Pros And Cons Of Physician Assisted Death : Expository

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

In today's society, one of the most controversial issues is physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Many people feel that it is wrong for people, regardless of their health condition, to ask their health care provider to end their life; while others feel it is their right to be able to choose how and when they die. When a physician is asked to help a patient into death, they have many responsibilities that come along with that single question. Among those responsibilities are: providing valid information as to the terminal illness the patient is suffering, educating the patient as to what their final options may be, making the decision of whether or not to help the patient into death, and also if they do decide to help,

Assisted suicide is an ethical topic that has sparked up many controversies. Individuals have heated disputes on whether or not patients who are suffering should have the right to die. Some worry that legalizing euthanasia is irrational and would violate some religions, while others argue that it provides a peaceful death towards terminally ill patients who are suffering from pain. Physician-assisted suicide is a contentious matter, in which there are many positive and negative aspects, whether or not it should be committed is a complex decision.

Physician-assisted suicide: Death with dignity addresses morality and ethics involved with physician-assisted suicide or PAS. History of euthanasia is given, dating back to ancient civilizations. PAS models in other countries besides the United States are explained in detail. The author addresses

According to research, 66% of adults here in the United States believe that a doctor should allow a patient to die under certain circumstances. Physician assisted death is currently legal in Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Other states such as Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania are considering legislation to allow physician assisted deaths for people with terminal illnesses. (Gordon, Serena). Physician assisted death needs to be legal because of how much it has evolved over time; it has many advantages, and the obligations that doctors are responsible

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

It is understandable that some patients in extreme pressure such as those suffering from a terminal, painful illness may come to decide that they would rather die than live. However, allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer and would be difficult or impossible to control.

Physician-assisted suicides (PAS) successful legalization in multiple locations, including four U.S. states, proves that opponents’ predictions of PAS leading to medical misconduct are inaccurate. Jacob Appel, a doctor in New York City, is quoted explaining, “ Despite predictions that legalization would lead to abuse or to decrease in palliative care, jurisdictions that have sanctioned the process, like the Netherlands and Oregon, have shown that a system of assisted suicide can be implemented responsibly” (qtd. in “The Right to Die: Do terminally ill patients have a right to die with the assistance of a physician?”). Appel’s claim is corroborated by Lewis Cohen who says,

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.

The topic of discussion is one of the most controversial topics in the last decade physician-assisted suicide. This occurs when a physician assists a terminally ill or disabled person to take their own life. Assisting either by giving the physical means or instructions on what method to use to commit suicide with. There are many moral and ethical arguments; some are based on religious beliefs while others are based on the rules of medical ethics. It can be argued that the terminally ill and the disabled should not be forbidden from taking their own lives. It goes against all regularly accepted laws of medical ethics for a doctor to assist in the suicide of a patient. Physicians pledge to not harm patients (Hippocratic Oath).

In the case of Physician Assisted Suicide, I believe only in certain, extreme, and clearly defined situations should a doctor be allowed to prescribe a drug to terminate a patient’s life. The role of a practicing medical doctor, or a physician, is defined by Mosby’s Dental Dictionary as a practitioner of medicine; one lawfully engaged in the practice of medicine. The essential word in this definition is lawful – physicians must act in a manner that is ethical to their practice and lawful to the country in which they are practicing. In most countries, murder and suicide are unlawful; therefore for a doctor to commit such an

Physician-assisted suicide is a form of assisted suicide in the United States, in which the physicians prescribe lethal doses of drugs or explaining a method of suicide to the patients upon the request of the patients. Physician-assisted suicide is different from the active euthanasia, which refers to competent patients voluntarily agree to euthanasia through communicating their wishes when they are competent or through instructions to be followed if they become incompetent because the final act of killing is performed by the patients, rather than the physicians in the active euthanasia. To date, physician-assisted suicide is only legal in eight states, including California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont and

There is much controversy in many medical choices that one can make. The controversy can be distinguished by religious boundaries, whether the choice or decision is moral or ethical, if the choice contradicts the Hippocratic Oath, or it could be any combination of the mentioned. One topic that holds all controversies mentioned is physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide has many reasons why it should not be allowed. However, there are many more reasons that argue why physician-assisted suicide is beneficial and worth fighting to make it legal in every state, and eventually legal worldwide.

This paper discusses why the U.S. should implement the availability of physician assisted suicide/death and voluntary euthanasia. It discusses countries that have this legally, how they do not abuse the fact, and the percentages of both physicians and patients that are affiliated with PAS/VE. It continues with the legal moral issues it has within the United States. It also touches on the majority of the opposing viewpoints and why they have no merit in stopping the allowance of PAS/VE in the states. The paper also discusses why PAS/VE are often requested by many patients that have debilitating diseases or syndromes.

If my loving ones were in a situation where they were dying, I would not want to use physician assisted death (PAD). Even if they ask for it, I still would not let them to use PAD. It is against my religion. God gave us our life and hence no one has right to end it. People should not die just because they are sick, they should try hard to cure their illness. We have to fight until our last breath.