The Ethical Principles Of Physician Assisted Suicide

Others have argued that physician assisted suicide is not ethically permissible, because it contradicts the traditional duty of physician’s to preserve life and to do no harm. Furthermore, many argue that if physician assisted suicide is legalized, abuses would take place, because as social forces condone the practice, it will lead to “slippery slope” that forces (PAS) on the disabled, elderly, and the poor, instead of providing more complex and expensive palliative care. While these arguments continue with no end in sight, more and more of the terminally ill cry out in agony, for the right to end their own suffering.

In homes across the world, millions of victims are suffering from fatal and terminal illnesses.With death knocking on their door, should these people have to endure pain and misery knowing what is to come? The answers to these questions are very controversial. Furthermore, there is a greater question to be answered—should these people have the right and option to end the relentless pain and agony through physician assisted death? Physician-Assisted Suicide PAS is highly contentious because it induces conflict of several moral and ethical questions such as who is the true director of our lives. Is suicide an individual choice and should the highest priority to humans be alleviating pain or do we suffer for a purpose? Is suicide a purely

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle establishes that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” and explains this through the dialectic of disposition, particularly between vice and virtue. In chapter four, Aristotle affirms that since “all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good”, we inherently seek the highest form which is known to both the masses and the educated as happiness through both living and acting well . Thus regardless of whether man is inherently evil or good, we aspire for the highest form of happiness. Through the implications and discourse of vice and virtue, this paper explores the relevance of Aristotle’s moral philosophy in modern day and will be applied to the contemporary ethical issue surrounding physician assisted suicide. By exploring Aristotle’s work through primary and secondary sources, this paper will discuss the greater good and happiness as it relates to not only the patient or physician, but as a member of a greater social circle and that of society because to Aristotle the role of the individual is less important than their social obligations and role. This paper aims to use the rationale of natural law and of Aristotle to explore the prospects of physician assisted suicide as for the greater good and as a modern ethical obligation.

“A serial mercy killer” (The Right To Die, 80). This is what some would define what Kevorkian did. Kevorkian, however does not feel this way. He performs his acts for the greater good in his eyes. However, he never hesitated to try any other treatments that could result in the patient’s improved health, whether it be antibiotics, or even experimental drug maintenance programs (The Right To Die, 82). He feels that medically assisted suicide is an essential option to those that are incurable and dying (The Right To Die, 83). Kevorkian’s main concern for his terminal patients was their comfort and confidence in their decision. He explains the death his patient’s experienced as being “like a painless heart attack in a deep sleep”(The Right To Die,

This was hardly “doing it right” as Dr. Kevorkian likes to believe. (The New York Times, 2007, para.6)

Is physician assisted suicide ethically justified? Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is defined as ending one’s own life by taking a fatal dosage of a substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician (MedicineNET.com, 2015). PAS is a very sensitive and controversial topic that raises many moral and ethical questions. While some feel that a person should be able to die with dignity and under their own terms, others feel that this is not a choice we can ethically make. PAS recently made national headlines when Brittany Maynard, a twenty-nine year old woman diagnosed with stage IV glioblastoma, went public with her plan to end her own life under Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act that was passed in 1997. Maynard legally received a prescription from her physician for a lethal dose of barbiturates and decided to end her life own life instead of suffering the painful death that loomed in her near future. She ended her own life on November, 3, 2014 with her family by her side (Durando, 2014). There are many moral issues that surrounded Maynard’s decision and whether or not PAS is ethical, however it is important to understand both sides of the debate to truly get the entire picture of the complexity of this issue before making the determination if physician-assisted suicide is ethically justified.

Jack Kevorkian was a doctor who assisted terminally ill patients to commit suicide. He believed that they had the right to die in an appropriate way; to die with dignity. He therefore invented a machine (called thanatron—a Greek word for death machine) which could take away his patients’ lives painlessly and efficiently, all they had to do was to push a button and their lives would be ended by either deadly injection or carbon monoxide poisoning. There had been at least one hundred patients who tried and died in this method. Dr. Kevorkian was charged several times with murder in these deaths. Lucky for him, a judge dismissed one of his charges because there was no evidence of murder. Jury did not find him guilty either. Nevertheless, he

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.

