The Right Of Physician Assisted Suicide

Physician assisted suicide or PAS is a controversial topic in the world today. But the important question is, should physician assisted suicides be allowed in cases such as: the patient’s suffering is far too great and there is no chance of them getting better? This is a highly debated issue, that has activist groups on both sides fighting for what they think is the right thing to do. Physician assisted suicides can stop the excruciating pain a patient is in, especially if there is nothing that can be done to stop the pain. Or it can be done for a patient that fully understands that there is nothing that can be done to save their life, so as not to put their loved ones into financial hardship. In this

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

Who gets to make the choice whether someone lives or dies? If a person has the right to live, they certainly should be able to make the choice to end their own life. The law protects each and everyone’s right to live, but when a person tries to kill themselves more than likely they will end up in a Psychiatric unit. Today we hear more and more about the debate of Physician assisted suicide and where this topic stands morally and ethically. Webster 's dictionary defines Physician assisted suicide as, suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of the patient 's intent (Webster, 1977).

Physician-assisted suicide is controversial in healthcare and political realms alike. Currently, this end-of-life option is practiced in five states within the United States. Social concerns regarding assisted suicide revolve around ethical quandaries; providing the means to a patient’s death is contradictory to ethical principles of healthcare providers. Political concerns surrounding the legalization of assisted suicide include disparities in healthcare that may lead to certain populations choosing assisted suicide and the stagnation of current care options. While there is no succinct manner in which to declare assisted suicide right or wrong, each individual must address the social and political concerns surrounding the issue when voting for legislation to legalize assisted suicide or pursuing the option for themselves.

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.

1. (problem – PAS): In today’s society, Physician Assisted Suicide is one of the most questionable and debatable issues. Many people feel that it is wrong for people to ask their doctor to help them end their life; while others feel it is their right to choose between the right to life and the right to death. “Suffering has always been a part of human existence.” (PAS) “Physicians have no similar duty to provide actions, such as assistance in suicide, simply because they have been requested by patients. In deciding how to respond to patients ' requests, physicians should use their judgment about the medical appropriateness of the request.” (Bernat, JL) Physician Assisted Suicide differs from withholding or discontinuing medical treatment, it consists of doctors providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication to aid in the use to end their life.

As humans, we have the right to life. In Canada, in section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians can expect “life, liberty and security of the person.” This means not only to simply exist, but have a minimum quality and value in each of our lives. Dying is the last important, intimate, and personal moment, and this process of dying is part of life. Whether death is a good or bad thing is not the question, as it is obviously inevitable, but as people have the right to attempt to make every event in their life pleasant, so they should have the right to make their dying as pleasant as possible. If this process is already very painful and unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten the unpleasantness. In February of this year, judges declared that the right to life does not mean individuals “cannot ‘waive’ their right to life.” Attempting suicide is not illegal in Canada, but the issue here is for those whose physical handicaps prevent them from doing so, and to allow access to a safe, regulated and painless form of suicide. It is a very difficult, sensitive and much-debated subject which seeks to balance the value of life with personal autonomy. In this essay, I will argue that the philosophical case for pro-euthanasia is more complete than those arguments against it due to the

Thesis: When it comes to the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), some experts believe that an individual should have the option of ending their life in the event that they have been given six months to live with a terminal illness or when the quality of their life has been vastly changed. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question whether physician-assisted suicide is medically ethical, would be overly abused to the point where doctors might start killing patients without their consent. Whereas some experts are convinced that just improving palliative care would decrease the need for someone to want to end their life before it happened naturally.

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 which is also known as PAS has been a topic that has been highly debated for years, it gives patients in critical medical conditions the right to end their lives. Many people think that PAS and euthanasia are the same, while both actions include medications in lethal doses, Physician Assisted Suicide is when a doctor makes a patient’s death less difficult by providing him or her with a lethal dose of medication such as barbiturates or a combination of medications to allow the life ending act or to refrain the patient from receiving treatments that are used to prolong a terminally ill patients life. The physician lends the knowledge but the person does the act. While, euthanasia is when someone actually administers

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.

