Essay Physician-Assisted Suicide and Free Will

A pathologist from Michigan, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was one of the first to participate in PAS (Strate, Zalman & Hunter, 2005, p. 25). There are documented writings discussing the severity of his patients: “those who seek him out have deteriorated by slow, painful degrees and wish to exit from their infernos on Earth before they deteriorate cognitively and/or choke to death” (Zeldis’s, 2005 p. 130). Many of his patients explain how they feel their own body withdraw and turn on itself; and not even being able to eat or go to the bathroom (Friend, Mary and Louanne, 2011, p. 116). stress that dignity and integrity are very personal matters; it is probable that being dependent on others to perform basic activities of daily living threaten a patient’s dignity and thus determine when an explicit request for PAS is made. Perhaps to deny someone the ability to limit their suffering is cruel.

However, there is immense criticism on the morality of the process, especially because the process denies a patient the right to natural death. The critics of the assisted suicide procedure argue that such a process devalues human life and tends to promote suicide as an alternative to personal suffering. By claiming that the procedure allows terminally ill patients to initiate dignity at death is flawed because the purpose of medical profession is to ensure a dignified life. According to the physicians’ code of ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, physicians are not allowed to do harm to their patients because their role is to allow a dignified health for members of the community. Consequently, legalization of Physician Assisted suicide that requires physicians to assist the patients to die is against their medical ethics. Quill, Cassel, & Meier (2010) provide that although the patients voluntarily ask the medical practitioners to assist in the process, the practitioners have a role to advise the patients against such a procedure. Besides, such a premise is bound to raise awareness of suicide as an alternative to suffering within the public domain, which may encourage such behavior among healthy members of the community that feel that they enjoy the freedom to make such a decision. On this basis, the negative moral implication of assisted suicide makes its legalization unworthy in the

Thesis Statement: Physician Assisted Suicide should be a matter of free will and not just law.

Suicide is one person’s personal decision; physician-assisted suicide is a patient who is not capable of carrying the task out themselves asking a physician for access to lethal medication. What people may fail to see however is that the physician is not the only healthcare personnel involved; it may include, but is not limited to, a physician, nurse, and pharmacist. This may conflict with the healthcare worker’s own morals and there are cases in which the patient suffers from depression, or the patient is not receiving proper palliative care. Allowing physician-assisted suicide causes the physician to become entangled in an ethical and moral discrepancy and has too many other issues surrounding it for it to be legal.

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial subjects to discuss or read about within our society. This paper will examine both sides of this discussion, from the aspect of the patient choosing to end their own life based on the quality of their remaining life. Also, the religious factors of the medical staff involved and the moral and ethical duty of the doctors to preserve the life of the patient if there are still means available.

In a Netherlands report it tells, “Many physicians who had practiced euthanasia [form of assisted suicide] mentioned that they would be most reluctant to do so again” (Stevens 189). Everyday these physicians are faced with decisions of how to best save their patient. Now they also, have to determine if they can come to terms with ending their lives. The impact on these physicians is tremendous. Kenneth R. Stevens the Vice President of Physicians for Compassionate Care concludes, “Doctors who have participated in euthanasia and/or PAS [Physician-Assisted Suicide] are adversely affected emotionally and psychologically by their experiences” (187). Physicians, who have made the decision to help, face the consequences of their actions. They have helped someone take a life, even if it their own. Death always leaves an impression. Imagine what it must be like to be directly involved with a death. Those men and women in time will have to come to terms with their participation in Physician-Assisted Suicide.

their patients, or to assist them in ending their lives? Many people may believe that physicians would never perform the latter, but in actuality one practice does so. Physician assisted suicide is the intentional ending of one’s life brought on by lethal substances prescribed by a doctor. In the majority of cases, the patient is terminally ill and simply does not desire to live any longer. Their physician provides the medication necessary to end their life. Many supporters aver that this practice is merely an act of compassion as terminally ill persons may suffer extreme pain that eradicates any will to live. They also assert that the decision to die is of the patient’s

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.

Ezekiel Emanuel once said, “Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia have been profound ethical issues confronting doctors since the birth of Western medicine, more than 2,000 years ago.” Physician assisted suicide (PAS) should be available as a dignified option for the terminally ill because it can be built in to the palliative care plan formulated by patient and Doctor, may alleviate some medical costs for the incurable, and it’s a moderated and humane way to end a person’s suffering.

Thesis: When it comes to the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), some experts believe that an individual should have the option of ending their life in the event that they have been given six months to live with a terminal illness or when the quality of their life has been vastly changed. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question whether physician-assisted suicide is medically ethical, would be overly abused to the point where doctors might start killing patients without their consent. Whereas some experts are convinced that just improving palliative care would decrease the need for someone to want to end their life before it happened naturally.

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.

Physician-Assisted Suicide which is also known as PAS has been a topic that has been highly debated for years, it gives patients in critical medical conditions the right to end their lives. Many people think that PAS and euthanasia are the same, while both actions include medications in lethal doses, Physician Assisted Suicide is when a doctor makes a patient’s death less difficult by providing him or her with a lethal dose of medication such as barbiturates or a combination of medications to allow the life ending act or to refrain the patient from receiving treatments that are used to prolong a terminally ill patients life. The physician lends the knowledge but the person does the act. While, euthanasia is when someone actually administers

A policeman witnesses a man trapped underneath a burning truck. Desperate and in pain, the man asks the policeman to shoot him and save him the pain of dying a slow and insufferable death. As a result, he shoots. The policeman’s dilemma is commonly referenced in support of physician-assisted-suicide, or PAS. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are interchangeable terms which both lead to the death of an individual. Voluntary PAS is a medical professional, usually a physician, who provides medication or other procedures with the intention of ending the patient’s life. Voluntary PAS is the administration of medicine with the explicit consent from the patient. In terms of this paper, we focus on voluntary physician-assisted suicide in the

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.

Is the role of a medical professional to ensure the health and comfort of their patients, or to help them end their lives? Since Dr. Kevorkian assisted in the suicide of Janet Adkins in 1990, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) has been one of the most controversial issues in the medical field today. While some view it as an individual right, others view it as an unethical issue that goes against medical ethics and religious values. Mr. H. M. is an elderly man who is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and no chance of improvement. After excruciating pain and suffering, he has decided to request physician-assisted death in his home state of Oregon. Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (DDA) states that terminally ill patients are allowed to use