Physician Assisted Suicide Argumentative Essay

Death is inevitable, but do we ride it out until the bitter end or chose a quick and painless death? Many people are against the idea of physician-assisted suicide and others aren’t such as Faye Girish writer of the article “Should Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legalized?” Published in 1999 in Insight on the News, she argues that the legalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide will allow those who wish to die a peaceful way to do so. Faye establishes the building of her credibility with plausible facts and statistics, great emotional appeal, and personal sources. However, throughout the article several times she attempts to use pity to guilt people into agreeing with her argument, uses celebrities as sources, and doesn’t cite some of her sources questioning her credibility and finally, her argument.

When we are brought into this world that choice is made by someone else. Is it not only fair that, if the situation calls for it, we should have the choice to end our life? This brings up the big question, I know most of you thought of. Should physician assisted suicide be legalized? Some people argue that it shouldn’t and other people argue that it should. In the United States, committing suicide or attempting to commit suicide is not illegal; however, helping another person commit suicide is considered a criminal act. Physician assisted suicide occurs when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing the necessary means and information to enable the patient to perform the life-ending act. Physician assisted suicide occurs when a

Physician assisted suicide consists of a doctor intentionally providing a patient with the means to commit suicide. It continues to be a controversial issue that is facing our state’s legislatures and is presently legal in only four states including Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and just recently, California. Anna Gorman, an author for Kaiser Health News, published an article in USA Today titled “Disabled Right Advocates Fight Assisted Suicide Legislation.” Gorman’s article explains the dangers of a proposed legislation in California that would legalize prescriptions for terminally ill patients to end their lives. The bill was passed and will be effective for ten years. In her article, Gorman interviews four people who believe that physician

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

A physician must inform the patient of all their alternative options like hospice, inpatient care, pain control and comfort care before authorizing the prescription. Diagnoses and prognoses have to be discussed with the patient, and the physician must inform them of the risks involved with taking the fatal dose of medication and that they will die soon after it is consumed. The physician counsels the patient and requires them to inform their family of their final decision to die with dignity. Also discussed is the importance of having family present while consuming the medication, and the physician informs the patient they are not permitted to consume the fatal dose in a public area. The patient is not forced to take the medication and has the right to change their mind. At the end of the fifteen day waiting period before the medication can be prescribed the doctor offers the patient a chance to rescind the request, this can be done at any time and in any way (Oregon Health

"You have stage IV lung cancer that has metastasized to your lymph nodes and bones. Your prognosis is poor; you may have another 18 months left [to live]." The oncologist’s words marked the beginning of my ex-husband’s physical and emotional suffering until his untimely death in January 2017. Witnessing his unrelenting pain and watching him suffer from lung cancer and the horrible side effects of chemotherapy, I wondered why the doctors did not offer him any other alternatives other than living in progressive pain. Why would they let him suffer for the next 18 months with ineffective pain management treatment when his prognosis was so poor? This option should have been available to him, but due to state laws and

. The bill was shot down by more than half of the voters. Many have wondered why Michigan voters were so against this bill. In an article written by Yale Kamisar, he stated that, “the reason why the Michigan ballot went so wrong was not due to the terminally ill having the right to die, but people were questioning how it would work in a state where millions didn’t have health insurance, how it would affect family members and their dying loved one’s view on life, and one’s view on the quickness of their approaching death” (Kamisar, 1997). Another event that occurred in the Michigan that rocked voter’s views on the topic of physician-assisted suicide was the case of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Dr. Kevorkian is a well-known figure as he helped put assisted

Physician assisted suicide is a highly discussed topic in the medical world. Whether it should be legal or not is debated among medical professionals. There are multiple reasons someone may consider PAS (physician assisted suicide), but very few are actually granted the right to end their life with the help of a doctor. Physician assisted suicide, a well concerning and serious topic, is drastically debated in a vast amount of countries worldwide.

“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.

Another argument against physician assisted suicide is that it violates the oath that all doctors must take the, the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic oath, “specifically notes that the physician will give no deadly medicine”(Fuller 11). Just like any other document with mandating guidelines, there is room for interruption interpretations. If a physician is following the letter of the law, they would follow the literal interpretation of the words in the oath but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law( ##Spirt of the law idea## The over arching idea of the Hippocratic oath is to “do no harm”. In the award winning documentary, “ How to Die in Oregon” Dr. Katherine Morris sheds light on a new outlook on “do not harm”. The documentary

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

One often overlooked concern about physician assisted suicide is the role that the physician plays in it. Gert Helgesson, Anna Lindblad, Hans Thulesius and Niels Lyone conducted a survey in Sweden regarding the attitudes towards PAS in the general public and medical professionals. Surprisingly, the general public had more positives views compared to physicians. In fact, most nurses who care for terminal patients were less likely to be pro PAS (Lachman, 2010, p. 124). Many of the doctors’ concerns were that they themselves did not want to be the one administering the lethal drugs. Helgesson et al. writes that many physicians “think it should not be handled by physicians in the regular health-care system… because they do not want to do it themselves”

Suicide is not considered a crime but assisted or encouraged suicide is a crime is under the suicide act of 1961. Assisted suicide would violate this act that was enacted in 1961. It is argued that the suicide act is decades old, this still doesn’t define the fact that it should be changed. It has provided a stable law that we are under and required to follow because it is the best for us. Take the civil rights of 1964 for an example where discrimination was outlawed. Should it be modified in any way restricting certain gender, race, or religion from employment? It was an act that was enacted for the best of our society. Additionally, like the civil rights act the suicide act should not be modified in any way if it is what's best. It's been

Admittedly, many health care professionals are against assisted suicide due to different right to die laws in different areas. However, education can be provided by state government to educate their physicians on what the laws and policies on assisted suicide in their state include. Providers could be educated on the laws and policies of assisted suicide in their area as well what goes on in a procedure so they can get a better understanding of the certain choice of dying. In a study done in Canada where health care providers were interviewed on their responses to patients’ desire to control the dying process instead dying of natural death, it was found that “the nurses and physicians in this study did not prove to be particularly knowledgeable

Physician assisted suicide is requested by the terminally ill, typically when the pain from the illness is too much to handle and is not manageable through treatments or other medications. Assisted suicide is more of a broad term for helping someone die a good death, physician assisted suicide is where a medical doctor provides information and medication and the patient then administers the medications themselves. Euthanasia is also another term that is commonly heard, this refers to a medical doctor that voluntarily administers the lethal dose of medication to the patient when the patient requests it, due to not physically being able to do it themselves (Humphry, 2006). There pros and cons with this topic throughout the world, but is one of the biggest debated things here in the United States of America and to this day there are only five states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide (ProCon.org, 2015). The government should allow patients that are terminally ill the right to choose physician assisted suicide, why should they have to suffer when there is a way out.