Why Doctors Should Not Be Legalized

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.

No one, especially a doctor, should be allowed to deliberately kill, or assist in killing intentionally. Through legislature, assisted suicide should be illegal; Doctors who aid a patient with suicide should be penalized by the law.

For those that oppose Physician Assisted Suicide, their concerns are practical. An article from Newsweek points out that, when a doctor takes the Hippocratic Oath it proclaims, “I will keep the sick from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked

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.

Another aspect of physician assisted suicide is this procedure devalues the lives of those who are disabled. A family may feel that it would ease their financial burden if their loved one committed suicide and desired to aid them in the process. However, if those are not the true wishes of the individual, how can we put a price on a person's life, the only chance we will ever have to partake in this experience? For a medical doctor, there is a sense of obligation to the individual to ease their suffering. The conflicting problem is that the assisted suicides cannot be effectively and properly regulated; the lines are too fuzzy as to where we can draw the limitations.

Now if a physically healthy person who suffers from severe depression requests or seeks assistance in this manner than the physician should do everything in his power to help treat the depression and prevent a suicide including not giving the lethal medication. On the other hand if a person who is competent, has a healthy mind, but terminally ill and has been deemed so by at least two different physicians from different hospitals and suffers a tremendous amount of physical pain seeks out the assistance of physician to aid in his or her death than that doctor would be morally obligated to assist the person. Physician-assisted suicide emphasizes that the doctors or physicians roles in this is nothing more than to be the assistant in an act started by the patient. Saying that doctors are “killing” patients is technically correct it incorrectly suggests that this act is driven by the physician and brings about uneasy visions of doctors killing socially unworthy people, but this could not be further from the truth as physicians are always hesitant and wary to be partners in physician-assisted suicide but are motivated by the compassion they feel toward suffering patients that have no better alternative and seek out this assistance. One example of this is Aja Riggs of New Mexico who had been diagnosed with uterine cancer and said “ I just want the choice to end it if the suffering becomes

The promotion of physician assisted suicide has sparked a debate throughout the world. From my point of view, assisted suicide is doctors assist patients who could not endure the pain of diseases and are voluntarily given lethal amount of substances resulting in death. However, physician assisted suicide might be considered to be deviant in many countries currently due to the religions, laws and the negative image. Also, the physicians who assist their patients to suicide might be labelled as "killers". For instance, Jack Kevorkian, who was known for successfully assisting more than 130 patients to end their lives, was charged with second degree murder and was

Doctor assisted suicide has ignited a national debate recently. Physicians have always helped patients die, that is, to tolerate the course of treatment that ends with their death. The vital question is, if doctors should be allowed by law to help a patient kill himself? If physicians are entitled to have refuge with the law to have the ability to kill, they are then given permission to murder and trust will be destroyed. Hence, I believe the process is not legal activity.

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.

Even if assisted suicide were to be permitted under some conditions, a second issue is whether physicians should ever participate in it. This is where the moral and ethical issues arise? Physicians may not want to have the burden of essentially killing a human being. A life is sacred and doctors avoid putting patients in severe pain. The law can get involved if a physician does administer this lethal dose of medication to their patient. For example, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was arrested for performing physician-assisted suicide on his patients. He clearly did not view assisted dying as an immoral type of procedure. “The site of most activity surrounding physician-assisted suicide is Michigan because Dr. Kevorkian practiced physician-assisted suicide there despite its illegal status. From 1990 to 1999, when he was convicted and imprisoned, Kevorkian assisted in more than 130 physician-assisted suicides” (Grosswald, 2002).

The process of assisted suicide, or physician-assisted death, is a hotly debated topic that still remains at the forefront of many national discussions today. Assisted suicide can be described as the suicide of patient by a physician-prescribed dose of legal drugs. The reason that this topic is so widely debated is that it infringes on several moral and religious values that many people in the United States have. But, regardless of the way that people feel, a person’s right to live is guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution, and this should extend to the right to end their own life as well. The reasons that assisted suicide should be legalized in all states is because it can ease not only the suffering of the individual, but the financial burden on the family that is supporting him/her. Regardless of opposing claims, assisted suicide should be an option for all terminally ill patients.

The argument supporting assisted suicide often begins with the amount of pain and suffering that could be saved from conditions that complement a slow, deteriorating and agonizing prognosis. Although many people support the idea of the patients right to choose their fate, others argue that assisted suicide shamefully degrades the value we put on life. But the question remains, when is it acceptable to support the patients’ wishes and when is it not? In the case of Larry McAfee, I believe that his wishes to end his life should have

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.

Is the role of a medical professional to ensure the health and comfort of their patients, or to help them end their lives? Since Dr. Kevorkian assisted in the suicide of Janet Adkins in 1990, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) has been one of the most controversial issues in the medical field today. While some view it as an individual right, others view it as an unethical issue that goes against medical ethics and religious values. Mr. H. M. is an elderly man who is diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and no chance of improvement. After excruciating pain and suffering, he has decided to request physician-assisted death in his home state of Oregon. Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act (DDA) states that terminally ill patients are allowed to use

The United States is a nation founded on freedoms and liberties, giving each citizen the ability to make their own life decisions. This freedom includes all aspects of one’s life, including medical care. With freedom comes responsibility, and this is true in terms of physician-assisted suicide. The ongoing struggle between those in favor and those opposed to this subject has ravaged the medical field, bringing into question what is morally and ethically right. The fact of the matter is that physician-assisted suicide is neither morally nor ethically acceptable under any circumstance. Not only is it a direct violation of a doctor’s Hippocratic Oath, but it is not constitutionally binding. Physician-assisted suicide would also lead to