The Loss Of Ethical Values

However, there is immense criticism on the morality of the process, especially because the process denies a patient the right to natural death. The critics of the assisted suicide procedure argue that such a process devalues human life and tends to promote suicide as an alternative to personal suffering. By claiming that the procedure allows terminally ill patients to initiate dignity at death is flawed because the purpose of medical profession is to ensure a dignified life. According to the physicians’ code of ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, physicians are not allowed to do harm to their patients because their role is to allow a dignified health for members of the community. Consequently, legalization of Physician Assisted suicide that requires physicians to assist the patients to die is against their medical ethics. Quill, Cassel, & Meier (2010) provide that although the patients voluntarily ask the medical practitioners to assist in the process, the practitioners have a role to advise the patients against such a procedure. Besides, such a premise is bound to raise awareness of suicide as an alternative to suffering within the public domain, which may encourage such behavior among healthy members of the community that feel that they enjoy the freedom to make such a decision. On this basis, the negative moral implication of assisted suicide makes its legalization unworthy in the

Euthanasia is a controversial topic regarding whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be further legalized. Euthanasia is the act of a medical doctor injecting a poison into a patient 's body in order to kill them. Some argue that euthanasia should be legalized to put people out of pain and misery. However, others argue that some people with terminal illnesses would do anything to live longer and believe that it is a selfish and cowardly act. Euthanasia is disputable because of the various ethical issues, including, but not limited to: murder and suicide illegality, the Hippocratic Oath, and medical alternatives. As someone who has had many traumatic experiences and who wants to become a doctor, I am very passionate about the well-being of my future patients and the responsibility to do no harm to them. For these lawful, logical, and personal reasons, euthanasia should not be legalized.

It was in 1990’s when the topic of assisted suicide reached an all-time high. It was the work of Doctor Jack Kevorkian that began in 1960 that sparked the topic of “right to die” legislative action. Doctor Kevorkian was a Michigan doctor responsible for the deaths some 44 suicides for terminally ill patients. Doctor Kevorkian along with many accredited doctors such as Marcia Angell, agree on one main point; terminally-ill patients should have the right to determine how they should end their life. Marcia Angell, states in her article The Supreme Court and Physician-Assisted Suicide-The Ultimate Right that “Although others may consider

When talking about doctors, death and incurable diseases, one of the most controversial topic that comes up is Physician assisted suicide. Webster’s dictionary define it as, “suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information.” Most of us have experienced the pain of seeing our loved ones dying in a hospital since doctors and modern medicine can only help us so much. Physician assisted suicide not only helps alleviates the never ending pain, but patient also dies with dignity. On the other hand, people who oppose it, have strong religious and ethical beliefs. They think that Physician assisted suicide demeans the human value and violates doctor’s Hippocratic Oath. After researching a lot about this topic, I decided that taking a moderate stance would be the best option because even though I agree that PAS (Physician assisted suicide) goes against medical ethics and religious beliefs I also believe that sometimes PAS is the best option available for people who are fatally sick and want to die with dignity and peace. In this paper I will discuss the history of physician assisted suicide, why is it important to have this option available and how should we limit PAS to make a compromise with people who are against it.

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.

Critics of PAD have expressed concern about abuse and error in assisted death, but less so about the same margins when it comes to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. They say that there is a clear difference between the act of ending one’s life and simply withdrawal of treatment. (K) However, it is also important to note that this does not mean that those against PAD are for preserving life at all costs, as witnessed by withdrawing care that does no more than prolong suffering. (F) Proponents argue that the act of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is just as likely to lead to death as a physician giving a lethal dose of a substance, so why are physicians legally required to respect one choice, but not the other? (K) The end result of PAD is comparable to actions that are legally performed by physicians, such as aggressive palliative care, and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. (K)

