Physician Assisted Suicide And Voluntary Euthanasia, Legitimacy And Legality

Physician assisted suicide is not something new to the United States. Although practiced illegally in many states; Oregon, Washington and Montana have legalized the procedure. The question that is asked by many individuals is why is physician-assisted suicide so controversial? Although there are many reasons a person could promote or dismiss physician-assisted suicide, this report will only discuss three legal, ethical and spiritual. As stated previous currently only three states condone physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in the United States. One would surmise that because the three have passed such laws their constituents believe in the right to die. Polling was conducted by the fifty states regarding whether individuals would support PAS,

In any discussion of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) it is important to differentiate between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Although they may have similar goals, they differ in whether or not the physician participates in the action that finally ends life. In physician-assisted suicide the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act (e.g. the physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide). However, in euthanasia the physician performs the intervention themselves. Currently, just four states (Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana) allow physician-assisted suicide.

Life at one point has to end, and in circumstances maybe a little early. When you see life, you see a person who is happy with problems no bigger than bills and most of all healthy with a whole long life to live, but when you are terminally ill it may be a completely different point of view. When you are sick, you do not enjoy life, but wish for it to end; Why? You say, well you are not living your life when you are in pain. The pain is all you feel and it is way more sad when you know it is not going to end. Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide have given patients an opportunity to decide how they want to die and even an opportunity on how they want to be remembered. For this patients, there point of view is not of them quitting, it is of them feeling suffering and not wanting their children to remember the bad times instead of the good times when the patient was healthy. Physicians should help terminally ill patients die in peace if they decide to because they have the right to determine how to live and die and how they want to safeguard income and expenses.

Euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is described as the practice of purposefully ending the life of a sick person per their request. It is illegal in most countries and most, but not all, US states. The process and regulations to being granted the legal right to euthanasia varies in each area. There are many stipulations within the law to avoid abuse. Among other things, patients must be of sound mind and having been suffering for some time. PAS is extremely controversial for several reasons. Medical professionals argue whether or not it is ethical and if it abides by the Hippocratic oath. And religious persons

Abstract: Euthanasia and physician assisted-suicide are terms used to describe the process in which a doctor of a sick or disabled individual engages in an activity which directly or indirectly leads to their death. This behavior is engaged by the healthcare provider based on their humanistic desire to end suffering and pain. This is an act that defies the oath each doctor is under and should not be treated lightly, and very strict rules and guidelines should be enforced if an individual decides to take this route with his or her life.

The right to die act is referred to as physician-assisted suicide or human euthanasia. The concept allows a person to choose to end his or her own life with medication, prescribed by a physician. This act has recently been implemented into the State laws of Oregon, Washington, California, and most recently, Colorado. As a result, the topic of hman euthanasia has increasingly become an ethical dilemma. Supporting and opposing arguments have been stated, analyzed, and ridiculed without any resolution. The present paper is intended to give an overview of such arguments regarding human euthanasia, ethically and legally. In addition to the ethical dilemma, the importance of patient rights, advocacy, and sensitive nursing care is introduced.

In many countries, including the United States, active euthanasia, or physician-assisted suicide, raises public controversy with issues concerning morality, ethics and legality. Regardless of whether or not a person is in favor of, or opposed to active euthanasia, all people would agree that they would want a dignified death for themselves and their loved ones. The problem then starts when people cannot agree to the definition of “dignity”.

People have the freedom to make choices in life. However, the question posed is, do we have the freedom to choose death? Some say absolutely; we should have the freedom to decide how we spend our last days. If they’re filled with pain, debilitating, and cause hardship on loved ones, we should have the option to cease existence. Others take the view, we didn’t choose our birth, and therefore our death isn’t ours to choose. This causes debate on moral, ethical and legal grounds. This has led to defining the process under two separate terms for legal purposes. They are: euthanasia, and physician assisted suicide. Internationally, assisted suicide is a doctor prescribing drugs that end life. The patient is responsible for taking them. Euthanasia is the medication administered by doctors. Today, four countries have laws that allow euthanasia. (Ellis and Bronwyn) A few have laws for physician assisted suicide, and several countries have no laws against suicide. (Humphry) The United States of America have recently added a 5th state to offer assisted suicide. (California End of Life Option Act)

“Euthanasia is directly or indirectly bringing about the death of another person for that person’s sake; it is thought to provide a benefit or a good for the person by ending a life deemed no longer worth living-a situation that typically arises when someone has an incurable or terminal disease that causes great suffering or when someone experiences an irreversible loss of consciousness,” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 292). “Related to, but distinct from, active voluntary euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide-the killing of a person by the person’s own hand with the help of a physician,” (Vaughn, 2010, p. 293). In all states in America expect one it is illegal. There is a lot of controversy surrounding euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, from supporters of many different theories.

