Physician Assisted Suicide Issues

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).

According to Mirror News, In October of 2014 a women named Charlotte Fitzmaurice Wise was watching her daughter Nancy Fitzmaurice suffer from pain. She was born with Hydrocephalus and septicaemia which made it impossible for her to walk, talk, eat or drink. She required around the clock care and was fed through tubes. As time went on her health worsened and she would scream in pain even though she was injected with morphine. Wise believed that her daughter was in excruciating pain and deserved to be at peace. Wise submitted an application to end her daughter’s misery, and soon her application would be approved. She was able to relieve her daughter from pain, and made it legal in the United Kingdom for a parent to end their critically ill child’s life if they are disable and can’t speak for themselves.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle establishes that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” and explains this through the dialectic of disposition, particularly between vice and virtue. In chapter four, Aristotle affirms that since “all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good”, we inherently seek the highest form which is known to both the masses and the educated as happiness through both living and acting well . Thus regardless of whether man is inherently evil or good, we aspire for the highest form of happiness. Through the implications and discourse of vice and virtue, this paper explores the relevance of Aristotle’s moral philosophy in modern day and will be applied to the contemporary ethical issue surrounding physician assisted suicide. By exploring Aristotle’s work through primary and secondary sources, this paper will discuss the greater good and happiness as it relates to not only the patient or physician, but as a member of a greater social circle and that of society because to Aristotle the role of the individual is less important than their social obligations and role. This paper aims to use the rationale of natural law and of Aristotle to explore the prospects of physician assisted suicide as for the greater good and as a modern ethical obligation.

Did you know, about 57% of physicians today have received a request for physician assisted suicide due to suffering from a terminally ill patient. Suffering has always been a part of human existence, and these requests have been occurring since medicine has been around. Moreover, there are two principles that all organized medicine agree upon. The first one is physicians have a responsibility to relieve pain and suffering of dying patients in their care. The second one is physicians must respect patients’ competent decisions to decline life-sustaining treatment. Basically, these principles state the patients over the age of 18 that are mentally stable have the right to choose to end their life if they are suffering from pain. As of right

Imagine suffering day to day with consistent hospital visits, numerous medications, and unbearable pain for the next six months of your life, then being told that dying peacefully is not a granted privilege. Then imagine not being able to die in a controlled and dignified process like you prefer to. How would that affect the way you feel about death and the rest of your life you have left? Millions of people suffering from terminal illnesses consider physician-assisted suicide, but their wishes are rejected due to state and government beliefs. In fact, only five states out of fifty have a law permitting citizens the right to participate in physician-assisted suicide. That leaves just only 10% of the United States entitling critically ill patients to die with nobility. However, many citizens are commencing to lean toward physician-assisted suicides once they ascertain they hold a terminal illness.

Physician-assisted suicide needs to be recognized by the federal government to show terminally ill patients that their right to autonomy is not being ignored. The Bill of Rights of Patients was constructed to outline just this. According to the American Cancer Society, “the American Hospital Association drafted a Patients’ Bill of Rights to inform patients of what they could reasonably expect while in the hospital.” One of the notes stated in the Bill of Rights of Patients is the right to autonomy. The right to autonomy specifically states that “patients have the right and ability to make their own choices and decisions about [the] medical care and treatment that they receive” (US Legal). If this right to autonomy is ignored what rights do terminally ill patients have? The answer is little to none. Physician-assisted suicide and the right to autonomy go hand in hand. The more knowledge that people have, the greater their ability to make educated and insightful decisions about the medical choices that are accessible to them and their families. Physician- assisted suicide should be like any other treatment someone can ask for, and the right to autonomy protects this doctor-patient agreement.

In an article describing the end of patient’s lives and what physician-assisted suicide would mean to patients, the writers stated that “[p]atients nearing the end of life want control over their bodies and their lives as a ‘small measure of self preservation,’ they noted” (Alexi, Block Wright). The knowledge that you hold and control your life and everything it stands for in the palm of your hands is a goal that everyone seeks in some point in their lives. For instance, many consider control over one’s death a sign of self-fulfillment and the ultimate happiness. Physician-assisted suicide would give terminally ill patients, people whose bodies are giving out on them, a chance to reach contentment and peace. Furthermore, the lethal dose that ends the patient’s life symbolizes the start of a happier era in which their troubles end with them. Also, the ability to pursue happiness as long as it is not impeding on anyone else’s life is a right that comes with citizenship in the U.S. Another article that illustrates the right to physician-assisted suicide states that “[as] medical science progresses and new methods become available for keeping people alive longer, a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment should be protected” (DiLascio, Pawlick). DiLascio and Pawlick are stating that patients should have the right to physician-assisted

