Physician Assisted Suicide: Palliative Care

Thirty-six year old James Foster accompanied by his wife Megan signs his do-not-resuscitate order (DNR). Both Mr. Foster and his wife are understanding of what a do-not-resuscitate order is and are in agreeance. James has stage IV prostate cancer, but he is young and his wife believes he will pull through. A month passes, and early one morning James stops breathing, the patient is coding. Nurse Compton rushes in along with other medical professionals. Mrs. Foster is screaming, “Save him. Save him. Do whatever it takes to save him. Do not let him die.” Nurse Compton knows that Mr. Foster has a do-not-resuscitate order on file and feels not only sad in regards to the situational pain that Mrs. Foster is exhibiting, but morally conflicted with

The thing that kept Steven going was the thought that Jeffrey having cancer was going to be a mistake. During Jeffrey’s stay at the Philadelphia Children's hospital Steven was kept unnotified of how Jeffrey was doing. Apart of that he was getting no attention whatsoever from either of his parents. Steven felt forgotten and this brought anger. Through journals from Miss Palma’s class he wrote about how nobody had thought about how he was feeling about this situation. However when Jeffrey and his mother returned from Philadelphia Steven learned that the thoughts he had was wrong.

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.

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 homes across the world, millions of victims are suffering from fatal and terminal illnesses.With death knocking on their door, should these people have to endure pain and misery knowing what is to come? The answers to these questions are very controversial. Furthermore, there is a greater question to be answered—should these people have the right and option to end the relentless pain and agony through physician assisted death? Physician-Assisted Suicide PAS is highly contentious because it induces conflict of several moral and ethical questions such as who is the true director of our lives. Is suicide an individual choice and should the highest priority to humans be alleviating pain or do we suffer for a purpose? Is suicide a purely

Physician-Assisted Suicide is legalized in the following states: Oregon,California, Montana, Washington, Colorado, and Washington D.C. Oregon was the first state who legalized Physician-Assisted Suicide. “The very first annual report on the usage of the new Oregon Death with Dignity Act showed that 14 physicians prescribed medications under the law to 24 patients received prescriptions under the new law, of which 16 chose to take the medications. The patients’ median age of the patients was 69.”, (“MenuSite Navigation  Death with Dignity Act Annual Reports.” Oregon Health Authority : Death with Dignity Act Annual Reports : Death with Dignity Act : State of Oregon, www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ar-index.aspx.).

In our country the premise of physician assisted death conjures images of suicidal madmen, hell bent on death and mayhem. The reality is, that could not be farther from the truth. So why is there a stigma on assisting patients with taking their own life? Others look at this as a dignified means to those suffering a terrible fate. There are many issues that weight heavy on the difference between physician assisted and vs. natural death. Is it cruel to let a terminal ill patient who will suffer horrendously until nature take its course? Would it be more humane to allow a patient to pass peacefully without the suffering or enduring painful end? This report will examine physician assisted death

There are many differences between PAS and euthanasia, let 's take a look at some of them. Physician assisted suicide means that the physician makes lethal means available to the patient, that can be used when the patient chooses. PAS is also defined as a patient who died by performing the last act of suicide. Euthanasia would mean the physician takes an active role in carrying out the patient 's request. For the patient to receive PAS, they would have to take the medication when they are still capable of swallowing or able to inject a lethal dosage of medication into his or herself. For the patient to receive euthanasia, the doctor would have to be the direct cause of the patient 's death. Because the patient must be competent of killing his or herself for PAS, one of the fears is that the patient will feel the need to take their life at an unnecessary time so they will still be able to before they become incapable. Euthanasia may give more time for the patient to be talked out of or accept other options for their terminal illness before their life is taken. There is more of a chance that a mistake will be made during PAS than there is for Euthanasia because the doctor will be there the whole time and assist the patient in death him or herself. Both will have the same outcome, they are just different options for the patient.

Much of modern medicine prolongs not only living, but also dying. Physician-assisted suicide is a quite controversial topic as it brings up questions about the morality of killing, the credibility of consent, and the duty of physicians. This is not a new problem; assisted suicide has been discussed in all cultures from very early historical times to the present. However, medicine's recent technological progress has led to an increased ability to extend life. This new potential has made this problem much more pressing than it has in the past. I believe opposition to assisted suicide is in error not only because it does not allow for mercy, but also because the position does not take into account one's autonomy. I

Physician-assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics in the United States and other parts of the world today. Assisted death allows mentally proficient, terminally-ill adult patients to request access to life-ending medication from their physician. This type of assisted death is promoted by organizations such as the Death with Dignity National Center, who advocate for countrywide advances in end-of-life care and extended options for individuals near death. Although there are various arguments that state it is both immoral and unethical, physician-assisted suicide is a viable and honorable method to provide end-of-life options to the terminally-ill and to provide better support, relief, and comfort to dying patients. This topic

The debate over Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide is becoming more and more complicated as doctors develop a better understanding for its purpose and usefulness. Euthanasia is a Greek term meaning “good death” and it can be described as a killing of a patient who chooses to take this course in action by applying, administrating, and undergoing a procedure to end their life. Euthanasia is prescribed when a patient is in intense pain or suffering and is ready to end their life in a safe and logical way with the help of a doctor. It is a simple procedure with a choice of either drug administration or a lethal injection. The injection is much faster than the drugs, but both work in the same way. The significance of euthanasia is to be able

Many people have been faced with having to deal with hard truths of both life and death. One of these decisions that can be fronted to a person with a terminal illness may be what to do next. With what can be considered looming doom, one has to ingest the decisions of self, family and the pain that lies ahead. The debate over physician assisted suicide has been a long time argument wielding both positive and negative views exactly how a person should proceed once a decision has been made. Three questions are often asked in the attempt to argue the case for physician assisted suicide, that of legality, ethicalness, and morality. In the long run, the debate between the cause, effect and personal ideology that is social

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.

When discussing the topic of Physician Assisted Suicide, a controversial issue is the debate of whether or not it should be legalized in every state in our county. Physician Assisted Suicide also known as (PAS), refers to the act of when a terminally ill patient requests a lethal dosage of medication intended to end his or her life. This medication will typically be provided by a licensed physician. I believe that people who do not have a chance for long term survival should have the right to decide if they want to continue living a painful life. However, there are some people that disagree and refer to Physician Assisted self-inflicted murder, otherwise known as "Suicide".

Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.