Physician Assisted Suicide Vs Euthanasia Research Paper

Abstract: This paper discusses the medical ethics of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). Focusing on the ideas of legal vs illegal, the different views of PAS will both be addressed. While active euthanasia is illegal, passive euthanasia, or allowing natural death, is completely legal everywhere. PAS will help patients end suffering for themselves at the end of their lives, as well as the family's. The price of the drug may be expensive but the price of medical treatments continues to rise. The Hippocratic Oath does not support the aid in ending a life, however it has been changed in the past. Many citizens are afraid that is PAS was considered legal, it would grow into something even more illegal being debated. Also, the religious aspect of the end of life had conflicting views as some believe PAS is ending suffering, a good deed, and other believe PAS is not respecting a human life. PAS is only legal in seven states but has gained the attention of many others and other places around the world.

Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.

Physician-assisted suicide devalues human life. First, PAS is against the laws of something called nature. Second, PAS debate is not new today. It had been debated long time ago in the world before World War Two. According to 30 Logical Reasons Against Assisted Suicide: “The first Nazi victims were terminally ill people.” They were called “useless eaters” (Clair). Those who are terminally ill are looked down upon and considered as a great burden on society, therefore there was no reason for them to live. It is also not right with the long-term illness wishes to terminate their life as soon as possible. Not long ago, near where I lived there was with a man serious cancer. After six months of treatment in hospital, the doctors said patients will

Medical ethics and patient care go hand and hand. As health care providers, it is their duty to see that the patient 's needs are met. We are charged to insure comfort and proper recovery. The question here is whether there is a difference for patients who request voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide. These patients have the same rights to quality care of their bodies as we all do. Although, the United States constitution ensures us the right to life, it doesn 't mean that the right to die is taken away. Five states currently allow physician assisted suicide. In each state there has been controversial and contentious debate as to whether states should follow the lead of states that have allowed PAS.

When you graduate medical school and obtain your doctoral degree, you are required to state the Hippocratic Oath. This oath has a sentence that states “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effort”. The Hippocratic Oath was written in Greece during B.C.E times when physicians were poorly equipped. However, times are changing in western medicine and alternate options for the terminally ill have come to rise. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) has been a controversial debate for a long time but the call to this liberalization has been increasing much more recently. The American College of Physicians is actually against it and does not support it due to ethical and moral concerns. There

Physician assisted suicide- the voluntary termination of one’s own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician, and euthanasia, the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable, painful disease are both highly emotional and contentious subjects. Some argue physician assisted suicide (P.A.S.) is admissible for someone who is dying and trying to painlessly break free from the intolerable suffering at the end of their life, and some attempt to argue physician assisted suicide is not considered admissible because it violates the doctor’s Hippocratic oath and other reasons. From research, I believe, however, that there are some solutions that take sides with and against P.A.S. and euthanasia, but when they’re debated against each other there is a stronger argument for allowing the legalization and practices of P.A.S. rather than degrading the practice and prohibiting it.

Nowadays, in the United States, people face many big controversial issues. Besides problems related to the reality of daily life like health care, government intercepting phone calls, raising the minimum wage, gender equality, human rights, equality, anti-racism ... have practical effect on social life. People are also really concerned about the issue of physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or euthanasia has become a controversial issue today, and that related to consciousness, choices and decisions about life of people. PAS is an action expressing an intention of ending a life to relieve intractable, persistent, and unstoppable suffering. Another idea, PAS is the

Physician assisted suicide, or PAS, has always been a very controversial topic. This touches upon the healthcare side of the large spectrum of social problems today in America. An individuals view on this issue might vary depending on their political ideology. Modern conservatives might not necessarily agree with physician assisted suicide because of their traditional beliefs and values. Conservatives might say it is wrong because it goes against the teachings of the bible which states a life is created at the moment of conception and is always precious.

