The Death Of Assisted Suicide

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.

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

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).

Physician-assisted suicide is arguably one of the most controversial subjects to discuss or read about within our society. This paper will examine both sides of this discussion, from the aspect of the patient choosing to end their own life based on the quality of their remaining life. Also, the religious factors of the medical staff involved and the moral and ethical duty of the doctors to preserve the life of the patient if there are still means available.

of life. Death is inevitable. Why should each of us not have the right to

The thoughts of assisted suicide are very mixed. Some people believe that it is a great way to put terminally-ill patients out of the their pain and suffering. They see it as a way for a person to die with dignity after suffering from a painful disease. Others think it is beyond morally wrong for a doctor to intentionally end a patient’s life. They feel that a doctor should not have unnecessary deaths riding, on their shoulders the rest of their career. Assisted suicide goes way beyond the beliefs of medicine and is morally wrong in so many ways.

Brittany Maynard was given six months to live after being diagnosed with the deadliest form of brain cancer; she had recently just turned 29. To make matters worse, doctors had told her she would suffer from the tumor in a slow and painful manner before succumbing to death. Maynard decided she would die on November 1, a few days after her husband’s birthday under physician-assisted suicide. Unfortunately, she had to relocate from California, where her friends and family lived, to Oregon in order to fall under the “Die With Dignity” act. According to euthanasia.procon.org, only four states in the whole country have legalized assisted suicide. Unfortunately, there are many like Maynard, who have to relocate and leave their home or go through a long and strenuous court battle to receive this treatment plant. This is due to the disapproval of physician-assisted suicide.

There are instances when people who are terminally ill or severely injured who want to terminate their own lives. Sometimes, due to the state of their injuries or conditions, those people are unable to end their own pain. It is in many of these cases that the patients request assistance in their suicides. This kind of request is like to happen in facilities where the patient receives long term or permanent care. Physician assisted suicide is a hotly contested issue. There is support for those who believe this kind of "assistance" is morally, ethically, and otherwise wrong. There is support from people who believe that a person has a right to choose when his/her life ends. These people believe that physician assisted suicide is a form of altruistic assistance. There are valid points made by people on both sides of this issue and there is certainly room within the debate to be undecided or to be conflicted. Secondary, tertiary, and long term providers/facilities have the power to improve the preservation of life and they have the power to assist with the end of life. The paper presents arguments of this debate and reflects upon the issues at the surface as well as the underlying issues of the debate over physician assisted suicide.

Nowadays, in the United States, people face many big controversial issues. Besides problems related to the reality of daily life like health care, government intercepting phone calls, raising the minimum wage, gender equality, human rights, equality, anti-racism ... have practical effect on social life. People are also really concerned about the issue of physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) or euthanasia has become a controversial issue today, and that related to consciousness, choices and decisions about life of people. PAS is an action expressing an intention of ending a life to relieve intractable, persistent, and unstoppable suffering. Another idea, PAS is the

Assisted suicide brings a debate that involves professional, legal and ethical issues about the value of the liberty versus the value of life. However, before conceive an opinion about this topic is necessary know deeply its concept. Assisted suicide is known as the act of ending with the life of a terminal illness patients for end with their insupportable pain. Unlike euthanasia, the decision is not made by the doctor and their families, but by the patient. Therefore, doctors should be able to assist the suicide of their patients without being accused of committing a criminal offense. This conception is supported by three points of view. The first point defenses the autonomy of people, which covers the right of people to make decision

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.

Some states and countries allow physical assisted suicide to patients who are deemed terminally ill. Every year thousands of patients are place in hospice care, only to be given an estimated time frame of how long they have to live. During this time, these patients are suffering from terminal diseases and conditions. In 1994, Oregon became the first state to write the Death with Dignity act into law. For those suffering from terminal illness this was great news. However, this controversial law would soon be repealed in 1997, only to be reinstated in 2006. Ever since then, other states have exercised their rights to adopt similar laws and others have not due to the controversy surrounding this topic. Although some states have endorsed this topic,

There are limited choices the terminally ill have, and physician assisted suicide is one of them. Physician-assisted suicide gives these individuals that are suffering some control. In today’s society physician-assisted suicide is a very controversial subject of social interest; this should be a socially acceptable way for the terminally ill to choose to die.

It is obvious this is a very controversial issue that is discussed daily by those who wish to die to avoid loss of dignity and also by those who think it could be immoral. For physician-assisted suicide to even be considered the patient must be of sound mind when they are requesting the physician-assisted suicide. To guarantee that the process is carried out correctly a doctor or a witness should be there to prove consciousness. The patient must be diagnosed with a terminal illness, if they are not then there is a possibility for a life. There are many pro’s and con’s to physician-assisted suicide. If a person is terminally ill they would not be in any suffering and they could die with dignity. It is also proven that hospitals would save money, and it could possibly cut some of the deficit. Although it sounds immoral, having a terminally ill person in the family can create many problems, so in this case it would be positive because there would be no more burden. It is quite possible that passing this law would create a damper on the low income and middle class. For many it goes against the separation of church and state, because many believe that dying that way is a sin. It is very possible that miracle cures will arise shortly after a person has partaken in the physician-assisted suicide. In all reality, the government insurance companies and hospitals will want to force this process because it would save them a great deal of money in the long run.

Physician assisted suicide should be morally permissible. Patients who are in constant suffering and pain have the right to end their misery at their own discretion. This paper will explore my thesis, open the floor to counter arguments, explain my objections to the counter arguments, and finally end with my conclusion. I agree with Brock when he states that the two ethical values, self-determination and individual well-being, are the focal points for the argument of the ethical permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia (or physician assisted suicide). These two values are what drives the acceptability of physician assisted suicide because it is the patients who choose their treatment options and how they want to be medically treated. Patients are physically and emotionally aware when they are dying and in severe pain, therefore they can make the decision to end the suffering through the option of physician assisted suicide.