Should Physician-Assisted Death be Legalized in the United States

Imagine laying in a hospital bed living everyday in extreme pain with no hope of getting better. This scenario explains what many people go through everyday, which is a living with a terminal illness. M. Lee, a science historian, and Alexander Stingl a sociologist, define terminal illness as “an illness from which the patient is not expected to recover even with treatment. As the illness progresses death is inevitable” (1). There are not many options for the terminally ill besides dying a slow and painful death, but assisted suicide could be best option for these patients. Assisted suicide is “any case in which a doctor gives a patient (usually someone with a terminal illness) the means to carry out their own suicide by using a lethal dose of medication” (Lee and Stingl 1). Some feel that assisted suicide is unnecessary because it is too great of a controversy and will only cause problems in society. However, assisted suicide should be legal in the United States as long as there are strict regulations to accompany it.

Assisted suicide is a topic that has ignited a severe debate due to the controversy that surrounds its implementation. Assisted suicide occurs when a patients expresses their intention to die and request a physician to assist them in the process. Some countries like Oregon, Canada, and Belgium have legalized the process terming it as an alternative to prolonged suffering for patients who are bound to die. Unlike euthanasia where a physician administers the process, assisted suicide requires that the patient voluntarily initiates and executes the process. Although there exists concession such a process is important to assist patients die without much suffering, there has emerged criticism on its risk of abuse and as an expression of medical

The process of assisted suicide, or physician-assisted death, is a hotly debated topic that still remains at the forefront of many national discussions today. Assisted suicide can be described as the suicide of patient by a physician-prescribed dose of legal drugs. The reason that this topic is so widely debated is that it infringes on several moral and religious values that many people in the United States have. But, regardless of the way that people feel, a person’s right to live is guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution, and this should extend to the right to end their own life as well. The reasons that assisted suicide should be legalized in all states is because it can ease not only the suffering of the individual, but the financial burden on the family that is supporting him/her. Regardless of opposing claims, assisted suicide should be an option for all terminally ill patients.

A lot of controversy revolves around the topic of Physician Assisted Death (PAD) in America today. Should it be legalized throughout the whole United States? Should it be left in the hands of the states individually to decide? Or should the idea of Physician-Assisted Death be completely abolished? Everyone has their own opinions and can be very passionate about this topic without fully knowing what Physician Assisted Death is. The name may cause people to feel uncomfortable and disagree with it, but there are valid reasons and statistics behind the topic explaining why it would be logical to legalize PAD. Terminally ill patients, in consultation with their families, should have control over end of life medical decisions which is

Physician-assisted suicide is suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information (“Physician-assisted suicide”). Physician-assisted suicide should be accessible to the incurably ill patient. Allowing a patient to have this freedom could, for one, bypass tremendous pain and suffering. Also, the right to die should be a fundamental of each person, and this would give him or her that power. Another reason why it should be permitted is without physician assistance, people may commit suicide in a messy, horrifying, and traumatic

The purpose of this paper is examine the use of Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) in certain patients in a bid to support its legalization in all states. In this paper I will argue that the use of PAS in patients who are terminally ill, in non-terminally ill patients who undergo intolerable pain, or in patients who are terminally or non-terminally ill who fear a loss of dignity and control over their body in the end stages of life is permissible. I will first define PAS and VAE and attempt to characterize suicide. I will then concentrate on the different historical views of PAS over

“Physician Aid in Dying Gains Acceptance in the U.S.”, written by Paula Span, was published on January 16, 2017 for The New York Times. This article focuses on the views of patients and doctors who have experienced aid in dying and expresses the many obstacles that stand in the way of the entire process. It was written to inform many people about physician aid in dying and shed light on the strings attached to the validation of the fatal substance. The author intended the audience to be the general public so that everyone will be able to learn more about assisted suicide so that it could potentially lessen the difficulty of going through aid in dying. Span claims that physician aid in dying comes with numerous hurdles throughout the overall

Suicide. A term many of us are uncomfortable with, it is a tender subject especially for those who have been affected by it personally. What about the term physician assisted suicide (PAS) or assisted suicide? Around the world and more recently in the United States we have seen these terms in the news more often. Various forms of medically assisted dying and/or assisted suicide for the terminally or hopelessly ill competent adult have been approved by 2010 in the following ten states and nation: Switzerland (1940), Oregon (1994), Colombia (1997), Albania (1999), The Netherlands (2002), Belgium (2003), Washington (2008), Montana (2009) and Luxembourg (2008) (Humphry). With the addition of England and Wales (2010), Vermont (2014), New Mexico (2015), Quebec (2015), California (2015) and Canada (details pending for 2016) (“Assisted Suicide Law Reform”). Physician assisted suicide and/or assisted suicide is a major ethical issue in medicine, as well as an issue that involves law and public policy (Weir 7). In this paper I will discuss the different types of physician assisted suicide including the different practices in different countries.

