Essay on Terminally Ill Patients and Physician Assisted Suicide

According to the American Medical Association (1996), physician-assisted suicide (PAS) occurs when a physician facilitates a patient’s death by providing either the means or the information necessary to aid in the patient performing the life-ending act. PAS has had a long and controversial history dating back to the ancient Greeks and Romans. They believed that there was no reason to prolong life if continued pain and suffering was the only prognosis. The term euthanasia, in fact, stems from the Greek meaning "a good death". It was not until Hippocrates and his Hippocratic Oath, cautioning against deadly medicine towards patients, that a different view was seen.

Suicide is one person’s personal decision; physician-assisted suicide is a patient who is not capable of carrying the task out themselves asking a physician for access to lethal medication. What people may fail to see however is that the physician is not the only healthcare personnel involved; it may include, but is not limited to, a physician, nurse, and pharmacist. This may conflict with the healthcare worker’s own morals and there are cases in which the patient suffers from depression, or the patient is not receiving proper palliative care. Allowing physician-assisted suicide causes the physician to become entangled in an ethical and moral discrepancy and has too many other issues surrounding it for it to be legal.

They are there day in and day out and develop special relationships. They might not agree with the decision to end one’s life, based on religious aspects, but they still have to go through with the decision (Gielen et al, 2009). This also brings into question about the ethical dilemma faced by physicians to preserve life. Likewise, this ideology is published in numerous medicine journals across the world. More specifically, this quandary is outlined in the QJM: An international Journal of Medicine. Within this journal, it poses these very questions. Should the patient’s decision to end their life override the doctor’s moral and ethical duty to preserve life? “I believe there are practical as well as legal and moral reasons to adhere to the ancient Hippocratic dictum: when efficacious treatment is possible, the physician's duty is to the patient, and to no one else—not to the family, nor the community—to prevent suffering and preserve life for as long as you can” (Epstien,

Pain is universal. In life, everyone will feel pain; it is inevitable and cruel. Physical or emotional, insignificant or severe, it is there. The pain continues mounting into an unbearable amount of suffering. Suffering that blots out everything of worth, such as family, love, aspirations, and optimism. Hopelessness seizes any will to endure. With no way to subside or control the pain, often one will go to extremes in order to be free of it. Many take their life, in order to escape the horror. Committing suicide is a traumatizing experience for any and all involved. Life is precious. The chance to live is only given once, and cannot be taken for granted. Preventing even a single life from ending early is imperative and obligatory

For anyone who has not seen the movie Me Before You, it starts off with a young man, William, who was paralyzed from the neck down. He wakes up miserable everyday with no desire to continue life. He has made arrangements to end his life through physician-assisted suicide. However, before he goes through with ending his life, his parents hire a young lady, Louisa, as his caregiver. Louisa finds out about William 's wish to die and does everything she can to change his mind. The two fall in love, making each other happy. Louisa helps William live life to the fullest, and yet he chooses to go on with his wish and ends his life.

Is physician assisted suicide ethical? Physician assisted suicide is an up and coming ethical question that examines a person’s right to their own death. Many people support physician assisted suicide, citing that it can save a lot of pain and suffering. Others claim that the concept of physician assisted suicide is a slippery slope. A slippery slope in the sense that if society accepts euthanasia as a rightful death for the terminally ill, they will potentially accept it for other ailments as well.

Ezekiel Emanuel once said, “Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia have been profound ethical issues confronting doctors since the birth of Western medicine, more than 2,000 years ago.” Physician assisted suicide (PAS) should be available as a dignified option for the terminally ill because it can be built in to the palliative care plan formulated by patient and Doctor, may alleviate some medical costs for the incurable, and it’s a moderated and humane way to end a person’s suffering.

