Doctor Assisted Suicide And Suicide

Physician assisted suicide was brought to mainstream attention in the 1990’s due to Dr. Kevorkian’s “suicide machine," who claims to have assisted over 100 suicide deaths of terminally ill patients with Alzheimer’s disease (Dickinson, p. 8). In the early 1990’s, for the first time in United States history the issue was brought to the voting polls in California, Washington, and Oregon (Dickinson, p. 9). The bill was passed in Oregon; legally allowing physicians to facilitate death of the terminally ill, but voters fails to pass the bill in Washington and California (Dickinson, p. 9). In 2008 voters in Washington State passed the Washington Death with Dignity Act (Dickinson, p. 277). Today

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.

One of the most controversial end-of-life decisions is “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS). This method of suicide involves a physician providing a patient, at his or her own request, with a lethal dose of medication, which the patient self-administers. The ethical acceptability and the desirability of legalization of this practice both continue to cause controversy (Raus, Sterckx, Mortier 1). Vaco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg were landmark decisions on the issue of physician-assisted suicide and a supposed Constitutional right to commit suicide with another's assistance. In Washingotn v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was not unconstitutional.

Physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia is still under scrutiny for a number of reasons. “In spring, 1996, the Ninth and Second Circuits were the first circuit courts in the country to find a constitutional prohibition against laws which make physician-assisted suicide a crime” (Martyn & Bourguignon, 1997). New York was one of the states that followed this prohibition. Eventually, The Ninth and Second Circuit, “allow physician-assisted suicide while attempting to protect individuals from unacceptable harms, such as involuntary euthanasia” (Martyn & Bourguignon, 1997). An assumption can be made, that euthanasia involves a licensed physician to play an active role in this partaking, and it’s where the patient prepares to die at.

A woman suffering from cancer became the first person known to die under the law on physician-assisted suicide in the state of Oregon when she took a lethal dose of drugs in March, 1998. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act passed a referendum in November, 1997, and it has been the United States ' only law legalizing assisted suicide since then. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, more than 4,000 doctors have approved of the assisted suicide law (cited in "The Anguish of Doctors,” 1996). The law allows terminally ill patients who have been given six months or less to live and wish to hasten their deaths to obtain medication prescribed by two doctors. The most important thing to notice is that this law does not include those who have been on a life support system nor does it include those who have not voluntarily asked physicians to help them commit suicide. The issue of doctor-assisted suicide has been the subject of the heated dispute in recent years. Many people worry that legalizing doctor assisted suicide is irrational and violates the life-saving tradition of medicine. However, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized because it offers terminally ill people an opportunity for a peaceful death and recognized the inadequacy of current medical practice to deal with death.

Imagine suffering day to day with consistent hospital visits, numerous medications, and unbearable pain for the next six months of your life, then being told that dying peacefully is not a granted privilege. Then imagine not being able to die in a controlled and dignified process like you prefer to. How would that affect the way you feel about death and the rest of your life you have left? Millions of people suffering from terminal illnesses consider physician-assisted suicide, but their wishes are rejected due to state and government beliefs. In fact, only five states out of fifty have a law permitting citizens the right to participate in physician-assisted suicide. That leaves just only 10% of the United States entitling critically ill patients to die with nobility. However, many citizens are commencing to lean toward physician-assisted suicides once they ascertain they hold a terminal illness.

Unlike, previous reviews, the author begins by defining physician- assisted suicide death and its differences from other forms of euthanasia. In this article, Ardell also addresses the ethical and moral dilemma between letting people have control over their own bodies through assisted suicide and the state’s decision to prevent individuals from taking their lives. Specifically, Ardell compares two countries, Netherlands and the United States, in which physician-assisted suicide is legal and illegal to assessed how each decision has influence patients with terminal illness. Finally, Ardell also focuses on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act to explain how the court decision of legalizing assisted death has impacted a whole community of people, hospitals and generally end-life care for terminally-ill patients. Although, the author doesn’t offer her opinions or a general conclusion about legalizing physician-assisted suicide, she explains that most Oregon physician assisted suicide cases has been about achieving a “death with dignity” or a death in control, rather than preventing pain. Hence, this article is important for my research paper because it explores both the legal and moral repercussion of legalizing physician -assisted suicide in the context of achieving a “death with

