Respecting autonomy means respecting the individuals capacity to make decisions consistent with the patient’s own personal desires or life plans. The British Medical Association (2007) states that these are decisions with which others may not agree with. If a patient is requesting or seeking support in carrying out assisted suicide it poses a challenge for the nurse to seek the underlying reasons for the request. Likewise, Carr and Mohr (2008) concurs with the British Medical Association (2007) and also expresses concern with regard to patients having powerful feelings of depression or isolation, pain or suffering or feel a sense of burden on their families. Better symptom management and palliative care, appropriate referrals to counsellors and hospices and increased knowledge about the right of a competent adult to refuse treatment even if the refusal will hasten death may provide satisfactory alternative to assisted suicide.
The government is saying that physicians are role models and should be viewed as people who save lives, not people who take life away. Opponents contend that physician-assisted suicide undermines doctors’ roles in society. According to American Medical Association, “Allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good” (Fuller). The community looks up to doctors, especially the sickly elders. They might be influenced to seek help in easing their suffering.
There are several cases of elder abuse that happens, especially at older ages, these individuals are extremely influenced by their family. Their family can become very controlling and force their ideas of what is best for them on that individual, even if it goes against what they believe. They could be telling the doctors that it is what they want but it could really just be the influence of the family members. According to Sanders and Buchanan (2012), under the protocol it is ultimately the doctor’s responsibility to decide if this is really what the patient wants for themselves, but the
Laws protect the doctors from possible accusations. This supports the claim that assisted suicide is wrong. Clearly the patient’s life is negatively affected, but now so are the life’s of the nurses and doctors. If no one is benefiting from it, then why should it be considered a medical
Dyck’s book, “Life’s Worth: The Case against Assisted Suicide,” details why PAS is unethical. One of Dyck’s first arguments comes from a story in which a patient, who initially requested PAS but later found enjoyment in other things and turned away from PAS. His argument stands in which he says that patient’s wishes can change and that when they find happiness and solace in other things they will understand that PAS is not the way to go (Dyck, 14-15). Dyck also explores the concept of how PAS is not as effective as comfort-only care.
People should be able to live their life to the longest. Physician-assisted suicide is a controversial topic spreading throughout the United States due to the ethical issues surrounding the topic. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in a few states and other states have passed bills to make sure this does not happen. Even though some say that all have a right to die, physician-assisted suicide should not be legal because it would be too psychologically damaging to all involved. Having a right to die is what causes assisted suicide so controversial.
The argument of ending life being a slippery slope can be dispelled to a certain degree when it comes to ethical reasoning. Proponents see assisted suicide as a risk to the elderly and uninsured who may feel compelled to request assistance to end life to avoid being a burden to family and or society (Ersek,2004, table 2). Protocol can and would be in place that would assure measures are taken to those seeking to die on their own terms can do so. This choice is done freely without consequence to themselves or by the doctors assisting by determining factors that would safeguard against abuse of the choice to end
Mill is correct to say that everyone should have the right to their own choices, regardless of how it may affect themselves. So long as it does not determent the legal obligations one has for others, an activity such as choosing one’s own course of death would not have a direct effect on those around them. In addition, the entirety of having a criminal prohibition on physician assisted deaths is unlawful under the Charter. It is far more inhumane to allow one to be put through pain and agony rather than the peaceful and painless death through other methods. This prohibition essentially tells others how to live the end scope of their lives, which takes away that individual’s right to their own life without any interference from the state.
The ideas behind this moral distinction is that in passive euthanasia the doctors are not actively killing anyone but they are just not saving the patients. Most people think that euthanasia can be justifiable, when the patients are facing incurable disease, undergoing suffer, terminally ill and requests for euthanasia as their last wishes. For instance, Somerville (2010) argued that it is important to respect the people’s right of self-determination and autonomy. In other words, people should have the right to choose their time of dying but the state have prevented and stop them from doing it.
Physician assisted suicide, although legal in some states, should remain illegal because it goes against religious and moral beliefs. “In physician assisted suicide, the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act” (Endlink). Supporters of assisted-suicide laws believe that mentally competent people who are in misery and have no chance of long-term survival, should have the right to die if and when they choose. I agree that people should have the right to refuse life-saving treatments, written in the patient bill of rights.
Physician assisted suicide is morally and ethically wrong due to the Hippocratic oath doctors take at the beginning of their term, and unlike euthanasia, it is therefore the patient that triggers the death and not a third party. Our culture subscribes to the notion of the “absolute sanctity of life”, Western religions do not plainly forbid suicide, and assisted suicide would result in overall no harm on the society. The physician-assisted suicide controversy surrounds the idea that assisted suicide rests on the difference between dying with dignity and dying suffering. The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial. It is ethically permissible for a dying person who has chosen to escape the unbearable
The price to pay for assisted suicide costs a lot more than just money. Some of the elderly or sick people believe that they would become a financial burden to their friends and loved ones. In fact, in one of the states where assisted suicide is allowed, a poll was taken. The poll revealed that 66% of citizens would only consider assisted suicide because of being a financial burden on their loved ones. One person even says “If I had terminal cancer, I had a few weeks to live, I was in tremendous amount of pain - if they just effectively wanted to turn off the switch and legalize that by legalizing euthanasia, I'd want that” (Key).