Physician Assisted Suicide Case Study

Physician assisted suicide or PAS is a controversial topic in the world today. But the important question is, should physician assisted suicides be allowed in cases such as: the patient’s suffering is far too great and there is no chance of them getting better? This is a highly debated issue, that has activist groups on both sides fighting for what they think is the right thing to do. Physician assisted suicides can stop the excruciating pain a patient is in, especially if there is nothing that can be done to stop the pain. Or it can be done for a patient that fully understands that there is nothing that can be done to save their life, so as not to put their loved ones into financial hardship. In this

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.

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 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.

In the ever changing role and dynamic atmosphere that healthcare provides, unique challenges and opportunities constantly arise which are a multi-faceted labyrinth of ethical and moral dilemma. One of the most contested and widely debated topics to be found in the healthcare workplace today is the subject of Assisted Suicide. Altering a person’s course of death into a process driven role, rather than the client’s final life event, creates a myriad of ethical and moral dilemmas.

Physician-Assisted suicide (PSA) is the voluntary termination of a life by prescription medication given by a doctor. Five states in the United States, including California, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Montana, have given the public the choice to end their lives with prescription medication. In Montana, the choice to end a person’s life is made through the court’s decision. In Oregon, the physician must also be willing to go through with the choices of the patient. The physician who is to give the medicine must be a licensed doctor of medicine. Those who want to end their lives must be terminally ill and have less than 6 months to live. Physician-Assisted suicide is often confused with euthanasia. The difference between the two is that PSA is the request and consent of an ill patient who knows how they would like to pass. Euthanasia is the intent of ending a life to relieve pain or suffering through mercy. Ill patients, who have 6 months or less to live, should be given the choice to end their lives how they would like to.

The healthcare system is complex with nearly every decision made posing an ethical dilemma for patients, providers, and healthcare leaders. With an influx of new medical knowledge from evidence based practices and new technologies more decisions are being made available to patients and families. Terminally ill patients for instance are faced with numerous options when it comes to treatment including whether or not they end their life by terminating treatment altogether or seek controversial options such as Physician’s Assisted Suicide. The topic of Physician’s Assisted Suicide or (PAS) is very intricate with numerous pros and cons, moral ethics, and ways to address the issue within the healthcare practice.

Recent decriminalization of Physician-Assisted Suicide has brought the subject back to the fore front of many professional nurses practice. There is little research involving the professional nurse and how often they are asked to be a resource to patients seeking this specific end of life care. The current standards of practice in states where Physician-Assisted Suicide leaves many questions in the professional nurses mind of what their role is in this type of care. There is a gap in the current education and resources available for the professional nurse to navigate this sensitive topic with confidence. The need to fill this gap in education

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.

Just imagine…the invitation arriving in the mail, it was no ordinary invite. The days of physical misery and suffering that lead up to this final celebration of life were unbearable to watch. Having a terminally ill family member is hard because you know the days, weeks and months are numbered. Quality of life, what is that anyway? Each passing hour has the quality of life diminishing to unimaginable physical pain and anguish. Watching someone you love slip away and turn into a shell of who they once were is unbearable. This invitation is special. This special day and every precious hour will give the loved ones a time to say goodbye just before they die with dignity in physician assisted suicide. Terminally ill patients have the right to end their own lives using physician assisted suicide (PAS) without repercussions of laws and people with opposing opinions.

Oregon, the first state to legalize PAS in 1997, passed the Death with Dignity Act (DWDA) which allowed patients to end their life by taking a lethal dose of a medication prescribed by a physician. In the article, “The Case for Physician Assisted Suicide: How Can It Possiblye Be Proven?,” the authors, E. Dahl and N. Levy, state that the proponents of PAS believe that there have been several reports of terminally ill patients abusing the DWDA which can be caused by mental illnesses or depression. Due to the possibility of physicians abusing the right to prescribe terminally ill patients lethal doses of a medication, many doubt whether physicians should play a large role in the process of PAS. In the article, “Should Psychiatrists Serve as

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.

The following case study addresses the care I provided to a patient who was brought in by ambulance to the emergency department after a gunshot wound.

The RCA (2011) published guidelines for nurses to use when faced with questions and requests regarding PAS. The RCA outlines that “nurses’ personal belief relating to assisted suicide are irrelevant. They shouldn’t judge patients for having such feelings. Nurses should explain to patients that they cannot do anything that will shorten life” (Robinson & Scott, 2012). Any request for PAS should be taken seriously and health care professionals must discuss the reasoning behind the request.