Physician Assisted Suicide Analysis

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).

Two major reasons for why doctor assisted suicides should be stopped

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.

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.

Though, in this paper, I have addressed several points that Dennis Plaisted has presented on why we should not legalize physician assisted suicide due to the issues with autonomy that convince the public that the state does not care enough to preserve the lives of those with less than six months to live. I argued that the limits of who and when an ill patient may be allowed to receive PAS are present for the state to relieve the pain of the ill who wish to have control over their death, and that it is only an alternative option for those patients. I considered a counterargument to my criticism, which argues that the state and doctors shouldn’t allow for PAS, as it gives the impression that the state does not care about the lives of the terminally ill. Just as well, the reputation of doctors as healers would be compromised if they supported this form of treatment. However, I explained that the quality of life is more valuable than forcing someone who is ill to suffer until their natural death.

Commentary On A Medical Dilemma Physician-assisted suicide is a large moral controversy in the medical field. Jukka Varelius explains the key points about the dilemma on whether medical patients should have the right to ask doctors to terminate their lives, in order to end their suffering. In “Voluntary Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and the Right to do Wrong”, the author addresses how assisting suicide is morally wrong in our society, but yet patients insist that they have the moral right to end their lives if they are in agony and facing significant torment due to their ill status. Jukka, in his point of view, outlines the multiple problems that go along with the main conflict, such as should a doctor be forced to end a suffering patient’s life even if the physician does not wish to do so and should the patient have the ability to ask for euthanasia even if there is still a possibility that the patient’s status can improve. Mr. Varelius does a successful job portraying the key points in this conflict, but does not strongly support any side in the

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.

Death with Dignity is an organization whose mission is to “promote Death with Dignity laws based on the model Oregon Death with Dignity Act, both to provide an option for dying individuals and to stimulate nationwide improvements in the end-of-life career.” (“Home-Death”) Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s practices had a lasting impact on assisted suicide laws, still affecting us today. (“Assisted Suicide”) However, with new modern techniques, suicide should be discouraged, causing suicide and unnatural death rates to drastically decrease because “killing for WHATEVER reason CANNOT be

Most people would never contemplate whether or not to end their family pet’s suffering, so why can’t people be as sympathetic to their family and friends? In today’s society, the legalization of physician-assisted suicide is one of the most debatable topics. The debates on physician-assisted suicide go back and forth between whether or not patients, specifically terminally ill patients, should have the right to die with the aid of doctors. Opponents believe physician-assisted suicide is morally and ethically wrong for patients to end their lives, and they believe it violates basic medical standards. However, proponents of physician-assisted suicide believe it is a humane and safe way for terminally ill patients to resolve their agony.

In the documentary, Bill Moyers talks to three terminally ill patients, their families, and their doctors about the concerns with physician-assisted suicide (PAS). PAS allows a terminally ill patient to hasten an inevitable and unavoidable death through a lethal dose. The patients considered PAS in order to end their prolonged suffering. The legal role of advance directives in end of life issues allows a patient to specify how he wishes to be treated by a healthcare provider during a progressively weakened state. Advance directives may provide patients with freedom to choose end of life treatment, but moral and religious implications, the ethical battle between a physician’s duty to care and inner-conscious, and state laws pose threats to PAS.

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.

Physician assisted suicide has been an intensely debated problem for years but if used properly, could be an effective way to help those who are suffering at the end of their life. Countless people have been advocating for physician assisted suicide for years and the most famous advocate for assisted suicide was Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He was a pathologist but received the nickname Dr. Death after it was estimated that between 1990 and 1999 he assisted 130 terminally ill individuals in their assisted suicides (“Jack Kevorkian”). Dr. Kevorkian is considered a crusader for physician

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.

My arguments with this area of this debate are strong in the sense that every patient, at every time within their lives are no more or less important, and that this statement has greater moral wrongs than the focus on the dying individual who is choosing PAS as an option. Therefore, I propose that the argument that greater resources for the greater good of those wanting to live serves as a moral injustice to those who are seeking help through PAS. Who is to say that one patient is more important than the next because of what medical options they choose or don’t