The Death With Dignity Act and Physician Assisted Suicide Essay

You've sat in your hospital bed for at least three months now, and the pain and boredom is starting to become even more torturous than you could have imagined. The pain that you are experiencing on a day-to-day basis is excruciating; a normal, everyday procedure like using the restroom or getting something to eat is a long, drawn out, and painful ordeal. All of the doctors that you've talked to agree that you are going to die soon from the disease that has infested your body, but even six months sounds like an excruciatingly long amount of time, especially when all you have to occupy your time is lie in a bed painfully, waiting it out. Your family and friends are already distraught by the news; they already know that you are on the brink

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.

Every day in the United States 1,500 people are diagnosed with a terminal illness. These people are given few options when determining if the wish to try treatment and if treatment does not work, how to deal with the end of their lives. (author unknown, “Cancer”) With this horrible future ahead of them many may wish to make amends before it’s too late, however, an increasing number of people are seeking an alternate solution. In states such as Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and soon California a relatively new, legal option is available for people with terminal illnesses. The states of Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana created a law which allows people with a terminal illness and less than six months that are mentally healthy seek professional medical help that will end their lives (Humphrey, Derek) . This topic has created heated debates across the United States with each side have clear and defined reason as to why or why not this controversial law should be processed for the whole country. The people who defend the law believe that people who are losing their lives should be able to leave this world on their own terms, and with the help of physicians they can go in a painless and mess-free way. Supporters also believe that by not wanting to the end it can help save patients, doctors, and insurance time and money that could be better spent on patients who may have options and may not be able to reach them without

Physician-assisted suicide or PAS for short is one of the most controversial subjects we as a society discuss. Not only is it a controversial subject, but an ethical dilemma faced by patient and physicians alike. There are two types of terms associated with this type of death, physician-assisted suicide, and euthanasia. PAS is a term to describe a death where a physician prescribes a medication that is administered to the patient to assist in ending one’s life. As for

Physician assisted suicide or PAS is a topic that has long been debated throughout history dating back as far as the ancient Greeks and Romans. During that time, physician assisted suicide was an accepted and tolerated practice by giving patients poison to help them die rather than have them suffer a long and painful death. Even though it went against the Hippocratic Oath which in part states “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect” (Medicinenet.com, 2015), very few ancient Roman and Greek physicians followed the Hippocratic Oath faithfully. (ProCon.org, 2013).

You’re visiting the hospice for the twenty-third day in a row; the soft squeaking of the linoleum and the gentle buzz of the fluorescents in the waiting room greet you as you walk in. You’re visiting your Grandmother, whose lung cancer has entered metastasis, and has been slowly spreading throughout her body; she has already lost movement in her arms. She is a hollow shell of the woman she once was; her once bright eyes have been fading steadily every day, and her bubbly demeanor has become crushed and gravelly, and every day before you leave, she will only say, “Kill me.” What would you do in this situation? Would you break the law in order to respect your elder’s wishes? It is a cruel reality we live in when ability to choose the time

Physician-assisted suicide is “the voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. Physician-assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life” (MedicineNet.com, 2004). Many times this ethical issue arises when a terminally-ill patient with and incurable illness, whom is given little time to live, usually less than six-months, has requested a physician’s assistance in terminating one’s life. This practice with the terminally ill is known as euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia is a controversial topic

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.

Physician-Assisted Suicide which is also known as PAS has been a topic that has been highly debated for years, it gives patients in critical medical conditions the right to end their lives. Many people think that PAS and euthanasia are the same, while both actions include medications in lethal doses, Physician Assisted Suicide is when a doctor makes a patient’s death less difficult by providing him or her with a lethal dose of medication such as barbiturates or a combination of medications to allow the life ending act or to refrain the patient from receiving treatments that are used to prolong a terminally ill patients life. The physician lends the knowledge but the person does the act. While, euthanasia is when someone actually administers

In the Netherlands, 2.1% of those who requested assisted dying were those who were between 65-74 years old. The elderly who experienced Alzheimer’s, chronic illness and physical handicaps did not have a heightened risk of PAS. The vast majority of PAS were requested by 18-64 year old. Therefore, there is no current evidence to support the so-called slippery slope concern about the risk of abuse towards the elderly in physician-assisted suicides. Other slippery-slope claims are that the legalization of voluntary PAS will result in non-voluntary PAS and many PAS request are due to mental illness and depression (Boer 2007). Neither of these claims is supported by evidence and is false (Boer 2007, Battin 2007). 20% of PAS requests came from depressed patients; 0% progressed to PAS (Battin). Overall, the mere possibility of abuse towards the elderly is a extremely weak argument. The legal system is built upon placing restriction in order to avoid a slippery slope (Rubin 2010).

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.

It is thought that the presumed vulnerable would be left helpless if physician-assisted suicide were legalized, though evidence shows this claim is false. People presumed vulnerable to physician assisted suicide are the uninsured, the poor, people with little education, people older than 80, women, people with mental illnesses, people with physical disabilities, minors and racial and ethnic minorities. There is no evidence supporting the claim that any of these groups have been adversely affected since physician-assisted suicide was legalized in Oregon in 1997. Since the law was passed in 1997, 460 patients have died from ingesting physician prescribed medication under the Death with Dignity Act (Department of Human Services, 2010). In 2009 a total of 59 deaths were from physician-assisted suicide; 98.3 percent were white, 48.3 percent had at least a bachelors degree, 98.7 percent had health insurance, and 78 percent were between 55 and 84 years-old (Department of Human Services, 2010). These statistics clearly show the vulnerable have not been poorly affected by the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

A lack of psychiatric or psychological evaluations underpin the concerns made by those against ODWDA. Clinical depression, ambivalence, and hopelessness are all influential in impaired judgement. Breitbart et al. (2000) found that research suggests clinical depression and hopelessness are accompanied with a desire for death among persons with chronic and terminal illness. Being treated for clinical depression along with the other mental states brought on through terminal illness has been considered a requirement of ODWDA. Oregon’s collected data on Oregon psychiatrics and psychologists suggest that they do not show proper objectivity towards assisted suicide (Fenn & Ganzini, 1999). Despite the argument that those mental health professionals that are not in favor of the act, Oregon does not want any form of coercion in either direction.

For doctors, a main concern with euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is the Hippocratic Oath taken in medical school, which says to do no harm (Rogatz). However, disconnecting a ventilator is not seen as murder when the physician does it but prescribing medication that the patient chooses to request and then take is considered harm and murder. Also today, the Hippocratic Oath in its original form is only issued in one medical school in the country.

In 1994, Oregon voters passed the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which exempted, “from civil or criminal liability physicians who, in compliance with specific safeguards, dispense or prescribe (but not administer) a lethal dose of drugs upon the request of the terminally ill patient.” Oregon, to this day, remains the only state within the Union to allow physician-assisted suicide. In 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case that, although there was no constitutionally protected right to physician-assisted suicide, states have permitted to pass laws allowing it. Thus, the issue of euthanasia remains widely open to philosophical, political, legal, and ethical challenges.