The Legality Of Physician Assisted Dying

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.

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.

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.

Since terminally ill patients are already free to refuse hydration and nutrition and thereby bring about death, there is no compelling need to legalize PAS. James Bernat, Bernard Gert and R. Peter Mogielnicki claim “that lack of hydration and nutrition does not cause unmanageable suffering in terminally ill patients.” Their basic point is that patient refusal or hydration and nutrition already provides a feasible and much less problematic alternative for patients who desire to shorten the dying process.

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.

Laws vary differently across the U.S. and one in particular is only available in Washington state, Physician-Assisted Suicide Law. The law allows people that have been diagnosed as terminally ill to have the option of medical assisted suicide. It allows the patient to go through a process of requests to be prescribed a lethal dose of medication to die peacefully and without pain. The law protects doctors from being criminally prosecuted by the family for abiding the ill family member with the requested drug. The law can be used across the whole country because I do believe that death shouldn’t have to be painful, as long as the estate is ready and the person is of sound mind, it can be an option should be available to those individuals. The

According to Mirror News, In October of 2014 a women named Charlotte Fitzmaurice Wise was watching her daughter Nancy Fitzmaurice suffer from pain. She was born with Hydrocephalus and septicaemia which made it impossible for her to walk, talk, eat or drink. She required around the clock care and was fed through tubes. As time went on her health worsened and she would scream in pain even though she was injected with morphine. Wise believed that her daughter was in excruciating pain and deserved to be at peace. Wise submitted an application to end her daughter’s misery, and soon her application would be approved. She was able to relieve her daughter from pain, and made it legal in the United Kingdom for a parent to end their critically ill child’s life if they are disable and can’t speak for themselves.

Physician-Assisted Suicide Many people suffer from terminal illnesses. They try many different methods of treatment. Sometimes, however, those treatments can only help so much. Terminally ill patients want to end the pain brought from their illness, but they contemplate what the best solution is.

In 5th century BCE, a Greek philosopher named Hippocrates wrote the phrase “I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked [for it], nor will suggest the ways to such a counsel”(Miles, 2004). This passage is apart of a written document that is now known as the Hippocratic Oath (Appendix A). The philosophers of ancient Greece were aware of the medical predicaments that a physician would ultimately face while practicing medicine. Today, the oath has become an ethical code for the physicians to uphold and apply in their profession. Why is this phrase important enough to be included in this document? Some view this passage as the code that prohibits physicians from lending their abilities for the executions of prisoners. Others

Physician assisted suicide is a controversial moral issue that I feel should be allowed in all states not just a few. Right now there are only five states that have some type of death with dignity law; one which has some extra steps that need to be taken to be able to use the law. Over the last year there has been more media coverage on this topic because of a young woman named Brittany Maynard, who decided to tell her story with needing this option. The real question though should be do we have the right to tell someone that they do not deserve to have this choice?

Physician assisted suicide was brought to mainstream attention in the 1990’s due to Dr. Kevorkian’s “suicide machine," who claims to have assisted over 100 suicide deaths of terminally ill patients with Alzheimer’s disease (Dickinson, p. 8). In the early 1990’s, for the first time in United States history the issue was brought to the voting polls in California, Washington, and Oregon (Dickinson, p. 9). The bill was passed in Oregon; legally allowing physicians to facilitate death of the terminally ill, but voters fails to pass the bill in Washington and California (Dickinson, p. 9). In 2008 voters in Washington State passed the Washington Death with Dignity Act (Dickinson, p. 277). Today

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”

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.

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.

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