Stepinac's Crusaders For Life

Others have argued that physician assisted suicide is not ethically permissible, because it contradicts the traditional duty of physician’s to preserve life and to do no harm. Furthermore, many argue that if physician assisted suicide is legalized, abuses would take place, because as social forces condone the practice, it will lead to “slippery slope” that forces (PAS) on the disabled, elderly, and the poor, instead of providing more complex and expensive palliative care. While these arguments continue with no end in sight, more and more of the terminally ill cry out in agony, for the right to end their own suffering.

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.

However, there is immense criticism on the morality of the process, especially because the process denies a patient the right to natural death. The critics of the assisted suicide procedure argue that such a process devalues human life and tends to promote suicide as an alternative to personal suffering. By claiming that the procedure allows terminally ill patients to initiate dignity at death is flawed because the purpose of medical profession is to ensure a dignified life. According to the physicians’ code of ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, physicians are not allowed to do harm to their patients because their role is to allow a dignified health for members of the community. Consequently, legalization of Physician Assisted suicide that requires physicians to assist the patients to die is against their medical ethics. Quill, Cassel, & Meier (2010) provide that although the patients voluntarily ask the medical practitioners to assist in the process, the practitioners have a role to advise the patients against such a procedure. Besides, such a premise is bound to raise awareness of suicide as an alternative to suffering within the public domain, which may encourage such behavior among healthy members of the community that feel that they enjoy the freedom to make such a decision. On this basis, the negative moral implication of assisted suicide makes its legalization unworthy in the

Daniel Sulmasy is a Professor of Medicine and Ethics at the University of Chicago and has a particular interest in end-of-life care. He harshly criticizes Physician-assisted suicide and claims that this violates not only ethic principles but is also bad medicine and undermines the intrinsic worth of human life. He identifies patients as being vulnerable and helpless and even implicates rising costs of health care as a possible reason for the medical community wanting to legalize assisted suicide. I am disappointed by his superficial reasoning and I will quote Dr. Sulmasy to exhibit a one-dimensional point of view that overlooks the desperate situation of a terminally ill patient wishing to end his or her life in dignity as a personal

Since all diseases are not curable, a lot of people are living in severe pain that is unbearable. Assisted suicide, also known as mercy killing, is the act of bringing the death of a hopelessly ill and suffering person in a relatively quick and painless way. Indeed, it is one of the effective solutions for people who are suffering in pain from terminal illness and especially for children who are not able to choose for their own lives. Even though assisted suicide is not legalized globally, there are few countries and six states in America including Washington State that allow such action. Many people are still against an assisted suicide system. However, since America is the country of freedom, people should have choices

Individuals who are living yet are dying a slow painful death should deserve to end their lives if they wish to; this excludes suicidal individuals or individuals not suffering a fatal disease. Assisted suicide is intended to relieve oneself of pain and suffering, however, in society many individuals consider this option is immoral, as taking someone's life is unethical. We plan to make assisted suicide legal, as the choice to free yourself from your pain should only be yours; medicine should not be governed or restricted by laws because it makes physicians liable for choices out of their power, which could be regarding a citizen's life.

Physician-assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics in the United States and other parts of the world today. Assisted death allows mentally proficient, terminally-ill adult patients to request access to life-ending medication from their physician. This type of assisted death is promoted by organizations such as the Death with Dignity National Center, who advocate for countrywide advances in end-of-life care and extended options for individuals near death. Although there are various arguments that state it is both immoral and unethical, physician-assisted suicide is a viable and honorable method to provide end-of-life options to the terminally-ill and to provide better support, relief, and comfort to dying patients. This topic

According to data from Washington and Oregon in 2012, there were 160 physician-assisted suicides and 90 percent of these deaths were of patients in hospices care. This poses a unique issue for hospice caregivers because on one hand they are not looking to prolong life, but on the other hand they are also not looking to hasten the process. There will always be a debate in hospices on whether or not physicians should assist in suicide of patients (Campbell & Cox, 26). Because a vast majority of the patients who opt for physician-assisted suicide are in hospice care, Hospice physicians are often referred to when a patient is considering physician assisted suicide. Even with the laws in Oregon allowing physician assisted suicide, many hospices refuse to condone it and many hospices will not perform physician assisted suicide. They refuse to perform assisted death because they seek to remain faithful to the historically formative values of hospice care. These include the philosophy that “death is a natural continuation of the human lifespan, that the dignity of each dying patient should be affirmed, that the quality of a patients remaining life should be promoted through the highest level of caring commitment, and that hospices should evince a distinctive devotion to symptom and pain management.” (Campbell and cox 27). Another reason certain hospices do not allow physician assisted suicide is because they are religiously affiliated. They are restricted from administering physician-assisted suicide because it is against their religion to do

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.

1. Most the population does not know the day nor the hour when death will come upon them. 2. Some go in their sleep, disease or illnesses consume some, and some go by tragic happenings. 3. With legal assisted suicide, what would the value of human life degrade to? 4. How would it affect the development of cures for illnesses? 5. This procedure terminates all chances for God to provide miracles and the execution of his divine plan for an individual. 6. Death should be natural, the creator's plan not man’s. 7. The nation's largest and most influential medical organizations, the American Medical Association, and the American College of Physicians, as well as many smaller physicians' groups, are on

The decision to choose death over life should not be regulated by law, but rather be an individual’s afforded right. Therefore, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all 50 states. Debates on legalizing physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have increased dramatically in recent years, however there has been little action taken on state and federal levels that encourage the reform of this social policy. The main reason for this hesitance lies in the question of whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be regarded as morally acceptable. Many argue that legalizing PAS can bear lasting social effects, but surely the same can be true if our nation continues to deny an individual’s right to autonomy and self-determination.

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 article, “Assisted Dying,” written in The Economist, the author describes the nerve wrecking process of drafting and signing the assisted-suicide bill and explains how and why this bill has been and continues to be controversial. Because this bill deals directly with the matter of life and death, it is easy to see why there would be very strong opinions from those who oppose it and from those who are in favor. On one side, there are people, especially those of Catholic faith, who believe that death should arrive only when God deems appropriate, not when one chooses to go. On the other side, however, you have people who believe that anyone who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness should have the option of ending their life with

Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are both types of medical assistance aiding in ending a suffering patient’s life. This pain may be due to a terminal illness and suffering as well as those in an irreversible coma. This practice of doctor assisted suicide is illegal in many countries, but is increasing in popularity as people start to recognize the positive aspects that euthanasia has to offer for those that fit the criteria. Euthanasia is essential for those, placed in such life diminishing situations, and whom no longer want to experience suffering. This is where the issue gets complicated, and many religious groups argue that individuals should not have the legal right to choose whether they get to die or not, but that it is simply in God’s hands. Suffering patients argue that they should be given the right to choose whether or not they have to experience this suffering, to end their life with the dignity they still have, and to alleviate the stress that their deteriorating life conditions have on their families, themselves and the entire healthcare system. Therefore, despite the many arguments, euthanasia can have a very positive impact on the lives and families of suffering individuals, as well as the Canadian healthcare system.

That life is a gift from God and we must respect it and as a Christian you have a duty to help people who are suffering, not kill them. With the pain killers that are available today, no person should have to suffer in their final days and palliative care can help a person die with dignity, in a way that suits the patient and their family. Christian organisations also argue that all lives are equal, should euthanasia become legal it would devalue the lives of the disabled, terminally ill and even the elderly, who in turn may feel they have a duty to choose euthanasia rather than be a burden on their families.