Commentary On Physician Assisted Suicide

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.

Keeping euthanasia outlawed regulates religion, aids morality, and supports physicians’ ethics. Euthanasia is killing a patient painlessly for medical reasons, even sometimes given without a request from the patient, such as being in a coma. Euthanasia goes against peoples’ one right to life. Some think it is ok because it supposedly helps the patient, but is it realistically helping? There should be so many other options for patients to choose from, instead of thinking death is respectable choice. Some people may not even have the emotional stats to argue against someone else 's decision. Yes, it could be the right thing to do to say something but, are people really doing anything about it? People need to be more aware on what is going on,

Euthanasia is the prescription of voluntary suicide to an individual. It is a topical issue within ethical discussion as conflicting viewpoints are prevalent. Often in hospitals, when a patient has become very ill to the extent that death is in sight, yet there is a long and painful journey towards this end, euthanasia

Physician assisted suicide is when a physician provides the means required to commit suicide, including prescribing lethal amounts of harmful drugs to a patient. In the United States alone, there is great controversy about physician assisted suicide. The issue is whether physician assisted suicide is murder or an act of sympathy for the patient. The main point is that terminally ill patients should have a right to physician assisted suicide if it meets their needs and is done properly.

Doctors receive too much power from patients and medical facilities to assist suicide to patients with illnesses or patients who think they need to end their life in general. According to Cristian Nordqvist, euthanasia is known as "the means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering" (Nordqvist, Christian).

Secondly, doctor assisted suicides might give too much power into doctors’ hand. Their approach to a patient’s condition could determine the outcome of an illness. They may find it easier to agree on assisted suicide than finding a solution to the problem. According to the oath they are all obliged to take, they have the strongest part in defending human life. Thus, assisting to somebody’s death is out of their authority.

80 percent of assisted suicides are not chosen by the patient(Balkin 1). “Instead of embracing PAS [Physician Assisted Suicide], we should respond to suffering with true compassion” (Anderson 1). Assisted suicide is when doctors prescribe a lethal medicine called euthanasia to a patient. They do this because patients, or someone choosing assisted suicide for the patient, can see no other options but death. It is not compassionate to permit assisted suicide because many patients do not choose assisted suicide for themselves, doctors can make irreversible mistakes, and we should be focusing on improving the lives that patients already have.

Human beings have the right to live, and the right to die. If there was no right to die, living would be considered a duty. One’s sickness may desire them to not continue with life if their condition causes extreme pain, discomfort, lack of independence, and make living unbearable. Doctor assisted suicide is a popular controversy because sometimes it is not done with ethicality and lethal dose of pain medication is administered or certain treatments are withheld. However when carried out with ethicality, a pill or injection is administered in the proper amount to cause death. Giving people the right to die and approaching it in an ethical way provides an opportunity for a better quality of life overall, over suffering.

Physician assisted suicide and/or Euthanasia is very controversial involving the topic of ethics. In ethics, when determining what is deemed substantially right or wrong, there is tremendous difficulty in finding a true black or white. To better explain, “physician assisted suicide is defined as the deliberate termination of a patient’s life by administering a lethal drug through a direct or indirect help from a physician” (Youngman, 2013). Throughout the text, what will be examined is assisted suicide influenced by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Since almost every ethical issue arises when a matter concerning two remarkably different possibilities conflict with one another, the theory of Immanuel Kant may be able to find a definitive solution to this concerning ethical issue pertaining to euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide.

Consent is when a patient accepts the medication, procedure or treatment plan. If a patient does not consent, then a doctor or a nurse cannot enforce medication, a procedure or treatment against the patient's will. Panzer (2000) articulates that regardless of a patient having a terminal illness, elderly, disabled or sick it does not decrease the value of their life. However, no one knows with certainty when a terminally ill patient will die. Some patients die within days, weeks, months or even years. There has been an increasing amount of media attention and increasing concern over control at end of life. This has generated serious consideration and challenges to legalise assisted suicide. Public debate stems over when a patient dies and the manner in which it happens. However, the debate is not straightforward as the potential for abuse or harm is prevailing society's established prohibitions against assisting suicide. Within this debate, some of society views assisted suicide as being morally wrong and believe it should not be legalized regardless of individual’s particular case. In addition, that professional standards and legislation should not be changed. Others hold the view that assisted suicide is ethically legitimate in exceptional cases. Finally within the debate, some people would advocate that assisted suicide should be a morally and legally acceptable choice in the care of terminal ill patients. As a

The word euthanasia originated from the Greeks early 17th century Eu meaning (good) and Thanatosis meaning (death) the word means "Good Death, or a "Gentle and Easy Death”. Many interesting topics are brought upon worldwide, but one of the most controversial topics is the legalization of euthanasia. The definition of euthanasia nowadays is the act of painlessly ending a person’s life from a painful and incurable disease. Many terminally ill patients who unfortunately do not have the privilege to recover from their deadly disease wish to practice euthanasia or physician assisted suicide to alleviate their suffering but, in some countries the law prohibits doctors from doing so leaving them with no choice but to continue living a painful life.

The main purpose of this chapter is to establish the definitions that surround the issue of euthanasia and to establish the main dilemma experienced by government. This is the dilemma between upholding the value of individual autonomy and protecting vulnerable citizens. The debate on the issue of Euthanasia, and more specifically assisted dying is highly contested and therefore this project sets out a table of definitions for the purpose of clarity. Although these definitions vary depending on source and are regularly criticised for either being too narrow or too wide, I will base my project on the definitions found below.

The fourth common Western argument in favor of euthanasia is the argument of self-determination. According to the precious Western value of autonomy, the individual must be free to decide on the things that matter much to him or her. As decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, education, etc. The decision on how and when to die is one of the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime. Therefore we have the right to die; some even claim that it is a human right, a negative right (the corresponding obligation is non-intervention in suicide attempts) and a positive law (which is suicide correlative duty of care). After all, my life is mine in Confucian values, individual autonomy has never been a cherished value; nor has there been any thought of human rights.

Do you assent that people who encounter some fatal diseases and do not want to endure pain can have voluntary euthanasia? Voluntary euthanasia, the practice of a hopelessly ailing and suffering person asking for terminating the life in a relatively rapid and painless manner, has been the most controversial moot point that spawns numerous discussions in the recent few decades. I propose that voluntary euthanasia should be legalized so that anyone who struggles for the desperate disease can have the right of practicing voluntary euthanasia.

Euthanasia is “a concept used in the medical field which means easy death or gentle death, and is defined as the deliberate speeding up of the death of an individual based on terminal medical conditions” (Jonsen, et al. 2015). Euthanasia reflects one of the current debate issues health professionals encounter when caring for the end of life patients who are choosing between speeding up their death or living the rest of their life in pain. In the fields of laws and regulations related to human health there is still a controversy over the concept of a peaceful death. This ethical dilemma has health care providers making a decision to choose between two difficult options and are obligated to use moral reasoning to solve these legal and ethical