Physician Assisted Suicide Or Euthanasia

It is said that helping somebody who wants to die in a peaceful, painless way should be legal. Choosing how we die is a basic human freedom and if an individual's quality of life is deteriorating, due to a terminal disease such as cancer, they should have the right to stop their suffering via physician assisted suicide. It might be the case that the drugs for assisted suicide are far less expensive than the cost of their current medical care. This allows the government to save money as well as the lift the financial burden from the family of patients who are suffering from serious illness. Some people say that physician assisted suicide decreases the value of human life, but this isn't the case as it actually helps those who are terminal retain their dignity and choose their own death.

According to the Fourteenth Amendment of The Constitution of The United States, the State cannot deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Indeed, a terminally ill patient has the Constitutional right to decide whether right or not to end his or her life. “Supporters of legislation legalizing assisted suicide claim that all persons have a moral right to choose freely what they will do with their lives as long as they inflict no harm on others. This right of free choice includes the right to end one 's life when we choose” (A Right or a Wrong?). People have the right to die with dignity and in a humane way. If they feel like they have to do a certain thing, it is

The Death with Dignity Act was first put into use in Oregon in 1997, and was used to insure terminally ill patients had the right to decide how much suffering they endure; not the government. Since then there have been similar acts passed in California, Vermont, and Washington. Death with Dignity laws allow terminally-ill patients, who are mentally competent, choose to take medication that quickens their death. Euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, is a very uncomfortable and very controversial topic, but it is one that needs to be discussed. The rights of the American people should include the discussion of dignity and what is considered torture or the infringement of basic human rights.

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.

Humans are given the right to life which states that “nobody should be arbitrarily deprived of their life.” Imagine being given your lifespan at birth, and a person that does not personally know you or your family told you how to spend those years. This is essentially what the government is doing by withholding and criminalizing patients of the resources with which to end their lives. If people have the right to life, that right should also include the right to control their quality of life; the right to life should not entail the life that has been chosen for the individual, but rather the life that the individual choses. Over 91 percent of patients said that losing autonomy was the reason that they chose physician assisted suicide, and 71 percent said that they wanted to die with dignity. The desire to increase autonomy among terminally ill individuals is one that is shared by Dr. Timothy Quill M.D., a palliative care specialist from the University of Rochester Medical Center: “Patients with serious illness wish to have control over their own bodies, their own lives, and concern about future physical and psychosocial distress. Some view potential access to physician-assisted death as the best option to address these concerns.” If we aim to promote freedom and autonomy of oneself, why then, should we deny people the right to choose when, and on what terms, they die? Supreme Court Justice William Brennan states that: "An ignoble end steeped in decay is abhorrent. A quiet, proud death, bodily integrity intact, is a matter of extreme

In 1776, our forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence, guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This brings up the question, if you have the right to life, do you have the right to death? After all, it is your life and no one else’s, right? This is the question at the very center of the controversial debate on the legalization of physician assisted suicide in the United States. Anti-physician assisted suicide groups often argue that no individual truly wants to end their life. However, that statement does not ring true to those who would actually utilize physician assisted suicide- terminally ill patients. Imagine being diagnosed with a terminal disease, followed by months and sometimes years of treatment that brings insufferable side effects due to countless medicines, drugs and surgeries only to be told that you have a minimal chance of survival and will have to undergo treatment for the rest of your life. This is the bleak reality for many who are terminally ill. A compassionate individual would conclude that it is not fair for patients to be forced to live this kind of life or lack thereof, if they do not wish to do so. Physician assisted suicide should be a legal option to competent, terminally ill patients in the United States in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital costs on their loved ones and families and to preserve the individual right of people to determine their

There have been attempts to challenge physician assisted suicide based off the Fourteenth amendment of the constitution and the Due Process Clause. Those in favor have argued that in not allowing people access to physician assisted suicide is a violation of the Due Process Clause which was heard during the case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health in which the Supreme Court ruled it was the patients right to refuse medical treatment, even if refusal would lead to death (Cruzan v. Director, MHD). The Supreme Court also heard the case of Washington v. Glucksberg in 1997 during which time there were four physicians arguing that Washington’s assisted suicide ban was unconstitutional because it violated the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause by placing undue burden of the liberty. The case was being arguing on behalf of four terminally ill patients. It was ruled by the Supreme Court at that time that assisted suicide is not a “right” under the fundamental liberties of the amendment (Washington v. Glucksberg). The Supreme Court also

