Dennis Plaisted Suicide

One of the main objections to autonomy-based justifications of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) that Gill talks about is that many people believe it does not promote autonomy, but instead is actually taking it away (366). First, it is important to clarify what autonomy means. According to Gill, it is the ability of a person to make big decisions regarding their own life (369). Opponents of PAS argue that it takes away a person’s ability to make these big decisions and so it is intrinsically wrong for them to choose to take their own life.

Physician-assisted suicide for psychiatric patients has become a highly debated ethical issue. In the United States, only a handful of states allow for assisted death (“Physician-Assisted Suicide Fast Facts”). Growing awareness for mental health has stirred conversation about whether physician-assisted suicide should be extended to individuals with severe mental illness. For physicians, the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice are in direct conflict with autonomy. Does the idea of “do no harm” outweigh the potential emotional benefit patients receive from choosing to no longer suffer from their mental illness?

It is believed that once practicing physician-assisted suicides becomes an acceptable concept in society, the next steps will easily be taken toward unethical actions such as involuntary euthanasia. Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD, Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Medical Ethics at Georgetown University claims that our healthcare system is too obsessed with costs and principles of utility. He defies the belief that the slippery slope effect is no more than a prediction, by reminding the outlooks and inclinations of our society. Furthermore, he believes there comes a day that incompetent patients and those in coma won’t be asked for their permission to use euthanasia. The Netherlands is another example of such misuse.

“Legislation that allows people to end their lives automatically creates incentives to seek death as a cost-saving option. The elderly and infirm are seen as burdens and can easily be disposed of. Suicide becomes the easy way out.” (Ben Broussard) Most of the time physicians are against the idea of physician assisted suicide because it goes against their job description and personal beliefs.

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.

For example, a depressed person with suicidal thoughts, cannot simply claim the need for a physician assisted suicide. For such a case, the right die would be ethically and legally not available for the depressed person. Despite the constitution, in the fourteenth amendment granting the citizen the right to refusal to medication, depressed person have access to multiple channel of accessing working treatments. In this light, physician assisted suicide must not be confused as a legal means of performing a licensed suicide. Physician assisted suicide must be guarded and available for patients who are in a vegetative state and have no hope of recovery.

It has been 21 years and physician-assisted suicide is still one of the biggest legal issues today and in the Supreme Court. “When Sue Rodriguez took her case to court, she changed the very nature of the decision-making process that might affect how she would live out her final days and how she would die. She tried to change the law of the land” (Bereza). This impacted today’s society and law; in fact the federal government will appear in front of the BC Court of Appeal later this month for discussion of the band on assisted-suicide. The crucial debate on this controversial topic continues to

The Right to Die 1) Introduction a) Thesis statement: Physician assisted suicide offers patients a choice of getting out of their pain and misery, presents a way to help those who are already dead mentally because of how much a disease has taken over them, proves to be a great option in many states its legal in, and puts the family at ease knowing their love one is out of pain. i) The use of physician assisted death is used in many different countries and some states. ii) Many people who chose this option are fighting a terminal illness.

Is physician-assisted suicide really something that should be considered in the United States or even the world? No matter what your opinion is, Katherine Jean Lopez makes a compelling argument about why it shouldn’t even be considered. Her article Rejecting the Culture of Suicide can make even the most stubborn reader listen to what she has to say about physician-assisted suicide. With her use of ethos, pathos, and logos, Lopez is able to tug at the heartstrings of any reader as well as inform each one about the negative effects of suicide. In this essay I will explore the ways Lopez turns the article into a melting pot of facts, opinions, and real life stories in order to convince the readers that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal everywhere.

In this essay, I will delve into the complex and highly debated subject of assisted dying by examining the role ethics plays in shaping laws surrounding this topic. This practice involves the act of providing aid or assistance to a person in ending their own life, typically due to a terminal illness or unbearable suffering . Both positive and negative reactions have been elicited in response to the legalisation of assisted dying. Advocates argue that it is a matter of individual autonomy to allow terminally ill patients to die with dignity and without unnecessary pain and suffering .

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

Any Physicians that partakes in assisted-suicide are breaking their Hippocratic oath of harming patients instead of healing patients. Doctors were never supposed to be trained killers but compassionate caregivers. In like manner, euthanasia is just a halfway house to legalizing murder. Henceforth, If terminating life is a beneficial to that person, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent if it is beneficial to society? The effects of legalizing Euthanasia completely could be very detrimental and unneeded in

In the controversy of euthanasia, an argument for the practice is the patient’s right to refuse medical care.

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.

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.