Physician Assisted Suicide Literature Review

Physician-assisted suicide should be legal nationwide. As a former hospital employee, I know first-hand that some diseases can cause so much disability and pain that patients want to end their lives because they have had enough. Something dear to me is personal autonomy, a right of all people. If the patient is competent and wants to end their life, and a health care provider is willing to humanely help end that patient's life, then physician-assisted suicide should be legal and be performed, per the individual's wishes.

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.

Physician-assisted suicide was first made legal in the state of Oregon. (Hendin) In cases of euthanasia, physicians often give lethal doses of a medication to terminate a patient’s life because they’re experiencing intolerable pain. Patients who wish to use the Death with Dignity law in Oregon must be eighteen or older, must be a resident of Oregon, and they must be able to make their own health care decisions. (Sharp 53) However, the law does not require the patient to be in unmanageable pain, they must just have a prognosis of less than six months to live. (Sharp 54) This law seems to be in place to kill patients more quickly to open up hospital space, instead of compassionately ending someone’s suffering.

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.

Finley, Ilora. “Personal View – Ilora Finley.” The Economist. 22 June 2015. Web. 21 Nov 2016.

Even if assisted suicide were to be permitted under some conditions, a second issue is whether physicians should ever participate in it. This is where the moral and ethical issues arise? Physicians may not want to have the burden of essentially killing a human being. A life is sacred and doctors avoid putting patients in severe pain. The law can get involved if a physician does administer this lethal dose of medication to their patient. For example, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was arrested for performing physician-assisted suicide on his patients. He clearly did not view assisted dying as an immoral type of procedure. “The site of most activity surrounding physician-assisted suicide is Michigan because Dr. Kevorkian practiced physician-assisted suicide there despite its illegal status. From 1990 to 1999, when he was convicted and imprisoned, Kevorkian assisted in more than 130 physician-assisted suicides” (Grosswald, 2002).

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.

Having the option to die with dignity requires many laws that need to be followed in order to go through with it. It is illegal for a physician to assist a patient with suicide without meeting all required criteria; if done, it could result in severe consequences. According to the Death with Dignity National Center, the patient must me 18 years or older, currently a resident or in the process of becoming one, capable of making and communicating health care decisions for themselves, and diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months (2015). If those criteria are met, the process cannot start right away and there is more that needs to be done. The patient needs to verbally request to the physician two times with a 15-day waiting period in between. A written request to the physician is then required and needs to be witnessed by two individuals who are not family members or primary caregivers, usually two other physicians. The patient is able to abrogate their requests at any time and must be able to self-administer their own medication (Death and Dignity National Center, 2015). These laws ensure that there is no chance that the patient is forced to hasten their death. If at any time in the process that the

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.

For those people who believe that physician-assisted suicide should be their choice, they feel it should be legalized because: they don't want to go through the suffering caused by the terminal illness, they fear the loss of independence, becoming a burden to their family and/or friends, and they also fear dying alone.

Ultimately physician assisted suicide goes against moral and ethical judgment that is placed within the “hands” of a practicing physician.

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 Death with Dignity Act, which was accepted by Oregon in 1977 has allowed 1,173 people to receive prescriptions and 752 people have used them to die from physician assistance (Egan 2015). These numbers are very important to consider. Allowing people to simply have the option to use the medicine to end their life, having it at their dispense, gives the patients the feeling that they have some control, and aren’t so helpless. These patients often feel like they have no control over their life anymore. The sickness is slowly killing them, and the option of physician-assisted suicide allows them to have control of one significant part of their life.