Physician-assisted suicide, abbreviated as PAS, is a topic that carries wide concerns to people in the United States. PAS is being deliberated on whether a physician should be legally allowed to prescribe a lethal drug to its patient. Many views conflict each other on this topic, whether it is because of religion, morals, or ethics. As PAS can be a difficult subject to others, PAS is usually decided by the patient itself.

Oregon, the first state to legalize PAS in 1997, passed the Death with Dignity Act (DWDA) which allowed patients to end their life by taking a lethal dose of a medication prescribed by a physician. In the article, “The Case for Physician Assisted Suicide: How Can It Possiblye Be Proven?,” the authors, E. Dahl and N. Levy, state that the proponents of PAS believe that there have been several reports of terminally ill patients abusing the DWDA which can be caused by mental illnesses or depression. Due to the possibility of physicians abusing the right to prescribe terminally ill patients lethal doses of a medication, many doubt whether physicians should play a large role in the process of PAS. In the article, “Should Psychiatrists Serve as

David J. Mayo, Ph.D., a professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, is a proponent of physician-assisted suicide and puts forth three major points to consider when thinking of PAS . The first point is that it is already in current medical practice and law to recognize the right of an individual to turn down “life-prolonging therapies” regardless of how trivial they are, such as an IV drip . The second point is that patients with terminal conditions are already able to access palliative care, which may require “doses of powerful analgesics high enough to hasten death by suppressing respiration”. Dr. Mayo claims that the proviso on this subject requires that a doctor not intend an earlier death, but simply foresee it. He determines that this dangerously thin line between providing adequate palliative care and homicide based on the unseen intentions of a doctor (in addition to families seldom being alerted to lethal doses of medication being administered to their loved one) is more liable to abuse and misuse than PAS

There are many issues regarding physician assisted suicide, but there are multiple ways to improve them. Some was are as follows: better understanding of pain management, improvement of narcotic laws for pain control, training for health care providers to treat and diagnose depression, and increase funding of hospice and palliative medicine. The main issue with the debate about PAS is overtreatment of patients and making suffering longer for those who are in the process of dying. (Sullivan) The effort put toward correcting these issues will make a world of difference in bettering the bad

Physician Assisted Death, or P.A.D., is not a topic that is particularly personal to me but I know that it is a big topic of debate all across America on a spectrum that ranges from government regulations to, on a more personal level, family situations. P.A.D. is defined as a Doctor knowingly and intentionally provides a terminal patient with the knowledge and or means to kill themselves. This topic is very black and white in terms of whether it is right or wrong because you either base your opinion off morals or logic. The two, in this case, can not be integrated for reasons I will discuss further on. Using logic, I believe that P.A.D. is an appropriate

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are both types of medical assistance aiding in ending a suffering patient’s life. This pain may be due to a terminal illness and suffering as well as those in an irreversible coma. This practice of doctor assisted suicide is illegal in many countries, but is increasing in popularity as people start to recognize the positive aspects that euthanasia has to offer for those that fit the criteria. Euthanasia is essential for those, placed in such life diminishing situations, and whom no longer want to experience suffering. This is where the issue gets complicated, and many religious groups argue that individuals should not have the legal right to choose whether they get to die or not, but that it is simply in God’s hands. Suffering patients argue that they should be given the right to choose whether or not they have to experience this suffering, to end their life with the dignity they still have, and to alleviate the stress that their deteriorating life conditions have on their families, themselves and the entire healthcare system. Therefore, despite the many arguments, euthanasia can have a very positive impact on the lives and families of suffering individuals, as well as the Canadian healthcare system.

Physicians who are against legalized suicide are imposing their own preferences and will onto their patients whilst stripping those patients of the ability to exert their final will. Physician-assisted suicide is necessary to a healthy society based on the state of unequal opportunity which exists in this world. To believe someone’s life is worthwhile because yours is an error of judgment. By not allowing this right, physicians are forcing alternative methods onto patients. Physician-assisted death should be legalized because it is in the best interest of the patient and it is a compassionate response to relieve the suffering of dying patients. Physician-assisted death allows patients to leave this earth with their dignity, save their families from financial ruin and relieve themselves of insufferable