There are many differences between PAS and euthanasia, let 's take a look at some of them. Physician assisted suicide means that the physician makes lethal means available to the patient, that can be used when the patient chooses. PAS is also defined as a patient who died by performing the last act of suicide. Euthanasia would mean the physician takes an active role in carrying out the patient 's request. For the patient to receive PAS, they would have to take the medication when they are still capable of swallowing or able to inject a lethal dosage of medication into his or herself. For the patient to receive euthanasia, the doctor would have to be the direct cause of the patient 's death. Because the patient must be competent of killing his or herself for PAS, one of the fears is that the patient will feel the need to take their life at an unnecessary time so they will still be able to before they become incapable. Euthanasia may give more time for the patient to be talked out of or accept other options for their terminal illness before their life is taken. There is more of a chance that a mistake will be made during PAS than there is for Euthanasia because the doctor will be there the whole time and assist the patient in death him or herself. Both will have the same outcome, they are just different options for the patient.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld court decisions in Washington and New York states that criminalized physician-assisted suicide on July 26, 1997.12 They found that the Constitution did not provide any “right to die,” however, they allowed individual states to govern whether or not they would prohibit or permit physician-assisted suicide. Without much intervention from the states individuals have used their right to refuse medical treatment resulting in controversial passive forms of euthanasia being used by patients to die with dignity such as choosing not to be resuscitated, stopping medication, drinking, or eating, or turning off respirators.9

Just imagine…the invitation arriving in the mail, it was no ordinary invite. The days of physical misery and suffering that lead up to this final celebration of life were unbearable to watch. Having a terminally ill family member is hard because you know the days, weeks and months are numbered. Quality of life, what is that anyway? Each passing hour has the quality of life diminishing to unimaginable physical pain and anguish. Watching someone you love slip away and turn into a shell of who they once were is unbearable. This invitation is special. This special day and every precious hour will give the loved ones a time to say goodbye just before they die with dignity in physician assisted suicide. Terminally ill patients have the right to end their own lives using physician assisted suicide (PAS) without repercussions of laws and people with opposing opinions.

Physician assisted suicide is not something new to the United States. Although practiced illegally in many states; Oregon, Washington and Montana have legalized the procedure. The question that is asked by many individuals is why is physician-assisted suicide so controversial? Although there are many reasons a person could promote or dismiss physician-assisted suicide, this report will only discuss three legal, ethical and spiritual. As stated previous currently only three states condone physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in the United States. One would surmise that because the three have passed such laws their constituents believe in the right to die. Polling was conducted by the fifty states regarding whether individuals would support PAS,

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.

Physician Assisted Suicide/Dying is a medical practice surrounding the accelerated process of death among patients who – typically – have a terminal medical disorder that will either end the life of the patient, or have them live in suffering, pain, in a state of life they deem less than minimally good, or less than a life worth living. According to a study done in 1995, approximately 88 percent of physicians interviewed claimed that they had received at the very least, one request for PAS/D. (Maas, et al., 1996) As the practice becomes more commonly considered – and more importantly more commonly accepted – it is logical to assume these percentages will have increased. This increase due to not only more patient requests, but also due to the

Suicide. A term many of us are uncomfortable with, it is a tender subject especially for those who have been affected by it personally. What about the term physician assisted suicide (PAS) or assisted suicide? Around the world and more recently in the United States we have seen these terms in the news more often. Various forms of medically assisted dying and/or assisted suicide for the terminally or hopelessly ill competent adult have been approved by 2010 in the following ten states and nation: Switzerland (1940), Oregon (1994), Colombia (1997), Albania (1999), The Netherlands (2002), Belgium (2003), Washington (2008), Montana (2009) and Luxembourg (2008) (Humphry). With the addition of England and Wales (2010), Vermont (2014), New Mexico (2015), Quebec (2015), California (2015) and Canada (details pending for 2016) (“Assisted Suicide Law Reform”). Physician assisted suicide and/or assisted suicide is a major ethical issue in medicine, as well as an issue that involves law and public policy (Weir 7). In this paper I will discuss the different types of physician assisted suicide including the different practices in different countries.

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines “physician assisted suicide as a 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.” The physician provides necessary information about drugs and patient performs the act of suicide. Letting someone die requires justification and involves personal as well as social concerns. The federal government does not have any law on the assisted suicide, since enactment of regulation of people and institution in the medical profession are managed at state level (Clarke, concept 3, slide 35, bullet 1). Oregan became the first US state to enact PAS in 1994 by passing Death and Dignity Act. Three other states Montana, Vermont, and Washington have similar Acts in effect. California has just signed End of Life Option Act in October2015, and the law will be in effect by 2016.