The purpose of documents such as the constitution and the bill of rights were created to provide people with freedom and rights. In the United States for example, we are granted certain freedoms such as free speech and the right to bear arms. Legalizing Physician's Assisted Suicide is just another right that people should have so that they may have the freedom to make their own choice when facing death. While I feel that no one should be pressured into assisted dying, I also feel that no one should be categorically denied that right. The right to die should be a fundamental freedom for every person, as The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “No state shall make or encore any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities

“Death with dignity is a human right: to retain control until the very end and, if the quality of your life is too poor, to decide to end your suffering; the dignity comes from exercising the choice” 1 Have you ever had to watch a loved one suffer, with no chance of recovery? Cancer, and other fatal diseases take the lives of people we love every day. It’s hard to sit by and watch someone suffering when they are ready to let go. Think about an animal who is terminal and in pain, the only reason we would keep them alive would be based on our own selfishness. To keep a person alive when they are terminally ill and ready to let go is inhumane. For this reason, an adult suffering from a terminal illness should have say over their own destiny, and physician-assisted suicide should be legalized throughout the country.

Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is an extremely controversial concept that is strongly related to HPS concepts. Physician-assisted suicide is patient suicide facilitated by a doctor under patient’s consent. There is a large gray area surrounding this concept and there are many different arguments surrounding euthanasia. Due to the fact that the patient choses whether or not physician-assisted suicide is the correct choice, it should be considered as a legal treatment in more countries.

Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is a heavily debated topic; people have very strong opinions about whether or not people should have to right to die. People taking their own lives is something quite frowned upon in our society, usually those who commit suicide are depressed and need to seek help; people see this a simply being weak, taking the “coward’s way out.” Those who would benefit from PAS would be people with terminal illnesses who have no hope of getting better.

Euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide are similar but not exactly the same. Many people mistake them as synonyms, however, their meanings differ slightly. Euthanasia or rather a “mercy killing”, refers to when a patient is painlessly killed directly by the doctor, most commonly using a lethal injection, as a method to end their suffering. Doctor assisted suicide refers to when a doctor provides a way for the patient to kill themselves, likely using a prescription of some sort. It is most common in those who are either elderly, suffering from a terminal illness, an irreversible coma, or suffering from an incurable mental disability. Legalization of euthanasia would be significantly beneficial to patients who are suffering and need a last resort

What is the right to die, euthanasia or physician assisted suicide? Is there a difference? Should a patient be left to suffer and die? Is there a difference? There is no difference because whether it’s a merciful death, assisted death, natural or artificial death, the patient will eventually die. However, the right to die a much faster and painless death with dignity is wiser. The Improvements in medical technologies enable individuals to delay the inevitable fate of death, but there are patients within the United States who technology cannot delay their fate of death, such patients, terminally patients. These patients should have the right to choose death over life to end their intractable pain, but with dignity. Death with dignity has been

Euthanasia or voluntary assisted suicide is described as the relieving of pain or suffering. In many Country’s this is illegal, but there are a few that it is still legal to do in. As of June 2015, human euthanasia is legal only in the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia and Luxembourg. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, Japan, and Albania and in the US states of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico and Montana.

As American citizens, we are protected by individual liberties and the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is simple; it is to ensure that the American citizens are guaranteed a substantial number of personal freedoms. What if a person’s dying wish was to die on his or her own terms? Dying on peoples own terms, seems like it would be a constitutional freedom, but sadly, it is not. Image a loved one, a friend, or a family member struck with immeasurable pain faced with a terminal and intolerable illness. This patient would have to go through agonizing pain to fight a battle they cannot win, for the disease has already won. When faced with pain and death, neither the government, nor doctors should have a say other than the patients themselves when choosing to end their life. The decision or ‘the Right To Die’ is solely for that person to make. The decision to end one’s life should be a personal freedom.