Physician Assisted Suicide Study

Today’s advancements in technology allow people to live longer, or suffer longer depending on your view. This presents an increase of people who wish to just end their life if no more enjoyment can come from it. One way to do this is through physician-assisted suicide (Walker). A physician-assisted suicide is defined as when a doctor, knowing the intentions, supplies a patient who is suffering from a terminal illness, with the means to commit suicide (Brody). Oregon was the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide in the year 1997. Assisted suicide is now currently legal in only the five states that are Oregon, Montana, New Mexico, Vermont, and Washington (Walker). Thirty-six others states have specific laws in place that have been

Imagine you are confined to a hospital bed, unable to achieve basic tasks that include walking, eating, moving, and even breathing. Your death is inevitable, the pain you are experiencing is excruciating and unbearable. You are given approximately two months to live, but do not want to feel as though you have been defeated in the battle against the terminal disease that binds you with your death. With your doctor, you have been discussing the possible method of Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) to end your agonizing pain. Your family fully supports your decision.

In this study, “euthanasia was defined as an action in which a ‘medical doctor gives an overdose of medication to purposely end a patient’s life,’” and “physician assisted suicide was defined as an action in which ‘a medical doctor provides drugs and advice, so that a patient could commit suicide’” (Wilson et al., 2000). Seventy-three percent of the patients interviewed believed that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS)

The purpose of this argument is the involvement of a medical professional in the management of suicide or physician-assisted, rather than simply assisted, suicide. Assisted suicide is defined as “the act of killing oneself with the assistance. In physician-assisted suicide, the physician provides assistance” (Gupta). This may cause numerous ethical and moral issues. Some of these issues violates the doctor’s Hippocratic Oath; suicide is ruled wrong in multiple religions, and some say it degrades the value of human life. Although those are topics of much debate, what is better than seeing the end of a loved one’s suffering? What would be better than, in reality, being able to say good-bye to the one you love while he or she can, in fact, remember it? Assisted suicide should not be taken lightly, but it should be a viable option for the fatally diseased. With a substantial amount of testing and doctor recommendations, assisted suicide should be legal to those who are terminally ill that would like to end their

The patient has the liberty to chose death and is a right that is possess by an individual and the government cannot control it. Like mentioned above, most people think of the guideline that doctors should not do any harm, but most people do not think about the compassion that doctors should have. Being caring for a patient, is moral.

Whether or not a doctor should take the life of a patient whose suffering has become too great to live through is a question with seemingly no correct answer. There are simply too many variables at hand. What if the patient could have recovered? Is prolonging any life better than granting death? What degree of pain is too much pain to live with? Furthermore, should a doctor who has come to know their patient have to live with the idea that they have taken the life of someone they intended to save, and have potentially developed a relationship with in the process? Truly, a doctor’s view on mercy killing and their relationship with patients has a considerably large impact on whether or not that killing will take place. Two short stories, Selzer’s

On the medical side there is questions to be answered. Like, is it ethical to take someone 's life even when they asked you repeatedly? A doctor takes the Hippocratic Oath to best treat their patient 's life. The question is, should we release them from suffering or continue in trying to help the individual during their time on earth? In the article "A problem for the idea of involuntary euthanasia", Neil Campbell analyzes ethnic and moral question of involuntary, voluntary and furthermore the restraints of physician assisted suicide. Campbell believes involuntary euthanasia may not exist because, "When a person asks to die under such conditions there is good reason to think that the decision to die is compelled by the pain and hence not freely chosen" (Campbell, 242) Is that request what the patient wants, or is it to end the pain? Another point to examine is their quality of the person 's life. Has their life disintegrated to the