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.

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 the practice in which a doctor prescribes a terminally ill patient with a lethal medication as a form of active, voluntary euthanasia. These patients, rather than suffer slowly and painfully, often request this procedure as a means of experiencing a more “dignified” death. The debate surrounding this issue is a heated one, especially among the general public whose attitudes are deeply influenced by the level of patient pain and discomfort (Frileux et al. 334). At the heart of the issue is the conflict between a patient’s right to choose between life and death and, as expressed by one social scientist, “society’s obligation to protect its most vulnerable members from hastened and not completely voluntary death”

Physician-assisted suicide occurs when a physician helps in the requested death of a voluntary patient (Smith, 2012). In most cases, the patient is terminally ill. A recent study revealed that pain or unbearable pain is not a major motivating factor for the request (Foley et al, 2001). Rather, the motivating factors are the effects of illness, the patient's sense of self, and fears about the future. Methods used in conducting physician-assisted suicide or PAS include administering overly high dose of narcotics, a sedative or an antidepressant or subjecting the patient to the suicide machine connected to an IV tube. This machine, invented by Dr. Jack Kevorkian, consisted of a saline solution, a sedative and potassium chloride (Foley et al). In 1997, the US Supreme Court determined that physician-assisted suicide was not a constitutional right. However, States were not banned from passing laws allowing it (Smith, 2012). The practice is illegal in 34 States. Four States neither ban nor prohibit it and it is permitted in Oregon and Washington but only within specific and limited circumstances (Smith; Walker, 2001). Both majority opinion and conscience agree that PAS is inherently wrong.

“It has been estimated that of the 2 million Americans who die each year, 80% die in hospitals or nursing homes, and 70% of those die after a decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment has been made” (Pozgar, 2014). As terminally ill patients come to terms with an end-of-life diagnosis, one of their main concerns is dying with dignity and not left to suffer a long and drawn out death. Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is a sensitive and very controversial subject. Several people believe, doctors should not participate in any action that ends a person’s life due to the Hippocratic Oath stating that doctors are obligated to save lives. Although, euthanasia is considered to be immoral and even murder, it should be legalized when a person’s quality of life, due to an incurable illness, is gradually going to deteriorate.

“Euthanasia, also [known as] mercy killing, [is the] practice of ending another’s life with the aim of enabling the person to avoid severe suffering, typically from a terminal illness” (“Euthanasia”). Furthermore, a study conducted in Washington State revealed that most of the participants who requested euthanasia had the diagnosis of cancer, neurological disease, or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (Back et al. 919). This study also uncovered that “the patient concerns most often perceived by physicians were worries about loss of control, being a burden, being dependent on others for personal care, and loss of dignity” (Back et al. 919). Although some argue that euthanasia is the best way to die for terminally-ill

Assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia has historically been a controversial subject for many years all around the world, challenging both legal and ethical concerns. Two types of euthanasia are passive and active euthanasia. In passive euthanasia, life-saving support is withdrawn from a patient. Conversely, active euthanasia is when measures are purposefully taken to end one’s life. Another form of assisted suicide is referred to as physician-assisted suicide. In physician-assisted suicide, a medical doctor typically administers a lethal dose of medication that brings an end to a patient’s life. Some of the most debated questions related to assisted suicide focus on the morality and legality of the process itself. Likewise, another relevant issue surrounding this is, should patients have the right to purposefully end their life or not, and with or without assistance? These are extremely complicated and contentious issues, and there is a multitude of various views from one spectrum to the other. While people, including some in the medical profession, consider assisted suicide to be immoral and unethical, the question becomes should it be legalized to allow patients the right to end their life, end their pain and suffering, and die with dignity.