Physician’s Assisted Suicide

Who gets to make the choice whether someone lives or dies? If a person has the right to live, they certainly should be able to make the choice to end their own life. The law protects each and everyone’s right to live, but when a person tries to kill themselves more than likely they will end up in a Psychiatric unit. Today we hear more and more about the debate of Physician assisted suicide and where this topic stands morally and ethically. Webster 's dictionary defines Physician assisted suicide as, suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of the patient 's intent (Webster, 1977).

One of the most controversial end-of-life decisions is “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS). This method of suicide involves a physician providing a patient, at his or her own request, with a lethal dose of medication, which the patient self-administers. The ethical acceptability and the desirability of legalization of this practice both continue to cause controversy (Raus, Sterckx, Mortier 1). Vaco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg were landmark decisions on the issue of physician-assisted suicide and a supposed Constitutional right to commit suicide with another's assistance. In Washingotn v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was not unconstitutional.

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

Physician-assisted suicide is, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent,” as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Though today it more commonly known as euthanasia.

(Interview) The patients have their own decisions and wants on how they want to be treated, allow them to have a voice and speak for themselves. Everyone would like to be allowed a respectable, painless death, so we must allow one for everyone else who wants one. We cannot limit or accuse those who chose physicians-assisted suicide and the ones who don’t chose it, we have many medical advances today, such as nursing home and hospice care, but they are not always enough to cure or stop any pain that someone may be in; physicians-assisted suicide is the only answer to this problem. (Interview) Everyone will make plans to ensure that the end of our life remains in our own personal control. Just as we write wills to dispose of our prized possessions, we can make decisions about what medical treatment is acceptable and what is not. (Euthanisa) You can even choose someone to make your health care decisions if you are unable to. This is called the Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care or Health Care Proxy; and that individual you so choose should be someone you trust, who knows what you want, and will fight for your rights. (Euthanasia) In a survey of thirty thousand Americans over the age of fifty-five, sixty-five percent said that people with a terminal illness should have a

People who support physician-assisted suicide as a rightful death are unaware of the amount pain a patient is undergoing; therefore they assume it is wrong for them to refuse their decision on how they want to end their lives. Doctors fulfill their patients’ planned death because they believe it is a merciful, ethical, and beneficent act. Patients have the right to decide whether to prolong their death or end it anticipated (Ersek). It seems wrong to take away a patient’s one and only wish and others need to have the decency towards the patient to respect their decision. In a way, doctors and loved ones are dictating the way the patient should live their lives. If the decision was up to anyone, it would be in the rightful hands of the patient.

Of course there have been horrible cases in which euthanasia takes place without consent but this is why it should be regulated. People may argue that if passed the law could be abused, but like any law anything can be abused. With a good system the law of euthanasia could be refined in such a way to help avoid cases like such from happening. There shall be a critical element in the regulation of physician-assisted suicide determining the line between what is considered to be euthanasia and what is considered

What is the single common denominator that unites all of humanity? That every person will die. Death is a macabre subject, but it is a universal one that entangles itself within our lives. Even while living, death is omnipresent, and it has remained unchanged throughout the ages. What have changed are the definitions of death and its timeline. The word euthanasia comes from the Greek for ‘good death’. While that definition is rooted in etymologic studies and not open for interpretation, the very idea of a ‘good death’ is quite the opposite. What is a good death? Who determines ‘good’? And the question that is under much debate and discussion: Should anything be done to make it so? That, in the form of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), is one of the pressing topics that faces healthcare today. It is imperative that healthcare professionals, particularly nurses who bridge the divide between physicians and patients, are aware of this issue and its components.

Modern medicine no longer prolongs life, but rather prolongs death and because of this, we need to rethink the idea of death itself especially within terminal illness and treatments. No one should be pressed towards suicide by the government however, they should not be denied that right. In the words of supreme court justice William Brennan said, “an ignoble end, steeped in decay is abhorrent. A quiet, proud, death, bodily integrity intact is a matter of extreme consequence” (Intelligence Squared Debates). Anyone who wants to die should have a right to do so. It is not up to the government to control the personal decisions of its subjects and it isn’t right. When someone feels like a burden economically and/or mentally, that person should have the ability to end their suffering. When a doctor comes to the realization that medicine will no longer be able to rehabilitate someone who is burdened with a sickness, they should

Death. It is the inevitable outcome of this journey we call life. It is human nature to embrace self-preservation and prolong life as long as possible. In the end, death comes for us all. It can come in the form of an unexpected and tragic accident. A person is taken from this world as quickly as they entered it, leaving their loved ones in shock and grieving the life that was ripped away so suddenly. But what of those who are faced with their impending death before it even happens; those who suffer from terminal illnesses or have sustained injuries that cannot be treated? In these cases, the question arises; should these individuals be allowed the option to end or receive assistance in ending their life on their own terms? Should

Even though the patient might be in pain, the right thing to do would be trying to subdue the pain instead of cruelly taking their life. Most families consider euthanasia to ease their own pain rather than thinking about how the patient might feel. This shows that euthanasia is not in the best sense of the patient, but for the closure of everyone else.

Physician-assisted suicide could help terminally ill people maintain a practical and satisfactory ending to their life. In doing so, it would give the patients time to say goodbye to their families, friends, and loved ones. It would put an end to their pain and suffering with a quick and compassionate death. We use euthanasia to end the pain and suffering on animals, why are we incapable of showing the same compassion to human beings as well? We can empathize better with an animal whom we know will not live a quality life, an animal who cannot speak what they are feeling, but we can determine that death in such a case is the best option.

There are many arguments in health care that bring about debate. The is one however that stirs up as much emotion, politically, scientifically, emotionally and spirituality and this argument is whether or not humans should have the legal right to die when they choose, intentionally, to end their life by their own hand, to end their own perceived suffering and pain. Every American who was born in the United States was born with the privilege of having rights. Choosing to die with dignity should without a doubt be one of those choices and rights.

If you knew you were dying and were suffering from endless pain would you still want to live? Imagine yourself or a loved one not being able to walk, see, and barely breathe on their own let alone speak, due to a terminally ill condition. This is a real situation for many people. These people should be able to have control over their lives and choose when it’s time to end their suffering.

Our society makes it very difficult for those who want to end their life due to intolerable pain and suffering. The way in which a person chooses to die is a very personal issue. In his article an expert argues that “We feel people should make up their own minds and know all the options,” said Rev. Michael Bonacce, executive director for the CID of Washington. “We feel we were given free will and so we have to make the decision” (Strasburg). In other words, we are given a free will and people should be able to make up their own minds. People should be educated and informed regarding the options available to them. Regardless of what options a person chooses, he or she should have the right to decide what is best for him or her.