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said in the process of gaining our rightful place one must not be responsible for their wrongful deeds. In my opinion, it depends on the situation. Let's not forget Dr. Kevorkian’s involvement in the actions was considered murder at his hands even if it is the patient’s choice. Was Kevorkian a angel of mercy or Doctor Death? Another point is that who is to say that the treatment would be beneficial for the patient (to end the suffering)? Patients may convey a living will or a durable power of attorney for healthcare appointments or informally via discussions with significant others. Doctors may try to prolong life but are not gods. Physicians deciding the measures if they are appropriate are a matter for the independent inquiry. Is this the physician’s personal choice, control, dignity or respect? It may be overwhelming for the family and family members lack of knowledge about treatment options, limited access to health and legal professionals who assist in advance care planning, and often erroneous beliefs that such practices are unnecessary because family members intuitively understands and thus can convey the patient’s preferences at the end of life. In my opinion, taking a life whether is morally

The Oxford English Dictionary states that euthanasia is a gentle and easy death (Oxford English Dictionary). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, active euthanasia is the ending of a terminally ill person 's life by direct intervention, such as administering a lethal dose of painkilling drug (Oxford English Dictionary). While passive euthanasia according to the Oxford English Dictionary is the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment in the knowledge that the person concerned will die (Oxford English Dictionary). Len and Lesley Doyal, the co-authors of “ Why active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalized” suggest that active euthanasia should be legalized because it can end a patient’s suffering, there is not much of a difference between the passive and active euthanasia, and it gives the patient a choice. In the article,“Why active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalized”, Len and Lesley Doyal argue that active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legal in medical practices; I agree that active euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legalized because it gives the patient more options on when to end their life.

There are a number of different terms applied to the concepts of killing someone and letting someone die. Typically, these are: active and passive euthanasia and voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Active euthanasia, sometimes referred to as ‘positive’ euthanasia, involves a deliberate act, such as lethal injection, that brings about death to a person. On the other hand, passive or ‘negative’ euthanasia is conventionally said to be the omission of an act. For example, when a doctor

The field of medicine is continuously growing each and everyday. However, there are many terminal illnesses even the experts cannot cure yet. There are options for those living under these deadly conditions, including lifetime medications, palliative care and for those near the end of life, hospice. Among those forms of treatment, there is an alternative to relieve suffrage that some would much more prefer. This is the idea of physician-assisted suicide, which can also be referred to as active euthanasia or mercy killing. According to author of “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide” and part owner of Medical News Today and Market Business News, Christian Nordqvist, physician-assisted suicide refers to the intentional hastening of death by a terminally ill patient with assistance from a

I believe that the doctor’s decision to end the patient’s life was reasonable because the doctor’s treatments progressed to become futile. The doctor observed that the patient was still suffering after two doses of morphine. But I do believe the doctor should have received consent from the family and should have rested his thoughts, gave careful consideration and review before his injection to end her life. If the family had consent to end her life, there would not be a controversial issue regarding if his actions was legal or not. The way he ended her life also can be judged as homicide and goes against the Hippocratic oath of administering a lethal drug dose to the patient. He attempted to use all resources and knowledge to save the patient rather than have her experience misery in her remaining days of her

Over the past century, there has been a rise in assisted death cases throughout the world. The two main methods of assisted death are voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (Singer, 1993). Whereas voluntary euthanasia involves the active role of a physician in taking one’s life, physician-assisted suicide involves making lethal measures available to an individual so that they can take their own life. In reality, most people believe that voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are the same thing because of their similar natures. While this is a common thought, it is far from the

One of the major proponents of the lack of distinction between passive and active euthanasia is James Rachels. Rachels argues that “the bare difference between killing and letting die does not, in itself, make a moral difference” (Vaughn 651). I agree that because the action is different does not necessarily mean that the morality is different. Both of them are the same in that they are the intentionally killing someone. Letting a person die is often seen as a moral high ground because there is no action taken to bring about the death. However, in taking a person off of life support or

The idea of killing and letting die have moral and ethical issues. Letting die is seen as less morally wrong than killing someone. By letting someone die, a doctor would have done all they could to help the individual and are just making them more comfortable. Doing so means, the doctor has fulfilled their medical obligation to do all they can to cure and if that fails, do all they can to make life more bearable. Letting die is allowing life play out its