Physician-Assisted Death By Sylvia Law

However, there is immense criticism on the morality of the process, especially because the process denies a patient the right to natural death. The critics of the assisted suicide procedure argue that such a process devalues human life and tends to promote suicide as an alternative to personal suffering. By claiming that the procedure allows terminally ill patients to initiate dignity at death is flawed because the purpose of medical profession is to ensure a dignified life. According to the physicians’ code of ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, physicians are not allowed to do harm to their patients because their role is to allow a dignified health for members of the community. Consequently, legalization of Physician Assisted suicide that requires physicians to assist the patients to die is against their medical ethics. Quill, Cassel, & Meier (2010) provide that although the patients voluntarily ask the medical practitioners to assist in the process, the practitioners have a role to advise the patients against such a procedure. Besides, such a premise is bound to raise awareness of suicide as an alternative to suffering within the public domain, which may encourage such behavior among healthy members of the community that feel that they enjoy the freedom to make such a decision. On this basis, the negative moral implication of assisted suicide makes its legalization unworthy in the

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.

Daniel Sulmasy is a Professor of Medicine and Ethics at the University of Chicago and has a particular interest in end-of-life care. He harshly criticizes Physician-assisted suicide and claims that this violates not only ethic principles but is also bad medicine and undermines the intrinsic worth of human life. He identifies patients as being vulnerable and helpless and even implicates rising costs of health care as a possible reason for the medical community wanting to legalize assisted suicide. I am disappointed by his superficial reasoning and I will quote Dr. Sulmasy to exhibit a one-dimensional point of view that overlooks the desperate situation of a terminally ill patient wishing to end his or her life in dignity as a personal

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

The topic of physician-assisted suicide has become very controversial because of the ethical questions. The physical state of health of the patient, the patient’s personal life, and even the financial pressure of the patient are all factors to consider when contemplating whether or not to legalize this controversial cause of death. Physician-assisted suicide regarding medical ethics states that a physician cannot legally give any patient a lethal injection to end their life, but they can take the patient off of life support in order to increase the process of death. Physician-assisted suicide should be legalized at a federal level and should be morally acceptable for patients who are terminally ill and can no longer be treated to improve their medical situation.

This paper evaluates current arguments for and against physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in the United States using the legislature in Oregon as the primary example. This subject is extremely controversial and there are logical and emotional arguments for either side. PAS is currently only legal in Oregon, Washington State, Montana and Vermont. This issue is coming to the forefront of politics as medical technology advances. It is essential to analyze both sides of the argument in order to take a position on the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

The federal legalization of physician-assisted suicide is a conflict of ethics. This is one reason the problem has yet to be resolved. There are multiple sides to this argument. Some people want the government to mandate the legalization of physician-assisted suicide while others believe the practice to be morally unacceptable. Then there are those who do not have enough knowledge on the issue to have an opinion at all. This issue that needs to be brought to Americans’ attention sooner rather than later, because more Americans are being given the opportunity to vote on the topic.

A terminal disease diagnosis changes the outlook on life, leaving the choice of either living life to an inevitably painful death or ending the suffering by seeking a different medical option. A person who is terminally ill requires rigorous treatments to slow down the process of death, but there is an alternative option. Physician-assisted suicide continues to gain attention and is being legalized across the world. The process in the United States is slower, yet a few states have already authorized it. People undermine this option for unethical reasons; however, it enables a person in agonizing pain to end their life before becoming entirely incompetent. Doctors across the nation seek this practice in order to help the patients as well as their families; even though, they could be risking their license. Despite moral values contradicting this practice, physician-assisted suicide should be legalized across the United States for terminally ill patients lucid enough to make the decision on their own.

In 1994, Oregon became the first state to pass a bill legalizing physician aid-in-dying (Richardson, 2011). This law would allow a terminally ill patient with 6 months or less to live to end their life by their own terms (“It’s Not Assisted Suicide”, 2011). This bill leads to the question “Why would a form of purposeful death be legalized?” The bill, itself was passed for many reasons including the fact that the patients want to have control over their life and ultimately their death (“It’s Not Assisted Suicide”, 2011). They also do not want to live in fear of what will eventually happen to them. “Death with Dignity” was passed is because many terminally-ill patients do not want to live in excruciating pain and in fear of what will happen to them, living a prolonged life or taking control over one’s death is a personal choice belonging only to the individual making it.

Imagine sitting in the doctor’s office waiting to hear the results of a recent test that was done. The doctor comes into the room and breaks the news that you have a debilitating illness that will continue to progress quickly, eventually leaving you in a vegetative state. Knowing that there is no cure, and not many options for treatment, what would be the next step to consider? If you had the option to die, would you take it? Physician-assisted suicide remains a controversial topic in today’s society. With its political, social, and ethical issues, many questions arise on the topic of whether more states should legalize it or not. This paper will discuss the ethical, social, and political

Assisted suicide is a significant topic that worries individuals everywhere throughout the United States. Some are against it on account of religious and other reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some conveys a negative connotation; similar to that of murder. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of

Currently in America, terminally-ill patients in most states have only two options: receive treatments (some experimental) or wait for natural death. The third option on the other hand, exists in only five states. For dying patients in Montana, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and California, they have the option for a physician assisted suicide (PAS). California recently passed the End of Life Option Act, thereby joining Oregon, Washington, and Vermont when it comes to legalizing PAS via legislation. For Montana, PAS is neither legal nor illegal according to a court decision. Judging by the fact that PAS is currently only practiced in five out of fifty states, it is clear that the issue of hastening the death of patients (by their own wishes) remains a hotly debated topic. This paper will proceed to analyze how each of the five states tackled the issues surrounding PAS.

The debate of whether assisted suicide should be lawful, is still of some concern today. Despite the growing advances and discoveries in medicine, there are still illnesses in which scientists, physicians, and nurses have yet to cure or solve. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cancer along with heart disease continues to be the leading cause of death in America (Leading Cause of Death, 2014). The prolonged suffering and pain that precedes a person’s inevitable death, is often seen with cancer and other deadly diseases. But the question is should assisted suicide be against the law?

Advocates for physician assisted suicide generally highlight the “no difference” arguement. From this view, there is minimal difference between physician assisted suicide and refusing or stopping treatment (Johnson 3). The belief is that withdrawal of treatment that leads to a shortening of the patient’s life are ethical and legal; therefore, physician assisted suicide should be too. (Boudreau 8). Courts claim that allowing patients to withdraw medical treatment, even when the withdrawal is expected to shorten the life of the patient, is not approving a right to die or a right to physician assisted suicide. The Supreme Court claims that banning withdrawal of treatment “rejected the sanctity-of-life ethic that had long been a part of our law.”

Ask anyone if they believe that life is precious and they are bound to say “yes”. However, in some situations, ending a life can be a good thing. Assisted suicide is a huge controversy that has sparked many arguments regarding a person’s rights, ethical medical practices, and legality. This debate is expected to continue for a while because a person’s life is so highly valued. Is a person’s rights more important than ethical medical practices?