). (2) While a DNR is an order given to medical personnel. DNR is an abbreviation for do not resuscitate. The use of this order is widely

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld court decisions in Washington and New York states that criminalized physician-assisted suicide on July 26, 1997.12 They found that the Constitution did not provide any “right to die,” however, they allowed individual states to govern whether or not they would prohibit or permit physician-assisted suicide. Without much intervention from the states individuals have used their right to refuse medical treatment resulting in controversial passive forms of euthanasia being used by patients to die with dignity such as choosing not to be resuscitated, stopping medication, drinking, or eating, or turning off respirators.9

The United States is a nation founded on freedoms and liberties, giving each citizen the ability to make their own life decisions. This freedom includes all aspects of one’s life, including medical care. With freedom comes responsibility, and this is true in terms of physician-assisted suicide. The ongoing struggle between those in favor and those opposed to this subject has ravaged the medical field, bringing into question what is morally and ethically right. The fact of the matter is that physician-assisted suicide is neither morally nor ethically acceptable under any circumstance. Not only is it a direct violation of a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath, but it is not constitutionally binding. Physician-assisted suicide would also lead to

Life and death is a controversial topic. To most, death is negative. Within life you laugh, smile, communicate and create new experiences both good and bad. It is a human right to be alive. Although, if people have a right to live they also have the right to die. Tragic things happen everyday because life has a very dark sense of humor. After certain experiences life becomes more like a continuous cycle of suffering than anything else. The laughs become riddled with pain and life becomes dull in the best moments. With strict restrictions, physician assisted suicide (also known as Physician Aid-in-Dying) will offer a more dignified and comfortable way for terminally-ill patients to end their suffering.

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)

This essay is a formal academic manuscript that was written to provide personal bias about the topic of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. More specifically the essay addresses the religious aspects of this topic and what role it plays in the conflict. I, the author, am applying to the nursing school at IVY Tech. The audience for this piece of writing will be other nursing students whom will also be involved in this complicated topic. These students will be enrolled in the IVY Tech Nursing program, in the next two years. There are many people will not be directly affected by this topic. Hopefully, this essay will provide an educated opinion for these nursing students. The goal is to persuade any of them to think or acknowledge this controversial topic. The goal is for students to focus on this relevant issue in their soon to be workplace before the conflict is front and center with one of their patients. Many people are brought up with one belief or the other. This essay provides one perspective on the this topic. It pushes the reader to ask him/herself questions, which they may not have done previously.