More handpicked essays just for you.
Physician assisted suicide thesis statement
Physician assisted suicide thesis statement
History speeches of euthanasia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Physicians Assisted Suicide
An Argumentative Essay
Physicians Assisted suicide is a topic many people are not fully informed about. Physician assisted suicide, or PAS for short is when a physician can legally prescribe medicine for a patient to take in order to medically kill themselves. I believe that PAS should be talked more about in order for more people to understand how bad or grave it can be to a family and to our world.
PAS falls underneath the umbrella of euthanasia. ? “Michael Manning, MD, in his 1998 book Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Killing or Caring?, traced the history of the word euthanasia: ‘The term euthanasia...originally meant only 'good death, ' but in modern society it has come to mean a death free of any
They should have a right to their body and die with dignity if they choose. While I do agree that every person should have dignity. The right to death is not really a human right at all. Washington v. Glucksberg in the US Supreme Court Majority Opinion on June 26, 1997:
"The history of the law 's treatment of assisted suicide in this country has been and continues to be one of the rejection of nearly all efforts to permit it. That being the case, our decisions lead us to conclude that the asserted 'right ' to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause."
This just further supports by belief that all of the arguments saying that the need or the right for assistance with death is not and never was a right at
So let’s say this terminally ill patent is already in a vulnerable position whether it is because of family pressures, and/or mental stress from it all. They could also have a medically trained professional swaying them to take their life as well. Physicians are looked up too which makes this scenario seem as though it could happen so easily. Rita Marker, Executive Director, and Kathi Hamlon, Policy Analyst, say that:
"Activists often claim that laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are government mandated suffering. But this claim would be similar to saying that laws against selling contaminated food are government mandated starvation. Laws against euthanasia and assisted suicide are in place to prevent abuse and to protect people from unscrupulous doctors and others. They are not, and never have been, intended to make anyone suffer."
This claim says that the law does not have much to do with suffering and that the law was never and will never be set to make us suffer. If we allow PAS to be legal this is blur the lines of what ethics are. This will make it easier for other forms of euthanasia and mercy killing to be legal. Edmund D. Pelligrino, Professor Emeritus of Medicine and Medical Ethics, says
¨ If I cannot give my consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?- Sue Rodriguez. If one cannot choose when they die and how they go out, then are we really the owner of our life and body? Physician assisted suicide is the practice of providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication for the patient to use with the primary intention of ending his or her own life. When the patient is terminally ill and is in a lot of pain they should be able to end their own life instead of waiting for it to end itself. Even though some argue that physician assisted suicide is not a humane way of dying it still stops the patient´s suffering and gives them peace of mind.
Imagine a family member being extremely ill and suffering from day to day. When they decide they cannot take the pain any more, would you want them to pull through for you or would you fulfill their dying wish and let the doctor pull the plug? Could you even make a decision? Many people would not allow such an event to happen because with all the pain and confusion the patient is enduring may cause confusion and suicidal tendencies. However, there are people who believe otherwise. This is called physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is a controversial topic that causes much debate. Though it is only legal in the three states Oregon, Washington and Montana, there are many people who are for it and think it can be necessary. Even with morals put aside, Physician-assisted suicide should be illegal because it will be a huge violation of the oath every doctor must abide by, there would be no real way to distinguish between people who are suffering and the people who are faking or depressed, and it causes a lot of confusion to people with new diseases or new strands of disease that does not have a clear cure.
Sloss, David. "The Right to Choose How to Die: A Constitutional Analysis of State Laws Prohibiting Physician-Assisted Suicide." Stanford Law Review. 48.4 (1996): 937-973. Web. 2 March 2015.
Another reason a patient may opt to euthanasia is to die with dignity. The patient, fully aware of the state he or she is in, should be able choose to die in all their senses as opposed to through natural course. A patient with an enlarged brain tumor can choose to die respectively, instead of attempting a risky surgery that could leave the patient in a worse condition then before the operation, possibly brain-dead. Or a patient with early signs of Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease may wish to be granted euthanization before their disease progresses and causes detrimental loss of sentimental memories. Ultimately it should be the patient’s choice to undergo a risky surgery or bite the bullet, and laws prohibiting euthanasia should not limit the patient’s options.
Derek Humphry, in Lawful Exit, defines PAS as a physician "providing the means by which a person can take his or her own life." The means, to which he refers, is a toxic substance and the directions for administration, which will produce death. Humphry argues for legal reform in order to make such acts lawful, calling them: "...the ultimate civil liberty, the freedom to select one's own manner of dying without interference from others, but with help if we choose." My academic research on Minerva 2000 produced 0 hits on the topic: US Practice of Physician-Assisted Suicide.
There are several important ethical issues related to euthanasia. One is allowing people who are terminally ill and suffering the right to choose death. Should these people continue to suffer even though they really are ba...
