The Canadian Medical Association Defines Physician Assisted Death

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

While many Americans assume “assisted suicide” or physician aid-in-dying (PAD) is unethical, they may not be fully aware of what it is and how it helps people. Imagine a loved one of yours was near the end of their life. The doctors predict only six months or less remain of their life and these next six months will consist of excruciating pain and will be almost too unbearable to comprehend. As the six months progress this person will lose the ability to eat. They will be forced to a diet of flaky ice chips which will put them in a state of relentless hunger making their body weaker and more painful than it had been before. They will also lose the ability to care for themselves and will find themselves relying on family members or complete strangers at times to care for their most private needs. After all this treatment, pain, embarrassment, and utter helplessness the patient will feel as if they have lost their dignity, they will feel as if they are a burden to everyone around them and will even become depressed in some cases. If the loved one lives in Washington State, Oregon, or Vermont they will then be faced with two options regarding the next six hypothetical months they can decide to take on the most unbearable six months of their life or they can resort to an alternative called “Death with Dignity” in which they will be administered a dose of medication from their physician that will take their life. The process is painless and can only be administered to patients

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.

In a more recent court decision, Carter v. Canada was a game-changer for the movement to grant Canadians the right to die with dignity. In a unanimous decision, the justices of the high court struck down on the federal prohibition on doctor-assisted dying. It was argued that the law violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since the law regarding doctor assisted dying was created because of Carter v. Canada, the immediate and known risks associated with doctor assisted dying are being addressed and managed by establishing a strict but fair criteria for determining who can access doctor assisted dying and the safeguards that are in place to safely administer it. To meet the criteria, he/she must be a competent adult, clearly consent to the termination of life, have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, and experience enduring suffering that is intolerable in the circumstances of his or her condition. Doctors are required to use their knowledge, skill and judgement to assess an individual’s aptness for doctor assisted death, in conjunction with the above-mentioned criteria. We must recognize that within these criteria are sub-criteria’s and there are many steps to this procedure.

A patient has to judge his or her own quality of life, making the action of assessing if a patient’s quality of life is so low that they should be considered for PAD. Although dogs and humans are very different creatures, anatomically and spiritually, PAD is the same concept of putting a dog to sleep. Both beings are loved by others greatly and both experience a low quality of life when they are ill. But why is it better to put dogs down when they are suffering, but it is not ethical for it to be done when a human is suffering? 7.6 million companionship animals were put down last year (2014) (ASPCA). The same idea and process are behind PAD. Physician Assisted Death is not abused by physicians, despite what many people believe PAD is very uncommon, even in states where it is legal. “Approximately 1 of 1,000 Oregonians obtain and use a lethal dose of medication; 17% personally considered it as an option.” (Lachman). But America is not the only place where is a controversy. “85% of 218 nurses in Australia carried out the request the physician’s request for active euthanasia” (Lachman), and “10,000 citizens of the Netherlands, where PAD is legal,

Canada is a well-respected country that has improved in many other societal issues so

Legalizing PAD doesn’t mean legalizing euthanasia. The key difference between these two practices is who administers the lethal dose; Euthanasia requires the physician or other party to administer the lethal dose, which places the responsibility of the physician, whereas PAD requires the patient to take the dose him/herself. In other words, with euthanasia the physician is in control, while with PAD the patient is in control of his own destiny.

Our understanding of this issue is still new and we need to do more research on the effects of PAD on the patient, doctors, and nurses. As well as the indirect effect on policy makers and our health care institutions. This topic is very complex and a complex situation needs a solution that will cover all or close to all the arguments. Research needs to be done on the states that currently allow PAD and taking these statistics into consideration while moving forward. There are many issues that result from PAD and whether we want to face them or not it is an issue that affects everyone. Just because a solution isn’t easily attained does not mean that the road to a solution must not be taken. Allowing PAD to be the end all be will have a negative effect on us as a society and change the concept of hospitals and doctors which are seen as a place of healing and

Thesis: When it comes to the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), some experts believe that an individual should have the option of ending their life in the event that they have been given six months to live with a terminal illness or when the quality of their life has been vastly changed. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question whether physician-assisted suicide is medically ethical, would be overly abused to the point where doctors might start killing patients without their consent. Whereas some experts are convinced that just improving palliative care would decrease the need for someone to want to end their life before it happened naturally.

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 idea of committing euthanasia and physician- assisted suicide (PAS) had a historical root in the nineteenth century and referred as "skillful alleviation of suffering"1 in Latin transcripts. Recently the theme of the legalization of physician-assisted death (PAD) in Canada boosted in 2012. The decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court in the case of Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) was the threshold of the theme. It ruled that the Canadian Criminal Code 2 prohibition against PAD was discriminatory. According to the decision, the section 241 of the Code abuses the section of 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The adjudication is being finalized by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2015 by granting a

Although a patient’s choice of suicide symbolizes an expression of self-determination, there is a great distinction between denying life-sustaining treatments and demanding life-ending treatments. The right to self-determination is a right to allow or reject offered treatments, not to choose what should be offered. The right to refuse life-sustaining interventions does not correlate with a right to force others to hasten their death. The inability of physicians to inhibit death does not mean that physicians are allowed to help induce death.

The issues surrounding assisted suicide are multifaceted. One could argue the practice of assisted suicide can appear to be a sensible response to genuine human suffering. Allowing health care professionals to carry out these actions may seem appropriate, in many cases, when the decision undoubtedly promotes the patient's autonomy. From this viewpoint, the distinctions made between assisted suicide and the withholding of life-sustaining measures appears artificial and tough to sustain. In many cases, the purpose and consequences of these practices are equivalent. On the contrary, if

The issue of PAD is one of liberty to do what one wants. Dying on one’s terms seems at first to be an issue of noninterference (negative liberty) (Stone, 2012, p124). Put another way, someone might say “Don’t interfere with the way I choose to die.” However, PAD doesn’t happen in a void. There is an infrastructure to the medical and dying process. It requires support to carry out (positive liberty) (Stone, 2012, p124). Individuals must see a doctor, obtain a diagnosis and obtain life ending medication.

In the United States today, there is a considerable amount of debate of whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. Many oppose physician-assisted suicide because they view it to be morally and ethically wrong. Similarly, many support the legalization of physician-assisted suicide because they believe human beings have the right to determine when and how they die. Personally, I believe human beings have the right to determine when they die and that the government should not keep individuals who are in extreme pain and only have a few months to live from ending their life with dignity. Through this paper, I am going to explore the many sides of physician-assisted suicide.