We believe all people should have the freedom to make choices in their life, however the question posed today is whether we have the freedom to choose our death. Some say absolutely. We should have the freedom to decide how we spend our last days. If they’re filled with pain, debilitation, and cause hardship on our loved ones, we should have the right to opt out. Others take the position that we didn’t choose our birth therefore our death isn’t ours to choose either. This has caused considerable debate as moral, ethical and legal ramifications come into the mix. This in turn has led to defining the process under two different terms for legal purposes. They are euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Internationally, assisted suicide is when a doctor prescribes a drug that ends life, but the patient is responsible for taking them. Euthanasia is defined by the doctor giving the dose to the patient himself. Today, four countries have laws that allow euthanasia. These would be Albania, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg. (1) A select few have laws for physician assisted suicide. There are many countries that have no laws against suicide, or turn a blind eye. (2) The United States has recently added a 5th state to offer “Death with Dignity,” (3) however, this too is a division of categories. The name was created to form a separation between suicide and choosing death in the event of a terminal diagnosis.

al., “The Practice of Euthanasia”). Similar to family members, it is difficult for the doctors to watch someone die of a terminal illness and experience him slowly lose his ability to do even the easiest of tasks. Terminally ill patients feel a great sense of hopelessness at the end of their life and may feel no desire to continue it. The physician who seeks to remove pain and suffering from patients would do what is in their power to aid these patients. When treatment is no longer an option, assisted suicide is a way for these physicians to help their patient one final time. In a study done by Emanuel and colleagues, 54% of physicians in the United States were in favor of legalizing physician-assisted suicide (Emanuel et. al., “Attitudes and Practices of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide”).

There is no bioethical issue with a longer philosophical lineage than voluntary euthanasia, and physician assisted suicide. For most of that time, due to the mediation through religious authorities and law, the treatment of suicide has been largely negative. Older traditions of folklore and philosophy exhibit an attitude of abhorrence and arguments that show any form of suicide as being inherently wrong. Brian Stofell argues how this notion is wrong and how suicide can be morally right in some cases such as voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.

When deciding the most righteous type of way to appropriately end a life of a love one, many thoughts come through as weather the practice of euthanasia is an ethically correct medical procedure. There are many decisions that must be made regarding how to properly treat a individual who want to end there own life. Controversial views have always been made against those who suggest that terminally ill or incurably suffering people should be allowed to ask for and receive help to die if they so wish. The same set of arguments in opposition toward euthanasia is, that life is sacred and by legalizing physician assisted suicide would lead to abuses by the medical field. A fundamental question concerning hastening the death of a terminally ill patient are, evaluating if this act is a virtue of kindness prompted by a sense of mercy and respect for an individual's wishes? If this is not a act of a moral virtue thought then, it is an act of murder and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. Some patients who decide that they wish to commit suicide are unable or unwilling to accomplish the act without assistance from their physician. Physician-assisted suicide helps them to die under conditions, and at the time, that they choose. PAS is currently legal only in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. In other states, terminally ill individuals who want to die must continue living until their body eventually collapses or until a family member or friend commits a criminal act by helping them to

Amongst the multitude of ethical dilemmas in health care the debate about voluntary or assisted euthanasia presents to be the most controversial. For over two thousand years it has been a banned medical practice. In modern days there are several states in the United States of America which have legalized Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). These states are: Oregon,

Physician assisted suicide should be legal on a state, federal, and universal measure. In this paper, I intend to deliver the meaning and examples of P.A.S, how it can be done, and also incorporate opposing and affirmative arguments pertaining this topic. Physician assisted suicide or euthanizing a