Physician Assisted Suicide

The last argument that this paper will look at is the argument of double effect. In the context of terminal illness physician assisted suicide could instead be seen as a vital form of care for someone who is suffering, instead of the failure of medicine. Physician assisted suicide seems to oppose the pro-life view, but on closer examination, its purpose is instead to relieve suffering in imminently terminal cases where it is thought that no other treatment could reasonably hope to do the same. Even though traditionally the role of the doctor is seen as extending life, that role may also encompass the assistance in PAS.

In the Newsweek article, “Physician-Assisted Suicide Is Always Wrong,” by Ryan Anderson, it is stated that the legalization of assisted suicide “would be a grave mistake.” Anderson provides a few examples of why assisted suicide is detrimental. One, he states it leads to an endangerment of the weak and disenfranchised in societies. His outlook is that the purported safeguards of eliminating risk has mainly been nonexistent, which in some countries like the Netherlands who has legalized physician assisted suicide (PSA), has lead to doctors administering lethal injections to patients without request. Two, Anderson, sees assisted suicide as a compromise in the practice of medicine.

Conclusion I have argued that even though a physician killing an untreatable patient and a physician letting a patient die upon their request are both morally justifiable, the distinction between the two regarding the morality of physician assisted suicide is important because they are both justified differently. I have presented two counter arguments based on consequentialism, and argued that both of them untrue. A physician killing an untreatable patient upon their request and letting an untreatable patient die upon their request are both justifiable aspects of physician assisted suicide, and therefore it is not an important distinction to make regarding the moral permissibility of physician assisted suicide. However, it is an important

There sometimes is a point that a human reaches in degeneration that modern medicines cannot aide or remedy. As described by Lewis Cohen, “Medication such as morphine can help the terminally ill manage pain, but it can’t ameliorate their agony at no longer being the same people that they were before the illness” (Cohen). The unbearable pain and loss of normalcy that accompanies those with terminal illnesses is what pushes them to consider assisted suicide. The mentality is seen simply as “if one is going to die anyway, then why not choose how and when.” Unfortunately, the choice of death for those with incurable circumstances has been twisted into other views and is being misinterpreted as a way for doctors to mercy kill their patients.

The moral concerns of Physician assisted suicide are equally sensitive and provocative; it is high on the debatable platform with other controversial topics such as abortion after three months. Many claimed that a physician assisted suicide is morally acceptable on behalf of a person who is dying and decided to end the agonizing pain and distress willing. Additionally, the doctor’s responsibility to ease the person’s pain and suffering, therefore, validates the aid provided. These debates are based on countless agreements on the person’s independence, hence, identifies the rights of capable people to decide how they are going to die and what time, especially while dealing with a deadly illness. In contrast, others have disputed the fact the physician assisted suicide is immoral and will be in conflict responsibility of the doctor, which is to save lives Also, they say if physician assisted suicide becomes legal , the chances for elder abuse will increased , mistreatment on the disabled and people living in poverty .

Legalization of physician-assisted suicide has been in discussion throughout the years in the United States. While many state and federal lawmakers have this up in discussion, the state of Oregon is the only U.S state were physician-assisted suicide is legal. Not only is assisted suicide illegal, the use of euthanasia is also an illegal substance being prescribed to patients. There are four distinguished types of euthanasia, all with different meanings that are mentioned later on in the text. Over the last forty years and counting, Pakes had informed that the views of physician-assisted suicide have been changing, and it is still ongoing today.

Current Issues Surrounding Death A hot topic in today’s media and in discussion is the idea of physician assisted suicide and end of life care. There are several legal, ethical, social, and political issues surrounding this idea, which makes it a controversial topic. This paper will discuss some of these issues and explore the idea of physician assisted suicide and end of life care in more detail. Physician assisted suicide is defined as, “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 (Merriam-Webster, 2015).

Physician assisted suicide is when a physician provides the means required to commit suicide, including prescribing lethal amounts of harmful drugs to a patient. In the United States alone, there is great controversy about physician assisted suicide. The issue is whether physician assisted suicide is murder or an act of sympathy for the patient. The main point is that terminally ill patients should have a right to physician assisted suicide if it meets their needs and is done properly. Physician assisted suicide is an appropriate action for the terminally ill that want to end their life in peace before it ends at the hands of the terminal disease.

After researching both sides of the argument, it is clear that the benefits of physician-assisted suicide outweigh the disadvantages. The benefits of ending a patient’s pain and suffering, minimizing the emotional and financial effects on families, and preserving the right for patients to decide their own fate, supports the legalization of physician-assisted suicide.

The idea that it should be illegal to help someone commit suicide is most often ascribed to the Biblical Commandment: Thou Shalt Not

According to Bartel and Otlowski (2010), this procedure is defined as ending a person’s life to cease their suffering from fatal condition. The issue on this matter is that life will be taken away in the application of this methodology which makes the procedure immoral. However, according to Emmanuel (1999), euthanasia can provide other advantages. Based on his studies, he said that euthanasia or Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is beneficial to patients through the alleviation of unremitting and excruciating pain to 25,000 or lower than 2.3 million Americans who die each year. Moreover, euthanasia can also provide psychological assurance.

The medical field is filled with opportunities and procedures that are used to help improve a patient’s standard of living and allow them to be as comfortable as possible. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) is a method, if permitted by the government, that can be employed by physicians across the world as a way to ease a patient’s pain and suffering when all else fails. PAS is, “The voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician.”-Medicinenet.com. This procedure would be the patient’s decision and would allow the patient to end their lives in a more peaceful and comfortable way, rather than suffering until the illness takes over completely. Physician assisted suicide should be permitted by the government because it allows patients to end their suffering and to pass with dignity, save their families and the hospital money, and it allows doctors to preserve vital organs to save

Despite palliative care’s ability to reduce terminal suffering, it may not always provide total relief from signs of sickness and physician-assisted death are more common with these patients (MacLeod, 2012). However, the principles of medicine based on rules and beliefs of doing the right thing help to guide patient care and decision making during the dying process. The ideas of therapeutic supervision and voluntary consent of the patient are two of the most important things to think about that make physician-assisted suicide as ethical; leading to end of life decisions and care that begins with honest conversation concerning disease development and outlook. The Federal Patient Self-Determination Act helps communication between the healthcare providers and

The Right to Die has been taking effect in many states and is rapidly spreading around the world. Patients who have life threatening conditions usually choose to die quickly with the help of their physicians. Many people question this right because of its inhumane authority. Euthanasia or assisted suicide are done by physicians to end the lives of their patients only in Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, New Mexico and soon California that have the Right to Die so that patients don’t have to live with depression, cancer and immobility would rather die quick in peace.

Today, the hospitals are filled with patients who want to die because they suffer from chronic and critical illness. When critically ill patients start to realize that their needs are not being met and their suffering is unbearable, they contemplate death. However, the physician should not agree to heed their choices regarding death but should therapize them and make them realize their worth in this world since it is a physician civil duty is to provide care(The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, 1984). If the doctors start accepting the requests of death, this may lead to a total disregard for human life in future. As Keown said,"life is of such absolute worth, that it is wrong either to shorten the life of a patient or to fail to strive to lengthen it” (Keown, 2002).