Physician-Assisted Suicide Case Study

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 1981, in San Francisco, Chris Gardner (Will Smith) invests the family savings in medical scanners, which eventually financially breaks the family financially, bringing troubles to his relationship with his wife Linda (Thandie Newton). Their son Christopher (Jaden Smith) stays with Chris because he and his wife both know that he will be able to take better care of him. The misspelling of the word ‘happiness’ is obviously intentional. The mural outside of Christopher’s day care spelled it wrong everyday. Gardner pitched a fit about how he wanted it changed because it was just teaching the kids the wrong way of spelling it. The owner of the day care told him that it is not important to the kids how it is spelled. It is only important that

Although voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legalized, there needs to be though and a process, legally, medically, psychologically. Asking permission to die is legally illegal in most states, there are mixed views between physicians that do and do not agree with legalizing or participating in performing physician-assisted suicide. Psychologically, a therapist is an educated and knowledgeable source that will likely be able to determine if a patient is in their right state of mind, based on their drastic request. According to, “The Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide on Demand,” points out that the conflict appears to be between the high value placed on self-determination, autonomy, and the high regard for the sanctity of life” (Grosswald, 2002). It goes more in depth specifying additional issues that make legalizing physician-assisted suicide difficult to agree upon. Other issues include, “a well-founded fear in the United States that is providing assisted suicide, which might

Physician-Assisted Suicide is legal in only two places, Oregon and the Netherlands. Sadly, our home state is known for this. The moral argument of PAS still goes on today, but what is the Catholic Church’s view on all of this? The Catholic Church is completely against PAS and euthanasia, and a number of other related things which will be covered in the following paper.

I will be discussing the criteria needed to legalize physician-assisted suicide by applying different moral theories. My main argument is supported by care ethics, but I will also be using Utilitarian, Kantian and Disability ethics to support legalization. Provided that the patients are competent and fully informed, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in strict circumstances where life-ending treatments are the only or best way to care for a person.

Why are adults suffering from a terminal illness not allowed to choose to end their life on their terms? From debates arising since the early 1900s to today in modern society, only a total of six states have legalized death with dignity including Oregon, Colorado, Washington, Vermont, California, and Montana where it is only legalized through a Supreme Court ruling. The controversy of allowing the process or not arises from various perspectives; people against legalizing death with dignity argue that the process is against their morals and religious beliefs whereas people who want the process legalized argue that everyone should have the right to end their life on their own terms. By allowing physician-assisted suicide terminally ill patients

Contemplating euthanasia is to consider if a person’s life is worth living or ready for termination. Euthanasia should be considered in all aspects of the medical field because people should be in charge of their lives, what critics have stated, and the critical evaluation process when chosen. First off, euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. A person should reserve the right to terminate their life because no one can truly say how one feels unless being asked personally.

The investigators used a trained research nurse to be the interviewer that did not directly treat any of the patients previously. The approach was to interview terminally ill cancer patients versus most research studies that only considered a physician’s insight and perspective. This is a unique and interesting twist on one what undoubtedly has to be one of the most difficult situations anyone could encounter. The participants ranged across various cancer diagnosis’s, however, all were terminal. Having a personal interview versus completing only a survey going to create a better opportunity to truly feel the patient’s perspective or attitude towards euthanasia.

Physician-assisted suicide first became legalized in Australia’s Northern Territory on 1 July 1996 (Walker 21). It was later legalized in Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Quebec, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Vermont (Gulu 1). In Michigan, throughout the 1990s, Dr. Jack Kevorkian petitioned to legalize assisted suicide and help over one hundred and thirty people commit suicided in and eight year period (Schneider 1). Dr. Kevorkian was in prison for eight years for second degree murder (Schneider 1). According to Jack Lessenberry, “Jack Kevorkian, faults and all, was a major force for good in this society. He forced us to pay attention to one of the biggest elephants in society’s living room: the fact that today vast numbers of people are alive who would rather be dead, who have lives not worth living”(Schneider 2). Due to Dr. Kevorkian’s assistance in an Oregon schoolteachers death, Oregon passed its Death With Dignity Act (Schneider 2). On the 1 November 2014, Brittany Maynard took advantage of Oregon’s legality of physician-assisted suicide.

Living Proof, Miss Evers Boys, and You Don’t Know Jack are all movies based off of true events. These three movies all faced ethical and unethical events. Living Proof has to do with a compassionate research doctor that is trying to get a drug for breast cancer called Herceptin approved through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This Film has some unethical and ethical events take place like favoritism, the funding, and of course the process to get FDA approval. Miss Evers Boys had several unethical events occur during the Tuskegee study. This study was to see if black men had the same symptoms to syphilis as the white men did. In this film the providers lied to their patients, broke confidentiality, and misrepresented theirself. You Don’t Know Jack is a film about physician assisted suicide. Is it ethical to be able to end your life at any given point and time that you want? Should be allowed to legalized physician assisted suicide Jack is the physician in this movie that believes very strong in people being able to have the assistants of a physician to end their own life.

The proposed case of Susan Hutchinson is obviously a case of physician-assisted suicide. There are many different views of the moral standing of physician-assisted suicide. Many factors such as health, competency, knowledge, autonomy, etc., are considered when making rational moral decisions concerning physician-assisted suicide. The patient and physician must agree upon terms to justify the action of them permitting physician-assisted suicide.

Summary: On Wednesday, the California Assembly passed a bill that would allow those who are terminally ill to end their lives via physician-assisted suicide. The bill is now awaiting Senate approval. If the Senate approves the measure by Friday, then it will be sent to the governor to be signed into law. The Senate is expected to pass the bill, but some worry that Governor Jerry Brown will veto it due to his religious beliefs. The Senate passed the bill earlier this summer, but pressure from the Catholic Church prevented the legislation from making it out of the Assembly Health Committee. The bill was reintroduced during a special session of Congress last month. With this bill, California could become the fifth state to approve the controversial

Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is a situation in which a physician gives a patient medications that the patient can then self-administer in order to bring about death. The patient is a competent adult in these situations and has requested this service of the physician. The doctor does not cause the death of the patient; he/she only supplies the means. (American Nurses Association [ANA], 2013; Pasterfield, Lewis, Carter, Hodgson & Wilkinson, 2013). Nurses are not allowed to participate in PAS according to the position statement released by the American Nurses Association (ANA, 2013). This is the case even though studies, such as the one carried out by Smith, Goy, Harvath, and Ganzini (2011), show that the quality of death for patients receiving PAS are no worse than those who do not participate in PAS and family members actually rate the physician assisted deaths as better. According to Walker (2011), six ethical principles guide health care. Two of these principles, autonomy and beneficence, are particularly interesting when discussing PAS.

In August of 2000, a pregnant woman gave birth to conjoined twins, Jodie and Mary. They were given six months to live, however, if the doctors operated it would be possible to separate them and save Jodie's life but it would mean that Mary would die instantly. The parents argued that they wanted to leave both alive even if it meant killing both in the end, but the Hospital argued that it would be in their best interest to save Jodie and perform the operation. The hospital won the court case and operated successfully on them inevitably saving Jodie, but Mary died. The first side to the argument is that we should save as many people as possible, which in this case would mean sacrificing Mary so that Jodie might live instead of letting of letting

The patient is a 34 year old female who presented to the ED with increase depressive symptoms and SI since medication changed last week. Denies suicidal plan and reports having back pain for 2 months due to passing of kidney stones as well as upper jaw pain from tooth being pulled last week. Patient denies HI or symptoms of psychosis.