Physician Assisted Suicide Research Paper

The debate over whether or not physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option for dying patients has long been a topic for discussion amongst members of the medical community. There are pros and cons for each argument, however, at the center of this debate is the consideration of patient advocacy and well-being. Although every health care profession centers their profession around providing the best ethical care for the patient, the most important value to consider are the decisions the patient makes for themselves. Currently, patients are given many safeguards such as living wills, a durable power of attorney, and the option for do not resuscitate that act as guidelines for end of life treatment. Physician-assisted suicide should also

Life is never guaranteed and whether it is through an illness or an accident, we as humans are eventually going to die. Physicians Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial issues. The issue of doctor-assisted suicide has been the subject of the heated dispute in recent years. While some oppose the idea that a physician should aid in ending a life, others believe that physicians should be permitted in helping a patient to end his or her unbearable suffering when faced with a terminal illness. Furthermore, Physician-assisted suicide should be legal; it should be the patient’s right to decide when and how he or she should die.

Jack Kevorkian’s case opened the eyes of the people and his actions had lasting effects on the Nation. According to the existing Hippocratic Oath, “an oath or promise all physicians must swear to uphold regarding the ethical practices of the medical profession.” (“Assisted Suicide”) This oath was a guide in many states decisions regarding assisted suicide cases. In 1997, the Supreme Court banned assisted suicide laws in New York and Washington.

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.

Physician Assisted Suicide Within the past decade, Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) has become a controversial topic within the medical field. However, many people are not entirely aware of the terminology regarding PAS (3). PAS is when a physician provides the necessary means and/or information to enable the patient to perform a life-ending act (AMA). In regards to physician assisted suicide there are many positive and negative arguments that can help us decide for ourselves on how we feel about PAS.

An argument from those who are against assisted suicide is that assisted suicide is unethical. Heather Newton, Article Editor for The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, argues that assisted suicide is similar to euthanizing. The difference between the two acts is that in assisted suicide the medication is administered by the patient, wherein euthanizing the doctor administers the medication. Also this process can be considered a violation of the Hippocratic Oath that every doctor takes. This oath states “I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel”(Quffa, Voinea). For many in health care, the goal is to help people by following any oaths taken and rules that have been set in place. Doctors and nurses may

Many people think that there are too many problems with physician assisted suicide. Physician assisted suicide is a procedure that allows physicians to prescribe their patients a lethal medication that they can inject themselves with in order to die on their own terms. There are specific requirements that the patients must meet in order to receive this medication. Physician assisted suicide is only for patients that have life threatening illnesses and do not have much time left to live. It is legal in numerous places around the world including certain places in the United States. 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.

1,672). A huge theme that society has seen in regards to euthanasia is the physician’s role. Physicians have been seen as murderers for assisting the death of their patients and they have been referred to as mercy-killers. However, many people tend to disregard the fact that even the physician, who is usually the one being blamed, can actually be the victim as well. According to the American Medical Association’s Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, it was stated that “although life-prolonging medical treatment may be withheld, the physician should not intentionally cause death” (as cited in Dickinson, Clark, Winslow & Marples, 2005, p. 44).

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.

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.

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. 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.

First, Oregon was the front-runner in the world of physician-assisted suicide in the United States. In 1994, the state of Oregon passed the bill of a terminally ill individual’s right to die by lethal injection. Shortly after the passage of the bill, Oregon received their first challenge in the courts. In the case of Lee v. Oregon State, doctors and patients challenged Oregon, stating that the law violated the Constitution’s 1st and 14th amendments, as well as many other federal laws (Devlin, 1996). Due to this challenge in the courts, there was a temporary hold on the law. A year later, the judge in the Lee v. Oregon State dismissed the case. The dismissing of the case allowed physician-assisted to continue in Oregon (Devlin, 1996). Years

Despite palliative care’s ability to reduce terminal suffering, it may not always provide total relief from signs of sickness and physician-assisted death are more common with these patients (MacLeod, 2012). However, the principles of medicine based on rules and beliefs of doing the right thing help to guide patient care and decision making during the dying process. The ideas of therapeutic supervision and voluntary consent of the patient are two of the most important things to think about that make physician-assisted suicide as ethical; leading to end of life decisions and care that begins with honest conversation concerning disease development and outlook. The Federal Patient Self-Determination Act helps communication between the healthcare providers and

In today 's society, physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients has become a very talked about issue. Death is something we all have to face sooner or later; it can be unexpected or even planned. Death is a part of life. It can be quick or it can be prolonged. Whether we accept it or not, it is inevitable.

By keeping a patient who is in a vegetative state alive, thousands of dollars in medical bills are piling up that will become stressful for the patient’s family to pay off (Coster 16). The medicine required for euthanasia on average cost less than fifty dollars, whereas medical care can cost over a thousand times more (Coster 21). If a patient has written their request for euthanasia in their living will, then they should be granted their wishes and rights. In contrast, opponents of euthanasia argue that doctors should not practice euthanasia, even if the patient has requested it through their living will. Opponents claim that a healthy person cannot fathom how they would feel on their deathbed