Thanks to modern developments in medical technology, people in advanced countries today live longer and stay healthy until they are relatively older. The technology, however, also allows some people to hasten their death and make it relatively pain-free. As a result, many patients suffering from unbearable pain of certain incurable illnesses from time to time ask their physicians to help them commit suicide. Any physician who is asked to do this is under an ethical dilemma. On the one hand, the physician is asked to help relieve one from pain and suffering. On the other hand, by helping a patient commit suicide the physician is assisting someone to commit murder even if it is the case of self-murder. This ethical case known as Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) is a controversial topic in the United States and elsewhere. Since it is an ethical issue, one way of resolving the dilemma is to evaluate the morality of PAS from the perspective of classical and other ethical theories. Among these are utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, relativism, emotivism, and ethical egoism. With the exception of deontology, any of these theories can be used to justify PAS easily. Deontology is the only view that places strong moral limitations on the application of PAS. Deontology's most prominent proponent Immanuel Kant strongly opposed suicide. However, the core principles of deontology may justify physician-assisted suicide

To determine the criteria for PAS and to justify its use, oncologist E.J. Emanuel conducted a research on the attitudes and experiences of patients, oncologists, and the public on physician-assisted suicide. His research found two thirds of oncology patients and the public found PAS acceptable for patients with unremitting pain. However, it was not acceptable when the reason for assisted suicide was “ burden on the family” and “life viewed as meaningless.” His results set a borderline of when PAS is ethically permissible to the majority in the United States and creates criteria for the eligibility of PAS. Additionally, his findings show patients with depression and psychological distress were more likely to consider assisted suicide. Thus, he proposed for the evaluation of patients who request for PAS and, where appropriate, to treat them for depression before PAS can be an option (Emanuel, 1805-810). In essence, the sole reason for PAS is to end unremitting pain for terminally ill patients. Countries should conduct evaluations to ensure those who are requesting PAS is competent and are not suffering from depression or psychological distress. With this in mind, the global policy should take into account the 4 conditions developed by the District Court in Yokahama, Japan, regarding PAS. First, the patient is suffering unbearable physical pain; second, death is

When justifying medical procedures, it is important to acknowledge the difference between moral permissibility and legal permissibility. This difference is evident in the three medical procedures that end patient’s lives: physician-assisted suicide (PAS), voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) and passive euthanasia. PAS is when a physician intentionally and knowingly prescribes lethal drugs to a patient intending to commit suicide. VAE is when a physician administers a lethal injection to kill a voluntary, informed patient upon request. Passive euthanasia is when a physician withholds treatment and leaves the patient to die. It is commonly thought for passive euthanasia to be ethically permissible, but not for PAS and VAE. This is because it is never permissible for a physician to take direct action to kill the patient. Although in both PAS and VAE, physicians play an active role in bringing about the death of a patient, the patient ultimately kills himself in PAS and the physician ultimately kills the patient in VAE. Regarding moral permissibility, I find that humaneness of treatment and compatibility with physicians’ moral obligations provide convincing arguments for accepting PAS and VAE as moral medical practices. However, the difference in patient’s self-determination makes PAS a more morally justifiable medical practice. Furthermore, the difference in the ultimate causal agent of death creates legal complications and greater possibility for abuse for VAE. Thus, I also

In the second article, Mohamed Y. Rady and Joseph L. Verheijde argue that if sedation is used in conjunction with the voluntary refusal of foods and fluids to hasten death, then it is equivalent to assisted dying. It is important to tell families that declining oral intake is a natural part of the dying process and that hesitancy to give artificial hydration is not abandonment. They discuss physician-assisted death, combining the both under the premise of providing quality palliative care is the same as not following the Hippocratic principle of “do not kill”. It also crosses religious and cultural values of patients, families, and health care professionals and violates basic human rights. They warn regarding confusing a terminally ill patient versus an imminently dying patient. The doctrine of double effect is often raised to explain the acceptability of an action that causes harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of supporting some noble end. They urge the legal and societal debates to focus on the borders between aided dying and palliative care.