The Legalization of Assisted Suicide

People with incurable diseases are living in excruciating pain up until the day they die. Assisted suicide, though it sounds dreadful, can put an end to the suffering. Terminally ill patients should get the option to “die with dignity.” It is their individual right! For the common good, I think assisted suicide should be legal in all fifty states. Otherwise individuals will be suffering for years on end, knowing that there is

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

Support for the participation of physicians in the suicides of terminally ill patients is increasing. Much of the controversy surrounding physician-assisted suicide however focuses on the debate over whether the practice should be legalized. A woman suffering from cancer became the first person known to die under the law of physician-assisted suicide in March of 1998. In 1994, voters in Oregon approved a referendum called the Death with Dignity Act, which was enacted in 1997. This law allows patients who have been given six months or less to live that wish to hasten their deaths to obtain lethal doses of medication prescribed by two doctors. Between 1998 and 2000, ninety-six lethal prescriptions were written, and seventy patients took the

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.

Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) has grown into quite a contentious topic over the years. According to Breitbart and Rosenfeld (1), physician-assisted suicide can be defined as “a physician providing medications or advice to enable the patient to end his or her own life.” One may find many articles that are written by physicians, pharmacists, patients, and family of patients who receive PAS; from there, it is possible to gain a better understanding of what PAS is and how it has become a rising issue in the United States. For readers who have not heard about PAS and what it entails, it is important to understand that this is a debatable topic that should be approached lightly and non-aggressively in the United States when factors such as offering terminally ill patients the right to end their suffering, the likelihood of overall healthcare cost to decrease, and the comparison of palliative care to physician-assisted suicide are examined.

There are several ethical and legal issues that are raised by the majority concerning the legalization of physician assisted suicide and the role of nurses in the process. Assisted suicide is a legal act of assisting those who are suffering from a deadly illness in ending their lives by providing them the means to do it (Griffith, 2014). Netherland was the first country to legalize physician assisted suicide. In 1994, Oregon became the first state to legalize physician assisted suicide by passing a bill called “death with dignity” followed by Washington and Montana. The law states that in order to be eligible for gaining access to assisted suicide, the patient must be left with 6 months to live, signed by two physicians and mentally stable enough to make decisions. Euthanasia is an alternative term used to describe the act of putting an end to a life in order to spare the individual’s suffering from an incurable or a painful disease process. It is classified to passive, active, involuntary and voluntary euthanasia. Active euthanasia is an act that is actively done to terminate life, while passive is when treatment is stopped in order to shorten the patient’s life. Involuntary euthanasia refers to a decision that is made by the health care providers without the patient knowledge and voluntary refers to patients that knowingly request to end their lives (Levy et al, 2013).

In current society, legalizing physician assisted suicide is a prevalent argument. In 1997, the Supreme Court recognized no federal constitutional right to physician assisted suicide (Harned 1) , which defines suicide as one receiving help from a physician by means of a lethal dosage (Pearson 1), leaving it up to state legislatures to legalize such practice if desired. Only Oregon and Washington have since legalized physician assisted suicide. People seeking assisted suicide often experience slanted judgments and are generally not mentally healthy. Legalization of this practice would enable people to fall victim to coercion by friends and family to commit suicide. Also, asking for death is unfair to a doctor’s personal dogma. Some

The legalization of physician assisted suicide (PAS) in Oregon in 1994 changed the face of the argument between those who believe in death with dignity and those who believe in letting nature take its course. It was a major victory for PAS advocates as the first state in America had legalized PAS in the country’s history. In 2008, the neighboring state of Washington followed suit with a similar law and legalized PAS by a 58-42 margin. Vermont legalized it in 2013. PAS has also been decriminalized in the state of Montana. The assisted suicide of a 29-year-old Oregon woman with terminal brain cancer named Brittany Maynard in late 2014 brought light to the debate again.