Imagine, if you will, that you have just found out you have a terminal medical condition. Doesn’t matter which one, it’s terminal. Over the 6 months you have to live you experience unmeasurable amounts of pain, and when your free of your pain the medication you’re under renders you in an impaired sense of consciousness. Towards the 4th month, you begin to believe all this suffering is pointless, you are to die anyways, why not with a little dignity. You begin to consider Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). In this essay I will explain the ethical decisions and dilemmas one may face when deciding to accept the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I will also provide factual information pertaining to the subject of PAS and testimony from some that advocate for legalization of PAS. PAS is not to be taken lightly. It is the decision to end one’s life with the aid of a medical physician. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that PAS is “Suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent.” PAS is considered, by our textbook – Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. There are other forms of euthanasia such as non-voluntary, involuntary, and passive. This essay is focusing on PAS, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. PAS is commonly known as “Dying/Death with Dignity.” The most recent publicized case of PAS is the case of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where she lived. At the time California didn’t have Legislative right to allow Brittany the right to commit PAS so she was transported to Oregon where PAS is legal....
Imagine being diagnosed with a disease that is going to kill you, but then you learn that you cannot do anything to avoid the pain it will cause you. The palliative care you will receive will only be able to provide slight comfort. You look at the options and consult with your physician, and decide physician-assisted suicide, or PAS, is what you want. Within the last two decades, the argument regarding physician-assisted suicide has grown. While some believe that death should be "natural", physician-assisted suicide helps the terminally ill maintain their dignity while dying. Physician assisted suicide should be a viable option for those diagnosed with a terminal illness. It provides a permanent relief to the pain and suffering that is involved
Physician-assisted suicide is defined as a physician providing either equipment or medication, or to inform the patient of the most available means, for the purpose of assisting the patient to end his or her own life. The people’s opinion support PAS according to a poll given in 1998. The majority 33% of people agreed that Physician assisted suicide should be made legal in a variety of circumstances, and 32% agreed with making it legal in select cases. (Gallup)
the decision to end their lives often turn to their physicians for advice. However, studies indicate that many physicians are unwilling to provide their assistance in suicide because it conflicts with their ethical beliefs and because it is illegal. The legalization of PAS is a sensitive, yet complicated, topic which is becoming more and more popular with America’s aging population and the terminally ill patients. PAS is a social issue which is here to stay. The legalization of PAS is continually being debated all over the United States and offers a potential for abuse. In 1994, PAS laws of Washington and New York were challenged in federal court and declared unconstitutional. Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized in any state.
Oftentimes when one hears the term Physician Assisted Suicide (hereafter PAS) the words cruel and unethical come to mind. On October 27, 1997 Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, this act would allow terminally ill Oregon residents to end their lives through a voluntary self-administered dose of lethal medications that are prescribed by a physician (Death with Dignity Act) . This has become a vital, medical and social movement. Having a choice should mean that a terminally ill patient is entitled to the choice to pursue PAS. If people have the right to refuse lifesaving treatments, such as chemo and palliative care, then the choice of ending life with PAS should be a choice that is allowed.
The person has waived their right to life by consenting to suicide, there is no fear that would be caused if only those who are terminally ill and consent are killed, and the grief is inevitable anyways as death is imminent. They go on further to make an analogy with starving children [1]. This analogy does not hold, as the reason that assisted suicide is pursued is to relieve suffering, and is unrelated to the “value” that human life has. Finally, they argue that allowing assisted suicide will cause people to be pressured into committing suicide [1].
As patients come closer to the end of their lives, certain organs stop performing as well as they use to. People are unable to do simple tasks like putting on clothes, going to the restroom without assistance, eat on our own, and sometimes even breathe without the help of a machine. Needing to depend on someone for everything suddenly brings feelings of helplessness much like an infant feels. It is easy to see why some patients with terminal illnesses would seek any type of relief from this hardship, even if that relief is suicide. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is where a physician would give a patient an aid in dying. “Assisted suicide is a controversial medical and ethical issue based on the question of whether, in certain situations, Medical practioners should be allowed to help patients actively determine the time and circumstances of their death” (Lee). “Arguments for and against assisted suicide (sometimes called the “right to die” debate) are complicated by the fact that they come from very many different points of view: medical issues, ethical issues, legal issues, religious issues, and social issues all play a part in shaping people’s opinions on the subject” (Lee). Euthanasia should not be legalized because it is considered murder, it goes against physicians’ Hippocratic Oath, violates the Controlled
If physician-assisted suicide is legally permitted yet restricted to the terminally ill adult with full decision-making capacity, it will certainly raise legal concerns about discrimination. PAS will probably broaden to include incompetent, non-consenting, and non–terminally ill persons. The final extreme of the slippery slope argument is that PAS will be abused, run amok and ultimately become involuntary euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.