Sue Rodriguez is a 42-year-old woman who was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which is a neurological disease that heinously attacks the central nervous system. (medicinenet) Due to this degenerative disease, Sue believes that her life is an epitome of emptiness, hence requesting the aid from a healthcare professional to assist in terminating her life. Physician- assisted death refers to “a practice in which a doctor may help to hasten a patient’s death: by providing the patient with medication at a dose level that is intended to cause death” (Sumner, 2017, p.34). However, prematurely ending your life based on diseases, unfortunate events, or mental illnesses does not justify physician- assisted death. This paper aims to explore …show more content…
An engineering model would consist of patient’s autonomy and patient values. The physician is guided in explaining the state of the disease, however, ultimately it is the patient’s decision on the final decision of their health (Houston, 2018). Moreover, this model was not adhered to and in 1990 it was strictly a paternalistic model. Physicians were in control of all the decisions being made and no other autonomous choice was taken into consideration. These values derived from the physician’s reductionisitc/scientific system. This includes a disinterested concern for patients and society and goes towards dedication to medical practice and the community of science. In addition, physicians approach patients with a biomedical approach; which is solely based on determining the problem through science and finding a solution that focuses on preserving human life. (Vanwiechen, 2018) A physician must always uphold their values of attaining and preserving human life as it is their duty. Correspondingly, Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” (Smith, 1993). Referring back to Kantian deontology, a physician must attain their moral obligation towards patients in attaining goodwill through the structure of reasoning. …show more content…
The case study proves that an assisted suicide is wrong and should not be followed through as it violates sections 7, 12 and 15. Sue was denied an assisted suicide by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Afterward, she took matters in a more serious context as she proceeded to appeal the case in the Supreme Court of Canada. Currently, 47 states in the United States of America declare that suicide by a physician is illegal, because of the broader implications that follow suit with it. The guidelines for which assisted death is permissible is entailed to where “patients must be diagnosed with a terminal illness and in severe capacitation and excruciating pain cannot be resolved with any medical resources, and their natural death must be foreseeable” (Sumner, 2017, p. 129). In addition, according to Kantian deontological theory, if a physician assists one person in suicide, they must also assist every patient who requests this procedure and proceeds with no emotional and personal influence. If the legalisation of physician-assisted death was a global phenomenon, not only would there be breaking of moral values associated with Kantian ethics and religious prospects, it would also create a continuous ripple effect with the potential to spiral out of control. Sue believed her disease of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis obtained reasonableness to receive an assisted suicide. Correspondingly, what
Presence of a Duty of care: Physicians have a responsibility to treat people in a medically- appropriate manner.
17. Pellegrino argues for a three-tiered system of obligations incumbent upon physicians. They are in ascending order of ethical sensitivity.
Edmund Pellegrino’s account of virtue based ethics practiced by a physician reaches an extremely high moral standard and involves the expression, at the highest level, of benevolence, temperance, fidelity to trust, integrity, justice and compassion which goes over and above what is strictly required of a physician; whereas, legal and rights-based ethical conceptions involve a physician adhering to the duties imposed on them by the laws of the land-such as physician licensure, good Samaritan laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc., and medical ethics codes and duties which are more obligations and duties to what strict ethics spells out.
1. (problem – PAS): In today’s society, Physician Assisted Suicide is one of the most questionable and debatable issues. Many people feel that it is wrong for people to ask their doctor to help them end their life; while others feel it is their right to choose between the right to life and the right to death. “Suffering has always been a part of human existence.” (PAS) “Physicians have no similar duty to provide actions, such as assistance in suicide, simply because they have been requested by patients. In deciding how to respond to patients ' requests, physicians should use their judgment about the medical appropriateness of the request.” (Bernat, JL) Physician Assisted Suicide differs from withholding or discontinuing medical treatment, it consists of doctors providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication to aid in the use to end their life.
Katz states, “the conviction that physicians should decide what is best for their patients, and, therefore, that the authority and power to do so should remain bested in them, continued to have deep hold on the practices of the medical profession “(214).
