Right or Wrong
Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) is one of the most controversial, ethical issues in our society today. Physician Assisted Suicide is the voluntary termination of one’s own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect help of a physician. Physician Assisted Suicide has its proponents and opponents. Among the opponents are physicians who believe it violates the fundamental principles of medicine. They believe doctors should not aid in suicides because to do so is incompatible with the doctor’s role as a healer. Proponents of assisted suicide agree that patients faced with an inevitable death deserve the right to end their lives on their own term, free of pain and suffering. The two arguments for and
…show more content…
Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, ethnicity, race, religion, language or other status. These rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty and freedom of expression. These rights cannot be taken away except under certain conditions. For example the right to liberty can be restricted if a person is found guilty by the court of law. Human rights consists of both rights and obligations. States maintain the right to assume obligations along with duties under international law to respect, protect and fulfill human rights. The obligation to respect means that states must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires, States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights. While we are entitled to our human rights we must also respect …show more content…
We now have good home and hospital palliative care programs, effectively able to eliminate or greatly reduce pain and suffering. Making good use of those medical skills is the hospice program, now helping more than a million persons each year receive sensitive care in dying.
Although Callahan presents a good case in detailing these alternatives, he is wrong in the assumption that pain and suffering should be endured by providing terminally ill patients with medication to ease the pain. A person can be in so much pain but may not seek medication which is a short term alternation. They may seek another option to rid the suffering of long term pain. The ill want an effective solution that is much more dignified for them than having to take medication to ease the pain which does not always suit each person the same exact way.
Callahan continues by making a rather peculiar point that assisted suicide is “not a medical concern” by confirming it is about an individual’s set of values regarding autonomy and self-control in their dying. Uncontrolled pain and death however will always be considered a medical problem. The patient is never going to be fully satisfied until you provide them with the approximate amount of care and choice needed for them to feel in control of their own decisions regarding their own life. If death was not an important medical concern then why are their many patients who feel that they have to commit
Death is unnerving. However, to those fighting unwinnable battles death may seem to be the only way to escape the pain. For the patients in agonizing situations, nurses are there to provide comfort and care. The patient and nurse form a unique relationship and, therefore, the nurse is typically the first person a patient deliberates the topic of assisted suicide with (Maher, 2007). This issue has been strongly deliberated since 1997 when Oregon passed a law termed the Death With Dignity Act.
The concept and ideology behind Physician-Assisted Suicide within the contemporary generation has become an exceptionally sensitive and controversial issue as multiple factors conglomerate to define if Physician-Assisted Suicide is justifiable within the grounds of ethical understanding and moral principles. The idea concerning PAS is based on the grounds of rational and irrational thinking as in if death is a rational choice above all other alternatives (Wittwer 420).
Gill argues that keeping a person healthy cannot be a physician’s only moral duty because in cases of terminal ill patients, they can no longer be treated or healed (372). If a physician’s only duty were to heal patients then they would not tend to the terminally ill because there would be nothing else that they could do, which is something that most people would find to be morally wrong (Gill, 373). No one would be okay with a doctor not helping a person at all who has received a terminal sentence. So instead of promoting health in this case, the physicians must find a way to reduce the suffering of the patient. This means that the physician should be able to reduce the suffering in the way that the patient asks for.
They may believe that neither the state nor willing physicians should condone the desire for someone to take their own life unnaturally in the first place. Plaisted explains such ideas in his article, such as that society may fear the state caring less about your life if they allow you to go through with killing yourself with the help of a physician. Though they may be terminal, a person with less than six months to live is not dead yet (Plaisted 210). The life of a terminally ill patient may not be ideal, but it should be in the interest of the state to preserve the lives of its people. They may suggest for state to put its focus into funding research for new medicines, towards better hospice care, and for more resources to make the patient as comfortable as possible until their natural death.
Families may also take selfish actions by not wanting to continue paying the medical costs to keep the person alive because that money they are spending would eventually become their inheritance. Families and doctors may also feel regret from the assisted death because they may have been able to live through the disease or illness. An example from one of Dr. Jack Kevorkian's patients proved that a wrong diagnosis could make the use of euthanasia a huge mistake. One of his patients had “committed suicide” with his assistance, because she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. It was later discovered after an autopsy was completed on the patient, that she in fact did not have Multiple Sclerosis and if she would have had a second opinion done, she most likely would have made a completely different choice in dealing with her issue.
Physician-assisted suicide is the voluntary termination of one's own life by administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician. They provide a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary
Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia has been one of the most debated subjects in the past years. There are resilient advocates on both sides of the debate for and against physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. Advocates of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide believe it is a person ’s right to die when faced with terminal illness rather than suffer through to an unpleasant demise. Whereas, opponents contend that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is not only equivalent of murder, but it is ethically and morally incorrect.
Physician assisted suicide is by far one of the most controversial topics that has arose in the last decade. As such, there are many moral and ethical arguments both for and against the act of physician assisted suicide. Because of this, it is important to explore in detail the arguments made both in favor and against physician assisted suicide so that one can better grasp what exactly this sort of act entails. In his book “Understanding Assisted Suicide: Nine Issues to Consider”, Seattle University School of Law professor John B. Mitchell highlights many key points of why physician assisted suicide should be legalized.
The intent of Assisted Suicide is to eliminate the pain and suffering of a patient by in a sense being able to “Die with Dignity.” (Endlink3) However, this idea violates the morals of others, sends a negative message to individuals who are struggling,and terminates the possibility of the situation
Physician-assisted suicide is a very controversial topic in today’s society. Physician-assisted suicide is defined as an action performed by the physician at the request of the patient to end the patient’s life with certain medical procedures. The legalization of physician-assisted suicide should not be passed in the United States because it is not morally acceptable in the society, leads to misunderstanding of a physician’s duty and increases mental suffering of both patient’s family and doctor. Physician-assisted suicide should not be legalized since the action itself is not justified morally. It is never morally acceptable for the society to give up on its people’s lives.
One of the most adamant groups in favor of assisted suicide is the Gay Men 's Health Crisis. They released the quote "The fact that the circumstances of the disabled population are, as a whole, far less than ideal in this country, and are likely never to be perfect, is no justification for depriving those who have a terminal illness of the right to end their suffering. These individuals are entirely capable of making rational decisions. " They feel that even though a person may be destined to die, they can still make rational decisions and should be allowed to have their agony put to an end (Times 2).
A survey of physicians conducted by the Canadian Medical Association found that "a significant proportion of respondents reported that they had been asked for assistance in dying by patients whose primary motivation appeared to be loneliness, lack of social support, or perceived burden on others" (Downar et al., 2017). This means that if physician-assisted suicide is legalized, at-risk people could be vulnerable to coercion or abuse. Opponents say allowing doctors to assist in suicide would undermine their role as healers and could lead to unwanted or unnecessary deaths, or a loss of respect for human life. The American Psychological Association echoes these concerns and highlights the major risks associated with such decisions. Among those concerns are, “Depression causing a desire for death,” “A loss of autonomy and function causing a desire for control,” and “worries about future pain” (Weir).
Patients have the right to the kind of treatment they want. 3) Conclusion a) Physician assisted suicide can help treat the terminally ill how they would like to be treated. b) The long history of assisted suicide speaks for itself in the matter of if it should be legal or
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
Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated.