Should Physician Assisted Suicide Be Legalized Essay

Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with an incurable brain tumor at the age of twenty-nine. She was given six months to live and the option of full brain radiation. If she chose to go with radiation, it could have caused her to experience the following: fatigue, nausea, memory loss, and speech loss. She began to research physician-assisted suicide and decided that it was the best choice she had left. Physician-assisted suicide is the act of a doctor ending a terminally ill patient’s life using lethal drugs. As of modern day, physician-assisted suicide is only legal in 6 states which include; Oregon, Montana, Washington, Vermont, California, and Colorado. Luckily, she lived near Oregon: one of the six states to have it legalized. She went through with it to end the suffering. More states should legalize physician-assisted suicide because it would let people who are terminally ill die with tranquility and dignity.

Every day in the United States 1,500 people are diagnosed with a terminal illness. These people are given few options when determining if the wish to try treatment and if treatment does not work, how to deal with the end of their lives. (author unknown, “Cancer”) With this horrible future ahead of them many may wish to make amends before it’s too late, however, an increasing number of people are seeking an alternate solution. In states such as Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and soon California a relatively new, legal option is available for people with terminal illnesses. The states of Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana created a law which allows people with a terminal illness and less than six months that are mentally healthy seek professional medical help that will end their lives (Humphrey, Derek) . This topic has created heated debates across the United States with each side have clear and defined reason as to why or why not this controversial law should be processed for the whole country. The people who defend the law believe that people who are losing their lives should be able to leave this world on their own terms, and with the help of physicians they can go in a painless and mess-free way. Supporters also believe that by not wanting to the end it can help save patients, doctors, and insurance time and money that could be better spent on patients who may have options and may not be able to reach them without

Throughout the twentieth century, major scientific and medical advances have greatly enhanced the life expectancy of the average person. However, there are many instances where doctors can preserve life artificially. When society ponders over the idea of physician-assisted suicide, they most likely feel that the act itself would compare to murdering someone. Who really has the authority to say what is right or wrong when a loved one wants to end their life because of a terminal illness or a severe physical disability? Should Physician-assisted suicide be Legal in California to make it a euthanasia state like Oregon ? In the article titled “Nicest Lawmaker Touts Assisted Suicide,” by Clea Benson published The Bakersfield Californian in 2006, the author presents a Republican lawmaker Patty Berg, who is groom pushing a bill allowing assisted suicide be legal in California. Physician assisted suicide should be allowed to those who are terminally ill with a limited amount of time left to live, and shouldn’t be eligible for people who are young, healthy, or have plenty of time to live.

Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) has grown into quite a contentious topic over the years. According to Breitbart and Rosenfeld (1), physician-assisted suicide can be defined as “a physician providing medications or advice to enable the patient to end his or her own life.” One may find many articles that are written by physicians, pharmacists, patients, and family of patients who receive PAS; from there, it is possible to gain a better understanding of what PAS is and how it has become a rising issue in the United States. For readers who have not heard about PAS and what it entails, it is important to understand that this is a debatable topic that should be approached lightly and non-aggressively in the United States when factors such as offering terminally ill patients the right to end their suffering, the likelihood of overall healthcare cost to decrease, and the comparison of palliative care to physician-assisted suicide are examined.

Physician-assisted suicide may change the perception of illness, disease, and pain. Because of this, physicians, patients, and family members may give up on recovery early (Westefeld, et al., 239). In contrast of cooperating in the death of a patient, people will seek to avoid it. This avoidance and denial of death may cause physicians to abandon their patients. This problem would be worsened by legalizing physician-assisted suicide because it would encourage the use of physician-assisted suicide when their disease worsened (Shannon & Kockler, 190). Legalizing physician-assisted suicide would also change the perspective the patient has about him or herself. The moral question of suicide is whether humans should have this responsibility over their own lives. Many argue that this act defies human dignity and that physician-assisted suicide exceeds human responsibility. Also, many people would assume sympathy in this situation, but some people may judge the patient for their use of physician-assisted suicide because it is using suicide to relieve pain (Shannon & Kockler, 191).

Support for the participation of physicians in the suicides of terminally ill patients is increasing. Much of the controversy surrounding physician-assisted suicide however focuses on the debate over whether the practice should be legalized. A woman suffering from cancer became the first person known to die under the law of physician-assisted suicide in March of 1998. In 1994, voters in Oregon approved a referendum called the Death with Dignity Act, which was enacted in 1997. This law allows patients who have been given six months or less to live that wish to hasten their deaths to obtain lethal doses of medication prescribed by two doctors. Between 1998 and 2000, ninety-six lethal prescriptions were written, and seventy patients took the

Imagine being born premature, and while being nothing more than a defenseless baby in the hospital unit, an infection emerges in your bowel lining. As a result of the infection you live most of your life in the hospital with an exception of several months. Imagine only being able to spend two birthdays and two Christmases in your home. Imagine being 20 and having undergone over 300 painful surgeries. Can you imagine yourself being 13 and talking about dying from how much pain you have been through? Danny Bond can. After suffering almost every day of his life, he attempted to commit suicide, but his mom resuscitated him both times. Therefore, Danny decided to starve himself to end his suffering once and for all (Grimminck). People such as Danny, cancer, and ALS patients, who are battling terminal illnesses, deserve the right to choose when enough is enough. Physician assisted suicide should be legalized because it’s the compassionate thing to do, people deserve autonomy and because it is a better alternative.

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).

Having the right to life, also gives one the right to death. Outrageously, physician assisted suicide is illegal in all but five states in the U.S; including California, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont; this law, violating rules of ethics, also defies morals. Some actions in the past, including women not having voting rights, and experimentation on prisoners and the mentally ill, also infringed upon ethics and morale. Women not being permitted to vote before the 19th Amendment--Women’s Suffrage Act--opposed the logic of equality, likewise, experiments on prisoners and the mentally incompetent violated the 8th Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment (“CRS Annotated Constitution”). One cannot help but wonder, will physician assisted suicide be legal in all states, a century from now? Because people in America are given the right to LIFE, liberty, and property, they should also be given the choice of ending their pain more swiftly.

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

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.

“Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but one of them is extremely important: euthanasia is not forbidden by law in their case; animals have the right to a merciful death.”

In a 2014 article done by Health Research Funding they stated that, “According to research, some 66% of U.S. adults believe that a doctor or nurse should allow a patient to die in certain circumstances” (25 Surprising Physician Assisted Suicide Statistics, 2014). Physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia should not just be a matter of law but as well as free will. In this essay, I am using a virtue approach to contend that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be legal. Is it moral to allow people to end their lives suffering? It helps people, saves money and useless drugs and treatment that does not work it being wasted. It ends suffering without the stigma of suicide and it allows the person to make peace and go on their own terms when they want to, so there is not a shock or surprise. You can say goodbye and end it when you are ready.

Would you like to live your life like a vegetable or just not being able to do much? Would you like to let your family member suffer just because you want them to stay around? Would you like to be in a state of chronic excruciating pain every time you wake up and go to sleep?

The debate on legalizing assisted suicide is an issue across the globe. It has brought countries to contemplate on the legalities of the matter in their respective legislative branches of government. Assisted suicide is just simply a matter of assessing one's will to perform such act with the permission of the subject or the patient in such way his will be done. The debate now focuses on either the act shall be legalized or not.