Voluntary And Assisted Suicide: A Case Study

Aphasia is a communication disorder that affects many adults and families. Aphasia occurs as a result of damage to the language-specific areas of the brain (ASHA, 2014). Individuals with aphasia may experience difficulties with oral language, receptive language, memory, attention writing, and reading. There are a myriad of approaches designed for the treatment of aphasia. Two treatment approaches, Promoting Aphasics Communicative Effectiveness (P.A.C.E.) and Constraint Induced Language Therapy (C.I.L.T.), and their efficacy in regard to available evidence will be discussed below.

The word suicide gives many people negative feelings and is a socially taboo subject. However, suicide might be beneficial to terminally ill patients. Physician- assisted suicide has been one of the most controversial modern topics. Many wonder if it is morally correct to put a terminally ill patient out of their misery. Physicians should be able to meet the requests of their terminally ill patients. Unfortunately, a physician can be doing more harm by keeping someone alive instead of letting them die peacefully. For example, an assisted suicide can bring comfort to patients. These patients are in excruciating pain and will eventually perish. The government should not be involved in such a personal decision. A physician- assisted suicide comes with many benefits for the patient. If a person is terminally ill and wants a physician assisted suicide, then they should receive one.

Active and passive euthanasia has been a controversial topic for many decades. Medicine has become so advanced, even the most ill patients can be kept alive by artificial means. Active euthanasia is a deliberate action taken to end a person’s life, such as lethal dose of medication (Burkhardt & Nathaniel, 2014). Passive euthanasia is allowing a person to die by not intervening or stopping a treatment that is keeping them alive (Garrard, 2014). There are three main arguments within this issue; Firstly, in the healthcare setting, it is morally accepted to allow a patient to die but purposely killing a patient is not (Garrard, 2014). Secondly, some people believe there is no moral difference between passive and active euthanasia.

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.

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 our country the premise of physician assisted death conjures images of suicidal madmen, hell bent on death and mayhem. The reality is, that could not be farther from the truth. So why is there a stigma on assisting patients with taking their own life? Others look at this as a dignified means to those suffering a terrible fate. There are many issues that weight heavy on the difference between physician assisted and vs. natural death. Is it cruel to let a terminal ill patient who will suffer horrendously until nature take its course? Would it be more humane to allow a patient to pass peacefully without the suffering or enduring painful end? This report will examine physician assisted death

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

Much of modern medicine prolongs not only living, but also dying. Physician-assisted suicide is a quite controversial topic as it brings up questions about the morality of killing, the credibility of consent, and the duty of physicians. This is not a new problem; assisted suicide has been discussed in all cultures from very early historical times to the present. However, medicine's recent technological progress has led to an increased ability to extend life. This new potential has made this problem much more pressing than it has in the past. I believe opposition to assisted suicide is in error not only because it does not allow for mercy, but also because the position does not take into account one's autonomy. I

The healthcare system is complex with nearly every decision made posing an ethical dilemma for patients, providers, and healthcare leaders. With an influx of new medical knowledge from evidence based practices and new technologies more decisions are being made available to patients and families. Terminally ill patients for instance are faced with numerous options when it comes to treatment including whether or not they end their life by terminating treatment altogether or seek controversial options such as Physician’s Assisted Suicide. The topic of Physician’s Assisted Suicide or (PAS) is very intricate with numerous pros and cons, moral ethics, and ways to address the issue within the healthcare practice.

The direct arguments in physicians-assisted suicide state that under no circumstances is the killing of another human being justified. Life is precious no matter how low the quality is and, should be valued at all times.

Physician assisted suicide (PAS), a widely controversial topic, has two apparent sides. Those who oppose the morality of PAS, and see deep rooted problems, and those who see PAS as beneficial and support the morality. With this issue gaining publicity, it is important to explore and examine exactly why allowing PAS would ultimately be beneficial to us all. California recently passed a bill allowing PAS, and the effects of this bill have to potential to become very wide spread and encourage other states to follow in California’s footsteps. But, before people open up to the idea of PAS there are several moral dilemmas and arguments against PAS that must be proven incorrect. Ultimately I plan to show why PAS ought to be morally permissible among those with life altering conditions and terminal illnesses. PAS produces the best overall consequences and allows people to be autonomous, which is what this country was founded upon.

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.

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

There has been much global debate as to whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized. Physician-assisted suicide is defined as taking place “when a doctor helps a person to commit suicide by providing drugs for self-administration” (Tomlinson, Spector, Nurock, & Stott, 2015). Other means of assisted suicide include active euthanasia, which is an act undertaken by the physician himself that involves “…administering a lethal drug at the request of a patient with the explicit intention to hasten death” (Rietjens et al., 2006). For the purpose of this ethical review, the term “assisted suicide” will be used to envelop both active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide; the intent of this paper is to examine the arguments for and against assisted suicide from a nursing standpoint.