Physician Assisted Suicide Rhetorical Analysis

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.

When I was twelve years old, my grandfather passed away after a long, excruciating struggle with lung cancer. He endured months of insufferable agony, which continued until the mercy that came with his dying breath. Looking back on this experience, I am firm in my belief that nobody should have to endure the suffering that my grandfather did. This however, is just one instance in which physician-assisted suicide would have proven beneficial. According to the New York Times, Jerry Brown, who recently signed California’s own assisted suicide law said that if he were ill, it “would be a comfort to consider the options afforded by this bill” (Boffey 1). The intent of this bill is to allow terminally ill patients to make decisions about their own health care, and to further increase the personal liberties of

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.

“In the 20 years that Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law has been on the books, 1,749 patients have been prescribed lethal medications, and only 64% of them (1,127) used them to die, according to state data. Last year, Oregon doctors prescribed 206 lethal medications, 133 of which were reported used by patients” (Portland Press Herald). This statistic shows that not all patients who are prescribed the drugs, use them to end their life. Gale states, “The three most frequently cites reasons for requesting suicide were: a decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable, loss of autonomy and loss of dignity. Eva Thompson, a 57 year-old Camden, Maine resident with stage 4 colon cancer, who is in favor of physician assisted

Before attending nursing school, I had never thought much about the idea of physician assisted suicide. It was brought up once in one of our Topics of Nursing classes. Our teacher asked us to raise our hands if we agreed with physician assisted suicide in a terminally ill patient. I was surprised by how many hands were raised. I didn’t raise my hand because I felt like I didn’t have enough information on the issue or had enough experience in the health care field to know which “side” I was on.

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. Even though assisted suicide was not discussed throughout the sixteen to eighteen hundreds, ethical philosophers investigated the roots of human morals in an attempt to create an overarching rule that would help determine if “death with dignity” is morally justified.

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.

In Brittany’s case, it was not the first option she had chosen. After being told that she had sixth months to live, there was treatment options that she had looked at and researched. However, there is not always a treatment for every disease that exists in the world. That is where Physician-assisted suicide comes into the list of options. The options that patients can seek to end their life is never an easy conversation or topic, especially with the opinions of family and friends constantly surrounding the patient as well. However, the negative views of this practice seem to overshadow the positive and assumptions are made that Physician-assisted suicide is an impractical way of ending a life. This practice is deemed as the worst from views of ethics, religion, medical practice, and more. However, it is an option and an option that does not have to be chosen if not wanted. That is what is ignored, but that is what people need to realize. No life has to be taken, but the option of ending your life peacefully should not be taken as well. Physician-assisted suicide is here to help aid in the area of the terminally ill, and today it still remains illegal. This is one of the areas that cannot be ignored and yet here it stands,

Their argument is that the medical practice of physician-assisted death is unethical because it violates the bioethical principle of nonmaleficence, which refers to the obligation of the physician to not cause needless harm. Physician-assisted death is not causing needless harm because the patient themselves is requesting the death-dealing medication and taking them, or not taking them, when, and if, they feel ready to die. It would be needless harm if the physician in question actively euthanatized the patient by administering the death-dealing medications without the patient’s consent. However, from a legal standpoint, physician-assisted death does not include active euthanasia, which is illegal in all fifty states; it simply requires the physician to provide the mentally competent patient with the information they asked for regarding the process and a prescription for the death dealing medication. The physician is not causing needless harm to a terminally ill patient who wishes to die mercifully on their own time instead of six months down the line in possible pain and suffering. The physician is rendering the aid the patient requests and respecting the patient’s autonomous decision to exercise their right to

In a most recent research Poll done by Andrew Dugan in May of 2015, 81% of individuals from the ages 18-34 believed that Physician Assisted suicide should be allowed. 65% of individuals from the ages 35-54 believe that it should also be allowed and 61% of individuals ages 55 and up believe that it should be. It is believed that conservatives are against Physician Assisted Suicide because they believe it is “immoral and unethical to deliberately end the life of a terminally ill person”. In different, liberals see is as the opposite. They see it as, a terminally ill patient should have the choice to end the pain and suffering. Liberals think that the government should not have the power to take this choice away from someone who is

“A society that believes in nothing can offer no argument even against death. A culture that has lost its faith in life cannot comprehend why it should be endured.” -Andrew Coyne. According to Cambridge dictionary, euthanasia, also called assisted suicide, is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Although many think assisted suicide should be legalized in Canada to avoid violation of Freedom of Choice Act, I strongly disagree with its legalization. Permitting euthanasia prevents advancements in care facilities for the terminally-ill, leads to non-voluntary use of euthanasia and diminishes society’s respect for life.

Even though some patients have this fear, many are for the use of this practice because they are afraid of getting old (Pearlman, 2005). This has some physicians on their toes because they are the ones making a decision on assisted suicide, and they need a strong reason to why the patients requests for this procedure and to move forward with it. For physician-assisted suicide to occur, the law states that a patient must have a reasonable explanation on why they want this procedure done. This process is known as autonomy (Ersek, 2005). Some of these reasons could include illness, and the decision of someone who is on his or her deathbed. Research has shown that a majority of those who requests physician-assisted suicides are the ones who are wealthy and better educated. The reason for this is because they do not want anyone having to care for them, it is also known that this procedure is cheaper than caring for someone who is in, or has to go to the hospital for medical treatment (Finlay, Wheatley,

Anna Acton writes the reading “The Progressive Case Against Assisted Suicide”. In this argument she states she is against assisted suicide. Acton says that money and power play a huge impacting role when it comes to the topic of assisted suicide. Some health care companies are rejecting treatments in order to raise their bottom line. This is outrageous to know that people companies put their financial stability before the well being of those who are disabled, poor, and sick.

The argument that I am analyzing is found in Philippa Foot’s article Euthanasia. This specific section starts at the beginning on page 88. This argument starts once she talks about the true meaning of Euthanasia and the difficulty in how people see or perceive it. In Foot 's article, she wants to prove that an act of euthanasia is morally permissible, as long as you’re performing it for the right cause or reasons. Foot defines euthanasia as "a matter of opting for death for the good of the one who is to die." (Foot, p.100) She further justifies this argument by stating that as long as we put into consideration the interests of the person involved and only the benefits of that person that euthanasia can morally acknowledge. I believe that it

Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.