Physician Assisted Suicide/Dying

Who gets to make the choice whether someone lives or dies? If a person has the right to live, they certainly should be able to make the choice to end their own life. The law protects each and everyone’s right to live, but when a person tries to kill themselves more than likely they will end up in a Psychiatric unit. Today we hear more and more about the debate of Physician assisted suicide and where this topic stands morally and ethically. Webster 's dictionary defines Physician assisted suicide as, suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of the patient 's intent (Webster, 1977).

Physician-assisted suicide or PAS for short is one of the most controversial subjects we as a society discuss. Not only is it a controversial subject, but an ethical dilemma faced by patient and physicians alike. There are two types of terms associated with this type of death, physician-assisted suicide, and euthanasia. PAS is a term to describe a death where a physician prescribes a medication that is administered to the patient to assist in ending one’s life. As for

One of the most controversial end-of-life decisions is “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS). This method of suicide involves a physician providing a patient, at his or her own request, with a lethal dose of medication, which the patient self-administers. The ethical acceptability and the desirability of legalization of this practice both continue to cause controversy (Raus, Sterckx, Mortier 1). Vaco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg were landmark decisions on the issue of physician-assisted suicide and a supposed Constitutional right to commit suicide with another's assistance. In Washingotn v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was not unconstitutional.

Imagine a cancer patient on a short rode to death. The pain this patient is experiencing is unreal and unimaginable to most. The pain medicine that can be used does little to take the agony away. The doctors can put the patient in an induced coma, but what kind of living is that? It is not living. The patient does not want to go on. Is it so wrong to ask for a way out? With less than six months to live, the patient’s hope is gone. Many argue that euthanasia is not ethical, but is it really ethical to let someone live in constant, horrifying pain and agony? While in some cases having the right to die might result in patients giving up on life, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all fifty states for terminally ill patients with worsening or unbearable pain.

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.

Ezekiel Emanuel once said, “Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia have been profound ethical issues confronting doctors since the birth of Western medicine, more than 2,000 years ago.” Physician assisted suicide (PAS) should be available as a dignified option for the terminally ill because it can be built in to the palliative care plan formulated by patient and Doctor, may alleviate some medical costs for the incurable, and it’s a moderated and humane way to end a person’s suffering.

Physician assisted suicide has been a subject of much controversy in the field of healthcare. A physician’s decision to provide life ending drugs relies on whether or not this practice is legal in their state of residence, the patient’s competence, and whether or not they are suffering from a terminal illness. In a study conducted by Zenz, Tryba, and Zenz (2015), it was found that healthcare providers (physicians and nurses) would rather perform euthanasia on terminal patients over physician assisted suicide. Interestingly enough, this study also found that there is a more general acceptance of this practice than a willingness to perform

The topic I chose to write about is Physician-assisted suicide. My position on the topic is that I agree with physician-assisted suicide because it helps terminal ill people end their suffering faster than if they waited until the illness took their life away. Also, the terminal ill person decides that he/she wants to end his or hers life with a clear conscious knowing what is going to happen to them taking the physician-assisted suicide route to end their suffering. By the terminal ill person deciding that they want to end their life with physician-assisted suicide they are helping out their family. They help their family by reducing their pain that they feel and also by helping them financially because it is cheaper to end their life with

It is those ideas that get in mind, what life will be with that illness or disease having on your shoulder not knowing what to do. How to get away from that nightmare that has change not only physically, but mentally as well. Finding another way to stop this and not having to think the worst will happen. As to come with this most people with a terminal disease comes with a solution to end this without having to suffer with the pain that is taking away lives. One of the final solutions most do is the help of a doctor to take away the life of the patient known as physician assisted suicide. Unfortunately, people find this as a way to get away from the illness they have and giving up so the ill won’t have to suffer anymore. Even worse this not

This paper evaluates current arguments for and against physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in the United States using the legislature in Oregon as the primary example. This subject is extremely controversial and there are logical and emotional arguments for either side. PAS is currently only legal in Oregon, Washington State, Montana and Vermont. This issue is coming to the forefront of politics as medical technology advances. It is essential to analyze both sides of the argument in order to take a position on the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

Throughout the years, euthanasia has been a highly debated topic. Not only has the legality of euthanasia been debated, but also which forms of euthanasia will be used. One of the types of euthanasia has become legal in five states. This form of euthanasia is called Physician Assisted Suicide. Physician Assisted Suicide requires the doctor to provide the patient with the lethal drugs, but the patient must take them. Legalizing physician assisted suicide would change end of life care as we know it.

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.

People who support physician-assisted suicide as a rightful death are unaware of the amount pain a patient is undergoing; therefore they assume it is wrong for them to refuse their decision on how they want to end their lives. Doctors fulfill their patients’ planned death because they believe it is a merciful, ethical, and beneficent act. Patients have the right to decide whether to prolong their death or end it anticipated (Ersek). It seems wrong to take away a patient’s one and only wish and others need to have the decency towards the patient to respect their decision. In a way, doctors and loved ones are dictating the way the patient should live their lives. If the decision was up to anyone, it would be in the rightful hands of the patient.

What is the single common denominator that unites all of humanity? That every person will die. Death is a macabre subject, but it is a universal one that entangles itself within our lives. Even while living, death is omnipresent, and it has remained unchanged throughout the ages. What have changed are the definitions of death and its timeline. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek for ‘good death’. While that definition is rooted in etymologic studies and not open for interpretation, the very idea of a ‘good death’ is quite the opposite. What is a good death? Who determines ‘good’? And the question that is under much debate and discussion: Should anything be done to make it so? That, in the form of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), is one of the pressing topics that faces healthcare today. It is imperative that healthcare professionals, particularly nurses who bridge the divide between physicians and patients, are aware of this issue and its components.

Doctor assisted suicide is a topic that has recently become a much larger debated issue than before. A timeline put together by Michael Manning and Ian Dowbigging shows that prior to Christianity, doctor assisted suicide was something that was tolerated, and was not heavily questioned (2). Yet, in the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas had made a statement about suicide as well as doctor assisted suicide, and his words shaped the Catholic teaching on suicide into what they teach today. Beginning in the 17th century, Common Law tradition frowned upon suicide, as well as assisting in suicide, and the colonies had adopted the Common Law principles. (2) In 1828, New York passed a law completely outlawing the assistance of suicide, and made it to where whomever assisted in the suicide could be tried for murder. In 1976, California became the first state to allow patients to withdrawal themselves from life saving medicines, and this Natural Death Act was seen as a gateway to assisted suicide. (3-7) As controversy about California 's Natural Death Act increased, Pope John Paul II released a statement in 1980 which opposed to killing someone out of mercy, but allowed the increased use of painkillers (8). Although, in 1994 Oregon passed their Death with Dignity act, and with it came incredible amounts of backlash. Yet, in 2008 Washington state passed the same act to legalize doctor assisted suicide. (10-12)