Should individuals hold the privilege to survive or expire, conferring to their personal perception of a “good life” even if they are not hurting anyone else? The exceedingly divided dispute around the procedure of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) asks this very question. Although physician-assisted suicide is relatively new to the realm of ethical issues it is often the main topic in many discussions about proper healthcare and palliative care. Physician-assisted suicide was first explicitly legalized in the United States when Oregon passed its Death with Dignity Act in 1994 (Kotva, 2016). The Act stipulates that “a doctor provides a patient with a lethal dose of medication or another way of causing death, but the patient, not the doctor,

In a single sentence Smith (2011) uses Kevorkian’s objective of organ harvesting and medical research in an obscure and biased context. By linking the reputation of “the doctor of death”, Jack Kevorkian, and his famous “right to die” campaign, with his support of organ harvesting and medical experiments in the article, At the Bottom of the Slippery Slope, Smith (2011) was able to draw on the emotional reactions of people who, when it comes to the issue of death, are highly polarized. Regardless of what issue of death society is facing, be it abortion, capital punishment, or assisted suicide, the vast majority has openly strong opinions that are a direct reflection of their ethics. In this case Smith (2011) publicly used the well-known controversial

Dr. Jack Kevorkian more commonly known as Dr. Death is greatly known for his opinion that euthanasia should be legalized and his work with patients seeking help. He was very important in showing euthanasia and voicing his opinion on the subject so the public could not ignore the importance of the matter. Dr. Kevorkian was said to have been involved with 130 suicides by patients who wanted to end their own lives (Nicol and Wylie 17). He had two machines he used to help the patients, one an injection and the other a mask, however both machines were operated by the patient and although Dr. Kevorkian was taken to court many times for these he was not convicted because the patient was in control. He was very careful as to not actually commit the act himself until he was contacted by Thomas Youk, a young with Lou Gheric’s disease; Lou Gheric’s disease is when the muscle stop working and eventually the patient chokes to death. Tom’s condition prevented him from actually operating the machines and therefore Dr. Kevorkian decided that he would operate the machine himself because he cared greatly about all his patients and could not let Tom live in his constant fear (Nicol and Wylie 11). Dr. Kevorkian taped Tom’s wishes and then himself hooking up the machine and pushing the button to inject the drugs. He then proceed to

There are a few different forms of physician-assisted death, such as active, passive, and assisted suicide. To some people they may mean the same thing but in reality, they are quite different. Active euthanasia is when a physician physically injects the patient with a drug that ends their live or in some way is the direct result of the patient’s death. Passive euthanasia is the result of something taken away from the patient that results in their death, such as removing a breathing tube or stopping treatment. Physician assisted suicide is the result of lethal medication given to the patient for them to take on their own time when they are ready to end their life. Some people see these different forms as being the same while others see them as being different. There are four ethical principles that become involved in conflict with these forms of euthanasia. These principles are beneficence, autonomy, non-maleficence, and justice, which act against each other sometimes in the cases of euthanasia. Beneficence is the duty of the physician to have the welfare of the patient is their first concern. This principle sometime goes against euthanasia because of the fact the physicians are stopping treatment, which results in the death of the patient. Many argue this act is the result of not thinking of the patient’s welfare. Another principle is autonomy, according to Steve Pantilat, “Autonomous individuals act intentionally, with understanding, and without controlling influences”

Physician assisted suicide, the suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, effected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose. The question of whether or not this practice should be made legal in the United States has been one of controversy since 1997. Beginning with the case of Washington v. Glucksberg, where the United States Supreme Court ruled that the matter of the constitutionality of a right to a physician’s aid in dying, was best left up to the states. Then gaining even more controversy when Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, which allowed terminally-ill Oregonians to end their lives by the practice of physician assisted suicide. (CNN.com) Proponents of physician assisted suicide

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder and served an eight year prison sentence. (Fridstein. 1). This accomplished physician graduated from the University of Michigan with an impressively high IQ. He was a writer, inventor, movie producer and classical composer. (Kevorkian). Why would a man so intelligent and successful end up in jail for murder? Well believe or not he purposely challenged the legal system in a one man crusade to ignite a national discussion on the subjects of assisted suicide, Euthanasia and one’s constitutional right to choose. Euthanasia is a medical procedure that involves a person being induced with a soothing, relaxing medicine that allows them a peaceful passing. Dr. Kevorkian’s attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, summed it up best when he said, "We’re just talking about the right not of children and not of mentally incompetent people but the right of mentally competent adults to make decisions about their own bodies as to how much suffering they have to undergo.” (Kevorkian). Euthanasia is not for people experiencing temporary illness or unhappiness. It’s for people who are imprisoned by their own unbearable physical pain for the rest of their lives with no way out. Is it fair to not give those people a choice? Is it fair to make them slowly deteriorate while losing their dignity? I think not. That is why I support euthanasia being legalized, “Dying is not a crime.” (Fridstein. 1).

Dr. Kevorkian argues that every assisted-suicide candidate underwent extensive counseling with himself before hand, but it was found that counseling was often limited to phone calls and brief meetings that included family members and friends (Free press- internet). There should be some requirements for the process of doctor-assisted suicide, for instance, every candidate for assisted suicide must be examined by a psychiatrist. But it was found that there was no psychiatric exam in at least 19 Kevorkian cases, including several in which friends or family reported that the patient was despondent over matters other than health (Free Press – Internet). In addition, he adds that before agreeing to assist a suicide he used to make a detailed review of each patient's medical records, but it was found that Kevorkian's access to such records varied widely; in some instances, he received only a brief summary of the attending physician's prognosis