When dealing with Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) ethical dilemmas can come into place. Known as Euthanasia allows physicians to cause death to a terminally ill patient. There are many states that passed the law to allow PAS Oregon and Washington are just two of them. There are five total that allow PAS and they are Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Montana, and California. With Montana PAS is a court ruling meaning that you well must go to court and present your case. While, CA, OR, VT, and WA are legislation. You must be least eighteen. a resident of the state, and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within mouths. On October 27,1997 Oregon created the “Death with Dignity Act”. It allowed people who were terminally ill

The moral and ethical aspects of physician-assisted suicide are important ones that shouldn’t be overlooked.  In virtually all cases of assisted suicide the pain and suffering experienced by the patient is unrelievable.  Although it is important to go to great lengths to try and ease the suffering through traditional medicine, often times it’s just not enough.  When the traditional approach fails sometimes more drastic approaches are necessary.  One such measure that has come to be highly controversial in this decade is physician-assisted suicide.  This form of suicide is hotly debated because it isn’t just a mere suicide, but a planned out social contract between two or more people.  The basis for my argument for assisted suicide rests in the values of individual self-determination or autonomy and individual well-being.  Self-determination is central to the issue because a person should be able to choose how to live their life or in this case, how to die.

The main argument in support of Physician assisted Suicide is that every competent individual has the right to decide on the manner in which to live life. That autonomy should also be extended to persons suffering from terminal conditions and therefore should control the timing and the manner of death they wish to face (Hawkins, 2002). Every person has the option to live quality life and avert any suffering and pain and be allowed to do in a dignified manner. Thus terminally ill patient should allowed to die in dignity without the need to face any anguish and that this autonomy must not be taken away from them.

This argumentative essay discusses physician-assisted suicide. Based on the incredible amounts of restrictions, many patients do not qualify for assisted dying –

This report investigates the autonomy and independence that the United States of America’s nation has been established upon, involving the capability of patients making their own decisions. The ethical issue that will be largely discussed is physician-assisted suicide. Do you think it should it be legal in all 50 states or should it be ethically unheard of and illegal throughout the nation? There will be discussions of a specific case involving this issue, where the debate originated, and an analysis of ideological standpoints for both those who are for physician-assisted suicide becoming legal and others who are against the concept. Also, there will be a proposal with an alternative of how to create a more appealing option for these patients

Physician assisted suicide, the suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose. The question of whether or not this practice should be made legal in the United States has been one of controversy since 1997. Beginning with the case of Washington v. Glucksberg, where the United States Supreme Court ruled that the matter of the constitutionality of a right to a physician’s aid in dying, was best left up to the states. Then gaining even more controversy when Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, which allowed terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives by the practice of physician assisted suicide. (CNN.com) Proponents of physician assisted suicide

Assisted suicide, or physician assisted death, has been one of the most, if not the most, controversial topic(s) over the past 10-15 years. Debates and arguments have been ongoing about the right do die with the help of a physician or any other medically certified doctor capable of helping with the death of one. Should a person die because pain was given for a reason, or should one be able to medically end that pain and die if they choose? Ethically and morally, some people are against the idea of assisted death strictly because of religious conflictions. Physicians are torn between this topic. “Physicians differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying—and killing” (Lonestar: The Right to Assisted Suicide). The purpose of this paper will be to explain the reasons for why assisted suicide should ultimately be the person’s choice.

One of the most burdensome aspects of working in the medical field, specifically as a nurse, is the loss of a patient. Similarly, watching a patient who has been diagnosed with a terminal disease struggle with their upcoming death is wearisome. Suffering in the hospital, their life is not of quality and their family is watching them struggle. Highly debated, physician assisted suicide has been named one of the options for terminally ill patients. Physician assisted suicide occurs when a terminally ill patient makes the decision that they would prefer to die, rather than suffer the rest of their life; then a physician can assist them in death by either administering euthanasia to the patient or prescribing the drug to the patient. There are currently, according to Death With Dignity, six states that have legalized physician assisted suicide: California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington (“Death With Dignity Acts”). While physician assisted suicide is not widely supported, lawmakers should work towards the removal of bans in many locations of physician assisted suicide and towards legalizing; it violates no federal law, end of life care isn’t efficient enough to eliminate mental suffering, animals are euthanized for the same reasons, and it ends the patient’s suffering.