Researching Physician Assisted Suicide

Physician-assisted suicide should be legal nationwide. As a former hospital employee, I know first-hand that some diseases can cause so much disability and pain that patients want to end their lives because they have had enough. Something dear to me is personal autonomy, a right of all people. If the patient is competent and wants to end their life, and a health care provider is willing to humanely help end that patient's life, then physician-assisted suicide should be legal and be performed, per the individual's wishes.

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.

There are instances when people who are terminally ill or severely injured who want to terminate their own lives. Sometimes, due to the state of their injuries or conditions, those people are unable to end their own pain. It is in many of these cases that the patients request assistance in their suicides. This kind of request is like to happen in facilities where the patient receives long term or permanent care. Physician assisted suicide is a hotly contested issue. There is support for those who believe this kind of "assistance" is morally, ethically, and otherwise wrong. There is support from people who believe that a person has a right to choose when his/her life ends. These people believe that physician assisted suicide is a form of altruistic assistance. There are valid points made by people on both sides of this issue and there is certainly room within the debate to be undecided or to be conflicted. Secondary, tertiary, and long term providers/facilities have the power to improve the preservation of life and they have the power to assist with the end of life. The paper presents arguments of this debate and reflects upon the issues at the surface as well as the underlying issues of the debate over physician assisted suicide.

Advances in medical treatments have raised the average life expectancy of people in Canada. However, it fails to guarantee a perfectly healthy life for people who experience incurable diseases. The rising interest in Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide in Canada, is an outcome of the desire of people to have a greater control over their lives in terms of their capacity to determine death when the patients are terminally ill.

Physician-assisted suicide better known as (PAS), is the willing intentional termination of a person’s life with the assistance of a physician. There has been much controversy over moral and ethical concerns regarding physician assisted suicide and whether or not it’s use in medical practice is considered ethical and right. This type of medical practice is becoming a great concern to hundreds of people. The question being asked is: should we allow and provide people the right of physician-assisted suicide?

Assisted suicide is a controversial and often misunderstood topic that has recently raised the attention of the nation. Assisted suicide or physician assisted suicide (PAS) is not only an emotionally trying matter but also ethically challenging to some. Those who are against this act believe that it is unethical to end a life before the intended time. Those in favor believe that it is a human right for patients that have terminal illnesses to have a choice in the way that they die. Physician assisted suicide should be legalized for mentally competent adults because it is a human right, is more financially responsible and a considerate reply to the misery of

Physician assisted suicide, a method legal is some states and countries, is a way for people under certain conditions to be prescribed a death inducing drug. Campaigners of assisted suicide claim that physician assisted suicide should be legal and available to those that meet certain requirements because it is an easy way to end someone’s struggles and pains with terminal illness. However, I think it should not be legal. Between the fact that a person is a person and deserves a life and opportunity, the business of killing will always have loopholes and problems, it is a doctor’s responsibility to make sure the patient lives, and the fact that this could desensitize the public of death.

Physician-assisted suicide, also known as voluntary active euthanasia, is easily one of the most prominent and controversial issues in media circulation today. Definitively, physician assisted suicide is as a physician’s knowingly providing the means to commit suicide to a competent patient who voluntarily makes this request and uses those means independently to take his or her own life (Fins & Bacchetta, 1995). Up until very recently, physician-assisted suicide has been illegal

Physician assisted suicide is a touchy topic that is constantly brought upon discussion in the world today. The topic has become more common than it has ever been in the past. With complications due to religion, morals, social, and even financial issues, it becomes a topic with much controversy. Whether God deemed it a sin. Whether it is fraud upon in society. Whether it is financially a realistic option. These are all major topics of discussion with many different opinions nationwide when it comes to physician assisted suicide.

Some of the most basic principles of the Hippocratic Oath, the oath most doctors are required to take, are being violated by pills or a lethal injection. Physician assisted suicide, or euthanasia, is a very controversial topic in today’s society. Some argue that people should be in control of their death, while others argue that euthanasia has many risks and side effects that are too great to ignore. Physician assisted suicide, or euthanasia, does not abide by the Hippocratic Oath nor basic societal principles therefore, it should not be legalized.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are actions that hit at the core of what it means to be human - the moral and ethical actions that make us who we are, or who we ought to be. Euthanasia, a subject that is so well known in the twenty-first century, is subject to many discussions about ethical permissibility which date back to as far as ancient Greece and Rome , where euthanasia was practiced rather frequently. It was not until the Hippocratic School removed it from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate? More so, euthanasia raises

Euthanasia is a controversial issue. Many people believe that doctors should not prescribe any medication that ends a person’s life since it is considered to be against the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath states that doctors are professionally obliged to save lives. Some consider euthanasia to be immoral and others say that it is murder. Euthanasia should

According to the Oxford dictionary, euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or an irreversible coma. Those in favor argue that this is done motivated by kindness and a desire to end suffering. Those against Euthanasia understand why those in favor of Euthanasia say it is ok to practice it, but one must understand that Euthanasia is contrary to the Hippocratic Oath. According to the Hippocratic Oath doctors should never, “give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art” (par. 4). This oath is taken by all doctors after

The Hippocratic Oath, written between 5th-3rd centuries BCE, is an important reference for the ethical standards that medical practitioners follow in the United States. One statement seen in the oath is that “[a physician] will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel”(“The Hippocratic Oath”), directly refuting the morality of voluntary active euthanasia, which is a highly contentious issue in the United States. Voluntary active euthanasia is currently illegal in the United States. However, I believe that patients with terminal illnesses experiencing a lot of pain and misery should have the right to die the way they choose, with dignity, instead of being subjected to agony. People should be able to choose voluntary active euthanasia, if ever need be, which is why I believe that despite current policy, voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized.

“Primum non nocere”, a phrase that all doctors must recite, modernly translates to “first, do no harm”. When students graduate from medical school they must recite the Hippocratic Oath. Taking this oath is a historical tradition that requires the physician to swear to preserve certain ethical standards. Although the text states that a doctor must never take a life, it also states that a doctor must help a person to the fullest extent. A difficult ethical question arises when the only way to help a person is by ending their suffering. Is euthanasia then the ethical solution? The ability for doctors to perform assisted suicides for the terminally ill is very controversial. Many people oppose the idea on the belief that all life is sacred. In reality, however, the real question is whether a patient can make that determination for themselves and decide whether a life of constant and permanent suffering is worth living. Euthanasia allows a patient to die with dignity; it frees up funds and equipment that can be put towards other patients in dire need of attention; and it ends the suffering of patients and their families. If the goal is to reduce pain and suffering then we need to seriously consider legalising euthanasia.