The Benefits Of Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide

Physician assisted suicide or PAS is a controversial topic in the world today. But the important question is, should physician assisted suicides be allowed in cases such as: the patient’s suffering is far too great and there is no chance of them getting better? This is a highly debated issue, that has activist groups on both sides fighting for what they think is the right thing to do. Physician assisted suicides can stop the excruciating pain a patient is in, especially if there is nothing that can be done to stop the pain. Or it can be done for a patient that fully understands that there is nothing that can be done to save their life, so as not to put their loved ones into financial hardship. In this

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).

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.

Many Americans are diagnosed with a terminal illness each day. Hearing that kind of news and knowing there is less than a year left to live and the quality of life would no doubt be heartbreaking. During the last few months of a terminal patient’s life they are often in tremendous pain and suffering. Those with terminal illnesses are treated with life prolonging measures including chemotherapy and radiation. These treatments and the illness itself often leave the patient 's feeling as if they are a shell of who they were and miserable. “Numerous ailments such as certain types of cancer result in a slow, agonizing death” (Messerli, Joe). Physician Assisted Suicide allows

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.

Those against physician-assisted suicide believe that legally banning the right to die is probable and needed. It is a law that cannot have enough regulations that will protect all patients because loop holes can lead to abuse, privacy, and the actual choice of death. This is described by, “…a legal ban on physician-assisted suicide is constitutionally permissible in light of the state’s legitimate and weighty interests in preventing abuse, protecting patient autonomy, and avoiding involuntary death” (Sunstein 1124). This abuse can be viewed that the poor minorities would be heavily hit by the use of physician-assisted suicide because of their lack of money and representation. These loop holes can be managed though. Being specific in the law

Imagine laying in a hospital bed with a terminal illness, attached to many machines that are keeping you alive, family members and friends taking turns visiting, doctors constantly doing their routine check up, having no desire to eat or drink and being fed through tubes. The doctors have gave you the word that there is no chance of survival, it could be months, weeks, days, or even hours before you say your goodbyes. Would you not want all the suffering to stop and want your life to be over as soon as possible? In Canada as well as many other countries physician assisted suicide also known, as euthanasia is illegal. However, as some would like to call it mercy killing is legal in countries such as Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg under certain regulations such as the patient must be under an unbearable condition that is alleviated. Physician assisted suicide should be legalized in Canada as well for many reasons. People that are under constant suffering whether it is at the hospital or at home can die with dignity. One of the most important reasons physician assisted suicide should be legal in Canada is that it is a humane way for terminally ill patients to end their lives without suffering any longer. Patients that cannot enjoy their last days on earth due to suffering should have a choice, if they know that there illness is incurable then he or she is looking forward to dying since there is no chance of life. Additionally, the patients as well as family members and

A terminal disease diagnosis changes the outlook on life, leaving the choice of either living life to an inevitably painful death or ending the suffering by seeking a different medical option. A person who is terminally ill requires rigorous treatments to slow down the process of death, but there is an alternative option. Physician-assisted suicide continues to gain attention and is being legalized across the world. The process in the United States is slower, yet a few states have already authorized it. People undermine this option for unethical reasons; however, it enables a person in agonizing pain to end their life before becoming entirely incompetent. Doctors across the nation seek this practice in order to help the patients as well as their families; even though, they could be risking their license. Despite moral values contradicting this practice, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized across the United States for terminally ill patients lucid enough to make the decision on their own.

In today’s society, suicide, and more controversially, physician assisted suicide, is a hotly debated topic amongst both every day citizens and members of the medical community. The controversial nature of the subject opens up the conversation to scrutinizing the ethics involved. Who can draw the line between morality and immorality on such a delicate subject, between lessening the suffering of a loved one and murder? Is there a moral dissimilarity between letting someone die under your care and killing them? Assuming that PAS suicide is legal under certain circumstances, how stringent need be these circumstances? The patient must be terminally ill to qualify for voluntary physician-assisted suicide, but in the eyes of the non-terminal patients with no physical means to end their life, the ending of their pain through PAS may be worth their death; at what point is the medical staff disregarding a patient’s autonomy? Due to the variability of answers to these questions, the debate over physician-assisted suicide is far from over. However, real life occurrences happen every day outside the realm of debate and rhetoric, and decisions need to be made.

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.

Imagine sitting in the doctor’s office waiting to hear the results of a recent test that was done. The doctor comes into the room and breaks the news that you have a debilitating illness that will continue to progress quickly, eventually leaving you in a vegetative state. Knowing that there is no cure, and not many options for treatment, what would be the next step to consider? If you had the option to die, would you take it? Physician-assisted suicide remains a controversial topic in today’s society. With its political, social, and ethical issues, many questions arise on the topic of whether more states should legalize it or not. This paper will discuss the ethical, social, and political

In February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada made a momentous decision that would legalize physician-assisted death within a year. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS), in simple words, means doctors prescribe a lethal dose of medication that patients take themselves. The question that whether the Criminal Code provisions should prohibit physician-assisted suicide has been discussed in public for several decades. Actually, decriminalizing PAS may cause some sorts of abuses, but not decriminalizing it would make more patients dying with excruciating pain.

Currently in America, terminally-ill patients in most states have only two options: receive treatments (some experimental) or wait for natural death. The third option on the other hand, exists in only five states. For dying patients in Montana, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and California, they have the option for a physician assisted suicide (PAS). California recently passed the End of Life Option Act, thereby joining Oregon, Washington, and Vermont when it comes to legalizing PAS via legislation. For Montana, PAS is neither legal nor illegal according to a court decision. Judging by the fact that PAS is currently only practiced in five out of fifty states, it is clear that the issue of hastening the death of patients (by their own wishes) remains a hotly debated topic. This paper will proceed to analyze how each of the five states tackled the issues surrounding PAS.

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is the voluntary choice to end one’s life through self-administering a lethal substance with the assistance of a physician, either directly or indirectly. The concept of physician-assisted suicide roots back in history during the early ancient Greek and Roman times, before the coming of Christianity, where they actually tolerated infanticide, euthanasia, and suicide (Dowbiggin, 2003, p. 2). Throughout the classical period, many people supported voluntary death because for them it was better than having to live with terminal pain, and physicians often honored their patients’ requests (Dowbiggin, 2003, p. 2). Of course, they didn’t have the medical advances that we do now so, at the time, it seemed like a reasonable

No safeguards can protect elderly, disabled and mentally ill people from subtle, or not so subtle, pressure to request death. Essentially legal physician-assisted suicide is state-facilitated suicide and would contradict suicide prevention.