The Pros And Cons Of Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide is when you give someone else permission like a physician, to kill you. Assisted suicide is legal in at least six states (Tolle, 1996) and there is lots of people who wanted to die because the disease they might have at the moment is just too much for them. If a patient that wanted to die the they would either talk to a physician or their doctor and give the doctor permission to just kill the patient. Assisted suicide can only happen when your medication is not working and the pain from the sickness you have is just abdominale. There was a case that was about how a man who was going through chemotherapy he didn't want to go through it so he talked to his doctor about assisted suicide. They decided to

Assisted suicide is the suicide of a terminally- ill patient, achieved by using a prescribed drug from a doctor for that specific purpose. It is legal in only six states in the United States of America including: Oregon, Montana, Washington, Colorado, Vermont, and California. Countries such as Germany, Japan, and Switzerland have legalized assisted suicide in past years. It has been disputed for many years and continues to be a controversial issue whether physicians should be authorized to end an individual’s life with their prescription and if this should be done legally.

Many people in the world are suffering from illness that cannot be cured. They live their last days in pain and suffering wondering when and why it happened to them. Instead of suffering, many people dream of suicide to take their pain away but they know no one would understand. In very few states, it is legal for people to get assistance to put them out of their pain and suffering. It is called assisted suicide. Assisted suicide is the help from a physician to end their patients’ lives with their permission. The patient must have a terminal illness with less than six months to live to qualify. Many people are against assisted suicide because they believe that it is just a cover for murder. People should be thought of as dying with dignity

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.

There are instances when people who are terminally ill or severely injured who want to terminate their own lives. Sometimes, due to the state of their injuries or conditions, those people are unable to end their own pain. It is in many of these cases that the patients request assistance in their suicides. This kind of request is like to happen in facilities where the patient receives long term or permanent care. Physician assisted suicide is a hotly contested issue. There is support for those who believe this kind of "assistance" is morally, ethically, and otherwise wrong. There is support from people who believe that a person has a right to choose when his/her life ends. These people believe that physician assisted suicide is a form of altruistic assistance. There are valid points made by people on both sides of this issue and there is certainly room within the debate to be undecided or to be conflicted. Secondary, tertiary, and long term providers/facilities have the power to improve the preservation of life and they have the power to assist with the end of life. The paper presents arguments of this debate and reflects upon the issues at the surface as well as the underlying issues of the debate over physician assisted suicide.

The ethical dilemma of this highly controversial subject will continue to split our approach to the notion of assisted suicide. As we age, we come to terms with our own mortality, how we choose to leave this world isn’t always up us. For those who suffer from a terminal fate, maybe they should have the choice, and those who understand their current condition can provide them the dignity they deserve without repercussions. The only way we as a society can move ahead, is to find a common

Assisted-suicide is a over dramatic expression for patient autonomy. Patient autonomy is defined as an “individual’s right to decide what to do with his or her own body, and the duty of the physician to relieve the patient’s suffering” (Rogatz 1). A patient should certainly have the right to choose what happens to his or her own body. The life of a patient should not be put solely into the hands of a doctor. If the he or she so chooses, physician-assisted suicide should be made available to the terminally ill. A physician, although it should be their obligation to help a patient, should not feel obligated to be the assistant in a person’s suicide. Assisted suicide is a source of “empowerment” for the patients, using “self-determination”, to make them feel as if they have a place in their treatment and to retain their dignity by maintaining their mental faculties by the end of their time (Salem 2).

Physician-assisted suicides (PAS) successful legalization in multiple locations, including four U.S. states, proves that opponents’ predictions of PAS leading to medical misconduct are inaccurate. Jacob Appel, a doctor in New York City, is quoted explaining, “ Despite predictions that legalization would lead to abuse or to decrease in palliative care, jurisdictions that have sanctioned the process, like the Netherlands and Oregon, have shown that a system of assisted suicide can be implemented responsibly” (qtd. in “The Right to Die: Do terminally ill patients have a right to die with the assistance of a physician?”). Appel’s claim is corroborated by Lewis Cohen who says,

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.

The decision to choose death over life should not be regulated by law, but rather be an individual’s afforded right. Therefore, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized in all 50 states. Debates on legalizing physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have increased dramatically in recent years, however there has been little action taken on state and federal levels that encourage the reform of this social policy. The main reason for this hesitance lies in the question of whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be regarded as morally acceptable. Many argue that legalizing PAS can bear lasting social effects, but surely the same can be true if our nation continues to deny an individual’s right to autonomy and self-determination.

The topic of discussion is one of the most controversial topics in the last decade physician-assisted suicide. This occurs when a physician assists a terminally ill or disabled person to take their own life. Assisting either by giving the physical means or instructions on what method to use to commit suicide with. There are many moral and ethical arguments; some are based on religious beliefs while others are based on the rules of medical ethics. It can be argued that the terminally ill and the disabled should not be forbidden from taking their own lives. It goes against all regularly accepted laws of medical ethics for a doctor to assist in the suicide of a patient. Physicians pledge to not harm patients (Hippocratic Oath).

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

Physician-assisted suicide is a form of assisted suicide in the United States, in which the physicians prescribe lethal doses of drugs or explaining a method of suicide to the patients upon the request of the patients. Physician-assisted suicide is different from the active euthanasia, which refers to competent patients voluntarily agree to euthanasia through communicating their wishes when they are competent or through instructions to be followed if they become incompetent because the final act of killing is performed by the patients, rather than the physicians in the active euthanasia. To date, physician-assisted suicide is only legal in eight states, including California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont and

I’d like to start by saying I was unaware that physician assisted suicide was legal in the United States. According to MacKinnon and Fiala it is legal in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana (2013). I believe that a person has the right to die when they are terminally ill and have no quality of life. If a person is forced to stay alive just to suffer a slow death, I feel this is cruel. In my opinion the laws that prohibit euthanasia have little to do with the terminally ill and more to do with religious and medical platforms. Furthermore, if religious institutions are lobbying for laws against euthanasia, I feel this goes against the separation of church and state as well as tax exemptions (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2015).

The first oath a doctor ever takes is the Hippocratic Oath. It distinctly states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” Doctors swear to do no harm, yet some violate the very oath they pledge their profession to. Assisted suicide should not be an option to patients with terminal illnesses because the end of a patient’s life should be morally acceptable, decided rationally, and lived out in comfort.