Physician Assisted Suicide Case Study

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.

According to Paul J. van der Wal et al. in ¨Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and Other Medical Practices Involving the End of Life in the Netherlands, 1990–1995¨, he addresses that assisted suicide should be legal and regulated. The authors’ purpose of writing this journal article is to make reliable estimates of euthanasia; to describe patients and physicians, and to evaluate changes between 1990 and 1995. Even though assisted suicide is a growing taboo, it is being practiced more each and every day. Paul J. van der Wal et al. chose to conduct two studies to answer their hypotheses.

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.

In the United States today, only several states legally recognize physician-assisted suicide as an option for families and terminally ill patients hoping to embrace a death with dignity. Although there is a growing movement to promote access to physician-assisted suicide, the topic is still widely regarded as taboo. As of 2016, the states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Colorado, New Jersey, and California are the only states to allow full and legal access to physician-assisted suicide. Alongside those states are Montana and New Mexico, which legally offer “aid in dying,” meaning the state allows for physicians to assist in alleviating the longevity of the dying process.

Petitioners in this case are the State of Washington and its Attorney General. Respondents Harold Glucksberg, Abigail Halperin, Thomas A. Preston, and Peter Shalit, are medical physicians who practice in the State of Washington, along with three gravely ill, pseudonymous plaintiffs who have since died and the non-profit organization that counsel people considering physician-assisted suicide, Compassion in Dying, sued in the United States District Court, seeking a declaration that Wash Rev. Code 9A.36.060(1) (1994) was unconstitutional. Washington vs. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). The Washington State statute provided a person was guilty of the felony of promoting a suicide attempt when the person knowingly caused or aided another person

There are instances when people who are terminally ill or severely injured who want to terminate their own lives. Sometimes, due to the state of their injuries or conditions, those people are unable to end their own pain. It is in many of these cases that the patients request assistance in their suicides. This kind of request is like to happen in facilities where the patient receives long term or permanent care. Physician assisted suicide is a hotly contested issue. There is support for those who believe this kind of "assistance" is morally, ethically, and otherwise wrong. There is support from people who believe that a person has a right to choose when his/her life ends. These people believe that physician assisted suicide is a form of altruistic assistance. There are valid points made by people on both sides of this issue and there is certainly room within the debate to be undecided or to be conflicted. Secondary, tertiary, and long term providers/facilities have the power to improve the preservation of life and they have the power to assist with the end of life. The paper presents arguments of this debate and reflects upon the issues at the surface as well as the underlying issues of the debate over physician assisted suicide.

Should physician-assisted suicide be legal? Physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. People should finally have the choice if they wanted to. It could relieve suffering and help whoever wants to die peacefully. It could help a lot of people in the world. 79% of people say that physician-assisted suicide be legal. However it should not be legalized.

Advances in medical treatments have raised the average life expectancy of people in Canada. However, it fails to guarantee a perfectly healthy life for people who experience incurable diseases. The rising interest in Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada, is an outcome of the desire of people to have a greater control over their lives in terms of their capacity to determine death when the patients are terminally ill.

The federal legalization of physician-assisted suicide is a conflict of ethics. This is one reason the problem has yet to be resolved. There are multiple sides to this argument. Some people want the government to mandate the legalization of physician-assisted suicide while others believe the practice to be morally unacceptable. Then there are those who do not have enough knowledge on the issue to have an opinion at all. This issue that needs to be brought to Americans’ attention sooner rather than later, because more Americans are being given the opportunity to vote on the topic.

The thing that kept Steven going was the thought that Jeffrey having cancer was going to be a mistake. During Jeffrey’s stay at the Philadelphia Children's hospital Steven was kept unnotified of how Jeffrey was doing. Apart of that he was getting no attention whatsoever from either of his parents. Steven felt forgotten and this brought anger. Through journals from Miss Palma’s class he wrote about how nobody had thought about how he was feeling about this situation. However when Jeffrey and his mother returned from Philadelphia Steven learned that the thoughts he had was wrong.

Physician assisted suicide has been a controversial topic all over the world for many years. In the article, “Physician-Assisted Suicide Betrays Human Dignity and Violates Equality Before the Law," author Ryan Anderson believes this choice goes against religious beliefs, that it is inhumane and makes the weak more vulnerable. Others, like author Patti Waldmeir, believe that this is a choice that should be offered to the ones suffering from a terminal illness, as stated in her article, "Oregon's right-to-die act tests reach of federal law over lethal drug doses." This is not a choice that is forced onto patients, it is just a final resort to the ones that cannot live another day in agony. Regardless

There are many differences between PAS and euthanasia, let 's take a look at some of them. Physician assisted suicide means that the physician makes lethal means available to the patient, that can be used when the patient chooses. PAS is also defined as a patient who died by performing the last act of suicide. Euthanasia would mean the physician takes an active role in carrying out the patient 's request. For the patient to receive PAS, they would have to take the medication when they are still capable of swallowing or able to inject a lethal dosage of medication into his or herself. For the patient to receive euthanasia, the doctor would have to be the direct cause of the patient 's death. Because the patient must be competent of killing his or herself for PAS, one of the fears is that the patient will feel the need to take their life at an unnecessary time so they will still be able to before they become incapable. Euthanasia may give more time for the patient to be talked out of or accept other options for their terminal illness before their life is taken. There is more of a chance that a mistake will be made during PAS than there is for Euthanasia because the doctor will be there the whole time and assist the patient in death him or herself. Both will have the same outcome, they are just different options for the patient.

There has been a lot of talk over euthanasia. Some people are unaware of the difference of passive and active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. This study will inform the readers of the differences and what is better for a patient and doctor to do. I believe that physician assisted suicide is the best moral option to go through in a case of a terminal illness.

Although it is almost self explanatory, being a procedure where an assistant or physician ends or terminates one's life, and a prescribed medication is given, can define an assisted suicide. Commonly, but not always, one is diagnosed with a disease or sickness that can no longer be dealt with. Refusing to take the natural path some believe God has planned for those who believe, but can no longer bear the pain, they come to the idea of assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide shall give people not only the right to be treated equally or the right to die in a healthy, and happier way but shall additionally give them the right to determine when and where they die.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, assisted suicide is “...suicide effected with the assistance of another person, especially the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for the purpose by a patient suffering from a terminal illness or incurable condition.” Assisted suicide for the terminally ill should be legalized in all fifty states, considering it gives the person control over their life, ends their family’s suffering and assures that the patient will have access over their unalienable rights.