Suicide In Pennsylvania

Abstract: This paper discusses the medical ethics of Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). Focusing on the ideas of legal vs illegal, the different views of PAS will both be addressed. While active euthanasia is illegal, passive euthanasia, or allowing natural death, is completely legal everywhere. PAS will help patients end suffering for themselves at the end of their lives, as well as the family's. The price of the drug may be expensive but the price of medical treatments continues to rise. The Hippocratic Oath does not support the aid in ending a life, however it has been changed in the past. Many citizens are afraid that is PAS was considered legal, it would grow into something even more illegal being debated. Also, the religious aspect of the end of life had conflicting views as some believe PAS is ending suffering, a good deed, and other believe PAS is not respecting a human life. PAS is only legal in seven states but has gained the attention of many others and other places around the world.

In the article Euthanasia’s slippery slope by Charles Lane, he will tell you that euthanasia is being practiced more and move and it really isn’t a good idea. Charles Lane states “ Observe that the reports seem to validate concerns about where these practices might lead. (Lanes) This quote states that if it is practiced enough than doctors will just do it without second thought. The article also states “ What is presented at first as a right is going to become a kind of obligation.” (Lanes) This helps my argument by proving that doctors will soon go against all beliefs and euthanasia will become a second hand nature. In conclusion, people shouldn’t use mercy killing to end someone’s life, they have the right to live a full life that God has planned for them.

Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.

Compare two people to see who is the doctor? First person should do everything to save people lives and the second person who is give drug to the patient to die. The doctor is the first person. Job of physicians is to kill pains, not to kill people. A doctor must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life. Reduce pain is an important issue to be addressed. If a patient seek death because they cannot stand the pain; the first concern of doctors should care about is the reduce pain, not the way to make they died. For patients unconscious for a long time, many people believe that patients should be able to die, but it is not clear; how they can identify that patients want to die while the patient is no longer able to communicate. They will use all knowledge and ability of medicine to save lives rather than using the ability and developing the medicine to kill people. The doctors and nurses using any way of human intervention to end the life of a patient are still considered as a murder. Choosing to die over pain is like running away from the problem. Death - with people who are wearing white shirt is a failure, failure of the life, medical failure, and failure of the doctor. The doctor and nurses should not entitle to surrender with the death. Anyway, the true remains life still has the values higher than the death. And now, with the advancement of science, the terminally disease cannot cure in couple months, but it can be cure in the future. Instead of creating the euthanasia drug, they should create new medicines that might ease the pain, not completely cure the disease but at least lessen the pain experience by the patient. The implementation of assisted suicide is totally contrary to medical ethics that is to heal rather not

Euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, is an important and controversial topic in our society today, and (under the correct conditions) should both be considered legal and morally acceptable. In fact, throughout history euthanasia has been a debate in many countries, some areas accepting the practice, whereas others find it unacceptable. Many people and professionals continue to refer to the Hippocratic Oath, an vow stating the proper conduct for doctors, and it's famous words "Do no harm." However, when it comes down to whatever holds people back, whether it is their views on religion or oaths from many years ago, it should be considered a correct practice. In fact, in the case of Vacco v. Quill, one point raised was that "Over time, the Hippocratic Oath has been changed, and deleted. In order to "do-no-harm" one would end suffering instead of prolonging it." With the use of Supreme Court cases, and professional psychologist and medical quotations, one can see the clear reasons that this topic must be allowed. In the end, euthanasia should definitely be considered correct both legally and morally due to one's legal rights, sensible ethical values, and the multiple positive benefits upon the legalization of euthanasia.

For those that oppose Physician Assisted Suicide, their concerns are practical. An article from Newsweek points out that, when a doctor takes the Hippocratic Oath it proclaims, “I will keep the sick from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked

There is also debate as to whether or not non-participating states should make legislation to legalize this life ending option. Those who are against legalization of physician assisted death often present with the arguments that legalization will lead to abuse of the practice and consequently harsh treatments of our nation’s sickest patients. They also argue that it is an unethical practice in which mortals are “playing God” and determining where the line between life and death is. This group also establishes that physician assisted death is a violation of the Hippocratic Oath in which doctors vow to “do no harm” to their patients. Additionally, they maintain the argument that all human lives have value from the time of conception until natural death and allowing physician assisted death would be a premature limitation of an individual’s life. The opposition, however, says that physician assisted death is a dignified treatment for hopeless patients whose only alternative treatment is prolonged suffering until death. Additionally, they argue that allowing doctors to participate in physician assisted death upholds the Hippocratic Oath because forcing a patient to endure undue suffering against their will is in fact doing harm. Also, a major argument states