Imagine laying in a hospital bed with a terminal illness, attached to many machines that are keeping you alive, family members and friends taking turns visiting, doctors constantly doing their routine check up, having no desire to eat or drink and being fed through tubes. The doctors have gave you the word that there is no chance of survival, it could be months, weeks, days, or even hours before you say your goodbyes. Would you not want all the suffering to stop and want your life to be over as soon as possible? In Canada as well as many other countries physician assisted suicide also known, as euthanasia is illegal. However, as some would like to call it mercy killing is legal in countries such as Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg under certain regulations such as the patient must be under an unbearable condition that is alleviated. Physician assisted suicide should be legalized in Canada as well for many reasons. People that are under constant suffering whether it is at the hospital or at home can die with dignity. One of the most important reasons physician assisted suicide should be legal in Canada is that it is a humane way for terminally ill patients to end their lives without suffering any longer. Patients that cannot enjoy their last days on earth due to suffering should have a choice, if they know that there illness is incurable then he or she is looking forward to dying since there is no chance of life. Additionally, the patients as well as family members and

In this case, “Doctor-Aided Suicide and “Vulnerable Groups,”” general public raised concerns on legalizing physician-assisted suicide in believe of it will impact vulnerable patients. Lead author Margaret Battin and her team analyzed data collected from both Netherland (1989-2005) and Oregon (1998-2006) on assisted suicide and voluntary active euthanasia cases recorded in these two states. They found that there were no significant changes in amount of cases among vulnerable patients such as elderly, women, psychiatric patient and uninsured people except for AIDS patients. Furthermore, cases for physician-assisted suicide had an averaged seventy years of age and

In 1776, our forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence, guaranteeing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This brings up the question, if you have the right to life, do you have the right to death? After all, it is your life and no one else’s, right? This is the question at the very center of the controversial debate on the legalization of physician assisted suicide in the United States. Anti-physician assisted suicide groups often argue that no individual truly wants to end their life. However, that statement does not ring true to those who would actually utilize physician assisted suicide- terminally ill patients. Imagine being diagnosed with a terminal disease, followed by months and sometimes years of treatment that brings insufferable side effects due to countless medicines, drugs and surgeries only to be told that you have a minimal chance of survival and will have to undergo treatment for the rest of your life. This is the bleak reality for many who are terminally ill. A compassionate individual would conclude that it is not fair for patients to be forced to live this kind of life or lack thereof, if they do not wish to do so. Physician assisted suicide should be a legal option to competent, terminally ill patients in the United States in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital costs on their loved ones and families and to preserve the individual right of people to determine their

In February 6, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada made a momentous decision that would legalize physician-assisted death within a year. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS), in simple words, means doctors prescribe a lethal dose of medication that patients take themselves. The question that whether the Criminal Code provisions should prohibit physician-assisted suicide has been discussed in public for several decades. Actually, decriminalizing PAS may cause some sorts of abuses, but not decriminalizing it would make more patients dying with excruciating pain.

There have been many debates over time of if suicide is murder, but what about Assisted Suicide? Assisted suicide is when a person helps another person end their life. Helping with the death of someone who wanted to die. Act Utilitarianism sets basis of right or wrong based on if the action causes more pleasure or pain overall. Every person is accounted as equal. This means if an action brings pleasure to one person but harms two people. The action would be deemed as bad because it brings about more pain. This analysis will attempt to answer the lingering questions about Assisted Suicide by using the theory of Act Utilitarianism.

Following this, the legalization of assisted suicide can be ensured to help “safeguard” democracy, which allows the issue to require additional attention. Safeguards are intended to make sure that people make free, informed decisions, and that they consider all possible options. Having assisted suicide legal achieves this, because it is a compassionate response to relieve the suffering of dying patients, allowing a group of individuals to have their rights respected in terms of democracy. In addition, in most places where assisted suicide is legal, two physicians are involved in determining recommendations. To safeguard against decisions driven by depression, people with signs and symptoms must be referred to a psychiatrist. Canada as well

I think assisted suicide should stay illegal because doctors and physicians are then responsible for providing prescription medicines or other means to patients who want to die. Assisted suicide is the wrong way for a person to die. The Catholic Church is against assisted suicide because it is against