Physician-assisted suicide is one of the most controversial topics in the United States and other parts of the world today. Assisted death allows mentally proficient, terminally-ill adult patients to request access to life-ending medication from their physician. This type of assisted death is promoted by organizations such as the Death with Dignity National Center, who advocate for countrywide advances in end-of-life care and extended options for individuals near death. Although there are various arguments that state it is both immoral and unethical, physician-assisted suicide is a viable and honorable method to provide end-of-life options to the terminally-ill and to provide better support, relief, and comfort to dying patients. This topic

Physician assisted suicide- the voluntary termination of one’s own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician, and euthanasia, the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable, painful disease are both highly emotional and contentious subjects. Some argue physician assisted suicide (P.A.S.) is admissible for someone who is dying and trying to painlessly break free from the intolerable suffering at the end of their life, and some attempt to argue physician assisted suicide is not considered admissible because it violates the doctor’s Hippocratic oath and other reasons. From research, I believe, however, that there are some solutions that take sides with and against P.A.S. and euthanasia, but when they’re debated against each other there is a stronger argument for allowing the legalization and practices of P.A.S. rather than degrading the practice and prohibiting it.

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.

Pressing for families and their loved ones, an act to be decided for somebody suffering from pain – physician-assisted suicide is a touchy subject for many. In cases where the intolerable suffering can be judged by the patient, physicians should extend their hands to initiate euthanasia through ethical means. I would say that it can be justified when terminal illnesses restrict the patient in a hospital bed with only the plug binding themselves to their bodies. I would say that it can be justified when the hastened death of somebody would benefit others, when the burden of a human, so sick, carries onto others. It is a fact that a life support program for somebody without the will to live can cost thousands of dollars, in contrast to the smaller

Kervorkian’s background was one that was very interesting and many people still, to this day, question his works. He was born in Pontiac, Michigan on May 26, 1928

Throughout his campaign, Dr. Kevorkian sincerely believed he was providing a needed service. He truly thought he could gain support from the courts and win the publics approval by passionately arguing that self-determination was a basic human right. (Ferguson & Levinson, 2015). His campaign started in 1990, when he assisted a patient suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Janet Adkins, end her life. He continued until 1999, when finally a judge stated, “Consider yourself stopped”, (Ferguson & Levinson, 2015), as he was being sentenced for his conviction of second-degree murder for euthanizing Thomas Youk. Although he was a very controversial figure, his methods and ideology brought this topic into the headlines and generated discussions in the medical and legal communities and in the public arena over the role of physicians in PAS.

Kevorkian was an American pathologist, euthanasia activist, and artist. Having declared to have assisted in about 130 patients to their final moments, he is portrayed in the media as “Dr. Death.” Regardless of his unappealing nickname, Kevorkian is still considered a hero for being the only doctor to have given his terminally ill patients the option to have a right to die; legendarily saying, “Dying is not a crime.” For believing to give his terminally ill patients the option to cease their suffering, Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced eight years in prison. Jacob Kevorkian should not have been penalized. Patients have the right to choose their own death, and as a doctor, Kevorkian was just “fulfilling his duty to end hopeless suffering” in his patients (Darley, et al.

In a continuously evolving society, ethical considerations are becoming a major factor in dealing with changes in the healthcare system. A topic of consideration that creates controversial discussion is the subject of physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is described as the act in which a physician provides the means necessary for the client to perform the act of suicide. The issue of physician-assisted suicide is viewed through many different perspectives. The topic of physician-assisted suicide has been debated since the development of medicine. Physician-assisted suicide was first legalized in the United States in Oregon in 1997. (Lachman, 2010). The gateway for advancements in legalization has since expanded.

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are actions that hit at the core of what it means to be human - the moral and ethical actions that make us who we are, or who we ought to be. Euthanasia, a subject that is so well known in the twenty-first century, is subject to many discussions about ethical permissibility which date back to as far as ancient Greece and Rome , where euthanasia was practiced rather frequently. It was not until the Hippocratic School removed it from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate? More so, euthanasia raises