From the respirators that help those with failing lungs, to medications that sustain a patient's physiological processes. For the terminally ill, medical technology has removed the pain and misery from these patients lives instead of automatically ending a life that eventually, with effort, could have possibly been saved. These patients should not have the right to assisted suicide. Yes, it might end long term pain quicker, however, “honoring the sanctity of life overrides the right of individuals to choose how and when they will die” (Ersek 49).Assisted suicide encourages people to give up on life and take the easy way out. It encourages anguish instead of hope and strength to fight through their battle. Although it might give the patient requesting the process a feeling of control over their unbearable life, it doesn’t mean the only “positive” option they have is to take their own life. Some think respect for the individual's right to choose, even assisted suicide, is more important still, “autonomy doesn’t include the right to engage others (such as nurses and physicians) in immoral acts. The right to choose doesn’t extend to the right to die by asking health care professionals to assist in hastening death” (Ersek 49). The Hippocratic Oath states “The prohibition against killing patients... stands as the first promise of self-restraint sworn to in the

In Arizona, the suicide rate is 16.5 per 100,000 people which makes Arizona the top 8th state with the highest suicide rate. Arizona has a population of 6.83 million people and is also the top 8th state with the highest suicide rate, according to cbsnews. As alarming as it sounds “Suicide is the 8th leading cause of death in the United States”(randomhistory.com) After looking at these statistics, suicide is a big issue in Arizona, therefore critical action should be taken. People need to learn how to identify the signs of someone who is thinking about or has decided on committing suicide. As well as get educated on what causes the victims to go through with the act. There

The Hippocratic Oath was created by an ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, also known as “the Father of Medicine,” based on the principle that the doctor is to do what is best for the patient and have sole responsibility for the patient’s death (Medical Ethics). Therefore, is killing their patient what is best? No, there are alternatives to assist their patients, but allowing them to die seems like the easier path. Most patients do not have the mind of a doctor to have the knowledge of other alternatives; the only road they see is the road to death. However, they are unaware of the fact that modern day doctors have advanced technology which help provide more medications for all types of illnesses. On the other hand, many support PAS because they believe the patient should die with the dignity they still have left before their illness takes over completely, but how does suicide correlate to dignity? “Does dignity depend upon control?” (Callahan). The phrase “death with dignity” is deceptive and used to gain more supporters however, if this phrase were to be replaced by for exactly what it is, physician-assisted suicide, then the attempt to legalize the practice would lose supporters. Many supporters are oblivious of the origins of physician-assisted suicide and which group of people began the practice. When the Nazis rose to power by the public, they wrote about

Some feel that physician assisted death is unethical as medical doctors take the Hippocratic Oath which states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” (MedicineNet). The Hippocratic Oath has been used for a long time and has not evolved in the way that medicine, technology or society has. The Hippocratic Oath also states, “First do no harm” (MedicineNet). When medical doctors oversee assisted deaths they are not harming the patient. They are overseeing the patient in one of the scariest, dramatic, or peaceful times in their life. They are

If it is true that only God has the power to give and take away life, that health care professionals take an oath that ethically binds them to preserve life, and that we as a society value the sanctity of life and equal rights for all, then how can euthanasia be considered “good death?” Allowing euthanasia delivers the authority over death into human hands which do not hold the wisdom required to make decisions that only God should make. To continue, health care professionals are entrusted to do their best to heal illness and disease, not to give up when the prognosis is grave. In addition, it is a common practice for new doctors to take an oath of ethics based on the original Hippocratic Oath. How can our society expect health professionals

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

Euthanasia is one of the most complex and morally critical health care practice and policy issues that doctors and nurses must face and advocate for (Gardner). Even though doctors and nurses must follow some sort of code of ethics, following those codes can be difficult for some because their personal feelings about end-of-life care come into play making it problematic for them to truly rationalize the situation. Doctors are required to take the Hippocratic Oath, which in relation to euthanasia, states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this