Physician Assisted Suicide Research Paper

Summary: Governor Jerry Brown has recently signed a bill which legalizes physician assisted suicide in the state of California. By doing so, California is following Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana in becoming the fifth state in the US to legalize such medicine (ProCon, n.p., n.d.). Drugs like this will only be offered to terminally ill patients, and will require the patient to reaffirm that they want the drug several times with waiting periods between each in order to be sure that this is something that he or she wants to do. It is also expected that many hospitals will refuse to offer this drug to patients because it could bring bad publicity and have a negative effect on patient relationships (Lovett & Perez-Pena, 2015). There are a lot of arguments against this bill, for example, people claim that terminally ill patients might be talked into accepting

As mentioned, physician- assisted suicide is a debate that has been discussed for decades. A newspaper article written by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Four Myths About Doctor-Assisted Suicide, provides information about the arguments that have been debated decades ago. Emanuel informs the reader both the arguments and the realistic statics since 2012. The first myth is concerning of the pain patients endure, Emanuel quotes the main argument advocates gave, “Most patients want to die are suffering from depression, and not pain”(1). Emanuel claims the statement to be false, due to statics done in 2012.

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?

This legislation has faced criticism from persons that warn of abuse, loss of integrity to the profession of medicine, and a lack of respect for the sanctity of life (Starks PhD). Supporters point out that the act of physician assisted suicide is one that happens far more than the general public cares to think about; legislation decriminalizing this act allows the opportunity for transparency ensuring safety checks along the process, autonomy and compassion for the patient, as well as help for mentally ill persons seeking physician assisted suicide (Starks

In the last decade, a controversial topic in the medical field in America is about Physician-assisted suicide. Many citizens are questioning where the line stands in whether or not this goes against medical ethos, and if it is a right for terminally ill patients. While there are benefits and deficits to either side, I believe everyone should have the right to choose to participate in assisted suicide when battling a terminal illness. While a handful of states in America that include, Oregon, Washington, California, Colorado, Vermont, and with court decision, Montana have already passed the Death with Dignity Act, it is still not easily accessed and there are a lot of parameters regarding the Act ("Death with Dignity"). In Oregon you have to meet certain criteria.

Dying patients have the right to decide if they want to receive medical care such as whether or not to pursue treatment for a serious disease or whether they want to undergo lifesaving procedures; therefore they should be able to decide about medical assisted suicide. Another circumstance when a patient makes a decision regarding life or death for themselves is a Do Not Resuscitate order. The order is filed in order determine a care plan in case of emergency. This is a decision made by the patient for the patient, very similar to how assisted suicide works. A patient also sets up a living wills and advance directives before dying about other circumstances and how to handle them when death approaches.

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.

Although there are many positive aspects of medically assisted suicide, there are also many negative aspects. Those who disagree with assisted suicide feel as though it is unethical. How is it ever right for us to purposefully kill another human being. As a health care providers role, it is their duty to do whatever they can to maintain the wellness of their patient. According to 8 Main Pros and Cons of Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide (2014), all health care providers must follow the Hippocratic Oath, which in it states that physicians are unable to give deadly medications to a patient, whether requested or not and they aren’t allowed to suggest it to a terminally ill patient either.

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

When a doctor administers the process or drugs that constitute voluntary active euthanasia, then that doctor acknowledges that it will end the individual’s life. Knowingly doing this, as a medical professional, is simply willingly killing an individual, which the social contract has always acknowledged as one of the worst acts an individual can commit. Intentional killing is always bad because it takes away everything that life entails, such as the pursuit of happiness and

The ethical and legal implications of Physician assisted suicide (PAS) have been debated for centuries. Many countries around the world, including the UK, see suicidality as a punishable crime; however, despite this long-held position of criminalising it, opinions on assisted suicide remain fiercely divided (citation). Although the British Medical Association (BMA) has adapted a neutral stance on assisted suicide, it is important to understand that the BMA believes that ongoing improvements in palliative care allow patients to die with dignity and legalizing such behaviour will lead to an unfair divide between medical professionals who participate and those who do not (citation). This essay will examine both sides of the argument by exploring

A nurse’s job is to make the patient feel comfortable and provide a friendly feel, which is difficult to do if hospitals and other medical facilities rely heavily on assisted suicide. According to the ANA, the procedure opposes “the ethical traditions of the profession”(Clair). The doctors are in a quite different situation. When you look in depth at the operation itself, many professionals imply that the doctor “are accessories of fact to homicide”(Clair). That means the doctor is assisting with the homicide because the patient’s death was only possible if the doctor contributed the needed drugs.

Dr. Kevorkian, a euthanasia and assisted suicide activist did not believe in the Hippocratic Oath - which swears that healthcare employees will always try to protect and save life - as he stated, “just as the oath never had any real meaning with regard to abortion, so too it’s now irrelevant in the right-to-die debate” (Ball, H. 2012). Both of these controversial subjects bring on our question of freedom and Ball explains this, “the suffering of a … person cannot be deemed any less intimate or personal, or any less deserving of protection from unwarranted government interference than that of a pregnant woman” (Ball, H. 2012). The right to be able to choose what happens to a person’s body is controversial all over the world however, it should not be. If a patient that is suffering from an illness as aggressive as a form of dementia wants to die, no one should be able to stop them.