The proposed case of Susan Hutchinson is obviously a case of physician-assisted suicide. There are many different views of the moral standing of physician-assisted suicide. Many factors such as health, competency, knowledge, autonomy, etc., are considered when making rational moral decisions concerning physician-assisted suicide. The patient and physician must agree upon terms to justify the action of them permitting physician-assisted suicide.
After ensuring the preservation of medicinal practices and knowledge, the consequences of it are realized through guiding ideas. The Hippocratic Oath affirms, “I will keep [my patients] from harm and injustice.” Doctors swear by contributing to the wellbeing of patients, ignoring the various personal effects of ego, sexual interest and human tendency to gossip. Doctors must be able to admit to inability in order to make sound judgements. This would mean diagnosis to the best of their ability, and nothing beyond their ability: “I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment" (Hippocrates). The oath calls on doctors not to abuse their societal power or fall prey to their desires: “I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations" (Hippocrates). The oath further protects the patient’s emotional wellbeing by restricting the doctor from disclosing details surrounding the patient’s physical condition. The oath makes clear, “What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about" (Hippocrates). With the words “In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art"
According to the Criminal Code of Canada, physician-assisted suicide is illegal in Canada. However, due to the changing minds of Canadians and their values over a course of time, Canada created new laws that directed the act of assisted suicide by a physician. However, it is an ongoing debate whether these laws are problematic or beneficial. Canada’s new laws regarding doctor-assisted suicide are effective because patients can die with dignity, there are benefits to the healthcare system and there will be less emotional turmoil for patients and their families.
Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial issues of the twenty-first century. Anyone can kill themselves, but what happens when one is not capable of physically doing so and at the same exact time is also terminally ill. When is it okay for a physician to use their medical expertise, and oblige with a incurably patient; to agree that one’s life is worth ending. Where is the line drawn? Legally, physician-assisted suicide is a criminal offense; you are after all killing another human. Morally, is it okay to watch someone die in agonizing pain and stand-by because God told us all too. This essay will explore and analyze the legal aspect of physician-assisted suicide, what does the law say. As well as, the moral implications of physician-assisted suicide, it is ever okay, and the consequences it will have on our society.
Another aspect of physician assisted suicide is this procedure devalues the lives of those who are disabled. A family may feel that it would ease their financial burden if their loved one committed suicide and desired to aid them in the process. However, if those are not the true wishes of the individual, how can we put a price on a person's life, the only chance we will ever have to partake in this experience? For a medical doctor, there is a sense of obligation to the individual to ease their suffering. The conflicting problem is that the assisted suicides cannot be effectively and properly regulated; the lines are too fuzzy as to where we can draw the limitations.
The topic of physician-assisted suicide has become very controversial because of the ethical questions. The physical state of health of the patient, the patient’s personal life, and even the financial pressure of the patient are all factors to consider when contemplating whether or not to legalize this controversial cause of death. Physician-assisted suicide regarding medical ethics states that a physician cannot legally give any patient a lethal injection to end their life, but they can take the patient off of life support in order to increase the process of death. Physician-assisted suicide should be legalized at a federal level and should be morally acceptable for patients who are terminally ill and can no longer be treated to improve their medical situation.
Physician assisted suicide becoming legal will not make tons of people go out and use it. Haider Javed Warraich, a clinical researcher, defends this. His article “On Assisted Suicide, Going Beyond ‘Do No Harm’” argues how assisted suicide can be a solution for terminally ill patients who continue to lose control over their lives. Warraich analyzes how barely 35 percent of those who request the medication actually follow through with it.
Assisted suicide is an extremely controversial issue both in Canada and countries around the world. In most of the world, assisted suicide is still illegal, but there appears to be some movement towards its legalization. Regardless of this shift towards the possible legalization of assisted suicide, there is still substantial resistance and debate regarding the issue. On one hand, those who support assisted suicide mostly use the ethical argument that everyone should have the right to choose how and when they die and that they should be able to die with dignity. Another factor is the “quality of life” issue, which means a person should no longer have to live, if they feel their life is no longer worth living. On the contrary, the argument against
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
Hippocrates, directed his fellow physicians “to help and do no harm” (McCormick, 2013) which basically brought to the bare the fact that, considerations of respect for persons and for justice have been present in the development of societies from the earliest times.