Now if a physically healthy person who suffers from severe depression requests or seeks assistance in this manner than the physician should do everything in his power to help treat the depression and prevent a suicide including not giving the lethal medication. On the other hand if a person who is competent, has a healthy mind, but terminally ill and has been deemed so by at least two different physicians from different hospitals and suffers a tremendous amount of physical pain seeks out the assistance of physician to aid in his or her death than that doctor would be morally obligated to assist the person. Physician-assisted suicide emphasizes that the doctors or physicians roles in this is nothing more than to be the assistant in an act started by the patient. Saying that doctors are “killing” patients is technically correct it incorrectly suggests that this act is driven by the physician and brings about uneasy visions of doctors killing socially unworthy people, but this could not be further from the truth as physicians are always hesitant and wary to be partners in physician-assisted suicide but are motivated by the compassion they feel toward suffering patients that have no better alternative and seek out this assistance. One example of this is Aja Riggs of New Mexico who had been diagnosed with uterine cancer and said “ I just want the choice to end it if the suffering becomes

Most people hate going to the doctors office. Shots, bright lights, blood, and a whole lot of terrifying medical terms. But are they really the bad guys? In my opinion, they are not. Some people look to doctors as a way out, the one person who could help to end their suffering. So another question would be, what do the doctors do to stop these people from a slow, agonizing death? Not medications, not weekly doctors visits; Euthanasia, otherwise known as physician assisted suicide. Some people believe that it is morally unacceptable, but I stand with the patients, residents, and doctors who make this decision.

In almost every case of a terminal disease, pain is intolerable and seeing someone in such agony is heartbreaking. For example, Brittany Maynard, a 29 year old brain cancer patient who had to move to Oregon so she can avail of the Death with Dignity act. “Maynard knew that her form of brain cancer would be excruciating. She would endure swelling of the brain that would very likely cause seizures, painful headaches and the gradual loss of bodily function. Doctors know that for about 5 percent of the population, no amount of morphine can block the agonizing pain the terminally ill endure” (EDITORIAL: Dying with dignity). Palliative care can often be provided for the dying patients and alleviating pain to provide comfort for the dying has always been the priority. “Palliative care focuses on relieving the symptoms, particularly the pain, of incurable illness.” (Palliative Care) But, in relieving pain through the prescribed medications there are also side effects that are caused by the prescribed pain suppressors and two examples will be lethargy and it compromises breathing. In most cases the effectivity of the pain medication may no longer alleviate the pain. If a patient will be in such agony for the remaining days or weeks the quality of life is no longer present. The agony of pain prevents a patient from performing even just the bodily functions.

The following case study addresses the care I provided to a patient who was brought in by ambulance to the emergency department after a gunshot wound.

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.

“First, Do No Harm”, a moral principal that all physicians live, and practice by. In a perfect world this amounts to preventing any further harm and most certainly, preventing death. Unfortunately, this is far from a perfect world, and sometimes a surgery can have unexpected complications, and other times a medication can have terrible side effects. In cases where a patient’s life is now defined by their pain, what exactly does “Do No Harm” mean? In preventing further harm would the physician be inclined to provide treatment that would sustain the patient’s life, while also extending the suffering? Would it be permissible, on a moral ground, to allow the patient to die, thus ending the suffering? And if so, what if the doctor were to assist

Following the argument of doctor’s right. Also the doctors should have a say when it comes to the request of the patient. It is said when the doctors have compassion for their patient due to their suffering, it plays a role in their decision. They see their patient laying there incurable and suffering from the unbearable pain, they believe they should be allowed to suggest euthanasia if the patient and family agree. But doctors should never say anything about euthanasia unless they are a terminally ill patient with unbearable pain. “Since 1997, the states [Oregon] has allowed for prescription to be given for a lethal dose of drugs when two doctors agree that a mentally competent patient has less than six months to live.” (Coles, 2009, p.2) Doctors have been performing euthanasia for many years already without technically knowing it. There are many different religions and beliefs when it comes to treatment and prolonging life. Patients, whose religions do not believe in medical treatment, end up using the practice of euthanasia because they are taking away that

   Euthanasia or assisted suicide would not only be available to people who are terminally ill. This popular misconception is what this essay seeks to correct. There is considerable confusion on this point, perhaps further complicated by statements in the media.