The Patient Self Determination Act (PSDA)

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.

Physician-assisted death is the practice in which a physician provides a mentally competent patient with the means to take his/her own life, usually in the form of prescribing death-dealing medications. It first became legal in the United States in Oregon in 1998. It is now legal in four other states: Washington, California, Montana, and Vermont. In order for one to exercise their right to die this way, the law states that the patient must be at least 18 years old, be mentally competent, be diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months, and must wait at least fifteen days before filling the death-dealing prescriptions. This controversial practice has raised the question of whether or not it is ethical for a physician

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

Similarly, all clinicians need to gain consent from nearly every patient, either verbal or non-verbal, unless in an immediately life-threatening condition. To refuse consent, a patient has to have all information presented to them by the clinician including; the risks they may face, other alternatives to the initial treatment plan and likelihood of success (SCAS, 2016, 5.3). Consent given by a patient under unfair pressure from a friend/family member or clinician, is not considered consent as it is not the patient’s decision. If a valid consent has been given, then a patient is entitled to withdraw their consent at any time. If a patient lacks capacity to give consent, and has no nominated person with Lasting Powers of Attorney, then no one can give consent on their behalf (SCAS, 2016,

To summarize, “a person must be seen as a danger to self or others and hospitalization would be the least restrictive means of treatment” (Oberg). The hospitalization must be for a short time and the principle strongly urges the opinion from a second doctor, although it is not seen as a necessity. Involuntary treatment can only be given when patients are seen to be an impending danger; however “if all efforts were exhausted”, then judges will tend to favor the doctors at giving the patients treatment, especially if the pros of treatment outweigh the cons that may occur (Sederer).

When the health care provider decide that the patient will not improve and there are no brain activities. Since her husband and her father are there, the hospital should listen to them to suspend the life support. But in this case husband want to discontinue the treatment, father want to continue the treatment, doctor does not have hope and they do not know what patient would want. In this situation, this case should be referred to the court. Court should make the decision protecting patient right, understanding their relative feelings, hospital ethical committee with doctors’ advice. It is always possible to apply to a court for an order by the hospital to show cause as to why a specific treatment should not be instituted and Substitute decision-making document is not submitted (Johnson, 2011).

In this paper, I will explain Dennis Plaisted’s argument that physician assisted suicide should not be legalized on the basis of autonomy in the case that the state does not value the lives of the terminally ill if they allow the legislation to be enacted. I argue that his argument is unsound because the government does care about its people and wants to allow the terminally ill to have an alternative to suffering. First, I will explain the basis of physician assisted suicide and summarize a few of Plaisted’s arguments against it. Then, I will argue that his claim is unsound since the state is sympathetic enough to allow an alternative treatment to incurable illnesses, and that Plaisted’s theory fails in that for the legislation to work, they

Oftentimes, grief can be a challenging thing to overcome as a healthcare provider. It not only stymies people from making sound decisions, but it can end up with blame focused in areas where it should not be. This is with particular regard to patient families. In the case of this 72-year-old patient, there are a number of issues in this situation that are both unethical and downright illegal, including the fact that the patient’s living will is not currently being respected.

The argument that arose before the court was a different legal conception of s.7 than that the prevailing Rodriguez case was deciding. Laws relating to principles of over breadth and gross disproportionality had materially advanced since Rodriguez. The matrix of legislative and social facts in this case also contrasted the evidence before the court in Rodriguez. The evidence proved that assisted suicide does not deprive people who are disabled from s. 15 under equal treatment. I think that it understandable that the appeal court has pointed out the flaws in the arguments but we need to keep our eyes on the higher principle that the charter protection against being killed that is the right to life is not a trivial thing an doesn’t

The main purpose of this chapter is to identify the arguments in favour and against assisted dying and to set out a framework of safeguards that would accompany any changes in legislation. This chapter will help show how the concerns regarding the legalisation of assisted dying are outweighed by the arguments in favour of a change in legislation.

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.

The legalization of PAS under the DWDA influences the nursing profession because it gives patients an alternative option to the usual end of life care, also called hospice or palliative care. However, the American Nurses Association (ANA) position statement regarding PAS and euthanasia states that participation in these acts contradicts the Code for Nurses with Interpretive Statements and is discordant with the principles of the nursing profession as a whole (ANA Center for Ethics and Human Rights, 2013). The most similar alternative is palliative sedation, a practice in which high dose narcotics are administered to keep the patient comfortable; however, this may accelerate the patient’s death as the narcotics suppress the central nervous system

It is very clear to most that Grey’s Anatomy is an inaccurate depiction of medicine and the healthcare industry. Though heavily dramatized and ‘doctored’, there have been moments of learning, especially with this ethical issue. In episode 18 of season 6 (Suicide is Painless), Dr. Altman, a cardiothoracic surgeon, is faced with a situation where her patient, Kim Allen, wishes to end her life through physician-assisted suicide. Kim is a newly married patient with stage IV large cell lung cancer that has spread to her lymph nodes and liver. Her only option remaining is palliative care and she has been given 6 months to live and will soon have to be intubated due to breathing difficulties. Kim says it is time, has requested dying with dignity twice and has been viewed as mentally fit. The viewer walks through the plethora of struggles and emotions that Dr. Altman is faced with as she succumbs to a decision, her husband as he accepts his wife’s decision, and Kim as she elects physician-assisted suicide. In this case, and many others worldwide, physician assisted suicide is morally permissible at all ages for anyone with a terminal illness with a prognosis of 6 months. This is supported by act based utilitarianism and the idea of maximizing pleasure and reducing pain and suffering on an individual circumstance. By allowing a terminal patient to die a less painful death, in control of the situation, and with dignity, the patient will have amplified

The Death with Dignity Act has two arguments: those who believe we have the right to choose how and when we die, and those who believe we do not possess that right; that we should not interfere with the natural order of life. Every year, people across America are diagnosed with a terminal illness. For some people there is time: time to hope for a cure, time to fight the disease, time to pray for a miracle. For others however, there is very little or no time. For these patients, their death is rapidly approaching and for the vast majority of them, it will be a slow and agonizing experience. However, there is hope of a peaceful death for these patients that exists in a controversial law being considered by many states throughout the country. It is known as the Death with Dignity Act. This law gives terminally ill patients the option of ending their own life in a painless manner at a time and place of their choosing by

As a registered nurse, I had admitted countless of patient in the hospital I work at. As part of our facility 's admission questioner, we nurses are required to ask our patient or their loved ones (or caregiver) if patient has any Advance Health Care Directive (AHCD) or Provider Orders For Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST). Furthermore, our facility has two different forms, AHCD (authored by our facility) and POLST (authored by Kokua Mau). In reviewing these two forms, it appears that the AHCD is more comprehensive that the POLST. The AHCD covers what is asked on the POLST with additional questioner on pain relief, patient able to appoint an alternate to the designated agent, able to appoint an alternate to the alternate designated agent, patient is able to limit the agents authority by allowing the patient specify the limitations, and allows the patient to donate his/her organs or body upon the patient 's death. However, the POLST has one thing that the AHCD did not have, Section E, Surrogate selected by consensus of interested persons. I think having this section takes away the question who is going to make the decision for the patient in the situation where