Assisted Suicide: A Case Study

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.

If patients are unable to trust their therapist completely, then it is likely that they will not be as open during their sessions, which will make it difficult for the therapist to accurately diagnose and treat the patients. The decision by the court places the therapist in a difficult position. A therapist could utilize the ethical principle of beneficence, defined as acting in ways that benefit another and prevents harm, in determining the best way to act to benefit both the patient and protect the third party. Per the ruling of the court, “when a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another,” he is required to warn the victim of that “danger” (Felthous, 2006, p. 339). With the court’s establishment of the duty to warn, the ability of the therapist to provide appropriate treatment may be limited because of the potential for breach of

People have argued that physician assisted suicide is not ethical because it goes against the traditional

  Despite these beliefs of the physician, patients are left feeling discriminated against and feel unworthy of healthcare.  Physicians go into this career to care for patients and they should go into this career willing to take care of patients of other gender identities, race, and other religious beliefs other than their own.

Patients have a right to privacy and non-interference. The healthcare professionals are obligated to give needed information to patients and relate the risks, and the benefits of a test/treatment. The detail information given will allow the patient to make the best decision on what he/she chooses to do. Hiding information about a diagnosis or not revealing the potential complications because a patient may refuse care seems unethical. Patients have the right to know about their health to make informed

(Abdulla, Al-Qahtani, & Al-Kuwari, 2011). One study revealed that burnout syndrome is common among critical care nurses, because they work with more critical and traumatic patients burnout syndrome is not only affect the nurse but extend to their quality of care that delivered for their patient.(Moss, Good, Gozal, Kleinpell, & Sessler., 2016). Organizational and environment factors such as excessive workload, staffing shortage, lack of empowerment lead to burnout which compromise nurse’s ability to provide high quality care. ( McHugh, Kutney, Cimiotti, Sloane, & Aiken., 2011). Burnout ,quality of care and patients outcome Different studies have explained the relation between burnout syndrome, stress in work environment ,and patients satisfaction which assessed the quality of nursing care provided, the high quality care the more patient satisfaction.

Although it is the patient’s right to refuse treatment, it is our duty as doctors to educate the patient about her condition, the possible complications, and the benefits of treatment if she agrees to receive any. The doctor should also exlain different management options, blood transfusion or iron supplements. The patient should also understand the risks of her condition in case she decides to get pregnant. Counselling should also be done by asking the patient why she refuses receiv9ing blood transfu=on. The patient for eg may have had a negative experience at a hospital admission and is therefore afraid of the same experience.

Many people will experience painful headaches, seizures, extreme nausea and even a medical induced coma.(Newton, 8) Assisted suicide is when you are given a diagnosis of six months or less to live and you are given the choice to take part in giving a

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.

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 Doctrine of Doing & Allowing essentially outlines a lens that aids in drawing a distinction between doing something to cause the outcome, or allowing something that leads to an identical outcome. In this particular case, the Doctrine of Doing & Allowing aided the supreme court in rejecting the claim made by this case as a parallel can be found between a patient requesting assisted suicide through lethal medical treatment and a patient refusing to be put on a medical treatment such as life-support or some other form of treatment that the profession utilizes to prolong the process of death. (Vacco v. Quill, p. 423). J.J. Thomson’s concerns with the Doctrine of Doing & Allowing are quite complicated as he attempts to dig a bit deeper into the revised version that had been altered to incorporate both killing, allowing or letting die, “active euthanasia and passive euthanasia” (Thomson, pg. 500).

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.

She believes that it would be much easier to have a physician do it because they already have all the necessary means of performing the task. The physician could discuss the suicide with a psychologist, a social worker or a clergyman to make sure the patient truly wants the suicide. For now physician assisted suicide still depends on the patients state of health, but a new question arising is whether someone can have assisted suicide if they are just tired of life. If someone is tired of life because they have medical issues, but just not as severe as a terminal illness

Euthanasia: When it come to the topic of euthanasia, most of us will readily agree that it is a debatable topic. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether euthanasia should be given to end suffering. Weather some are convinced that there is better ways to go about pain such as hospice to provide them with more comfort, others maintain the idea that euthanasia should be given because people are free to choose how they want to die to end their suffering. My view is that euthanasia should not be legal because euthanasia is still a form of murder and ill people who are depressed tend to be capricious.