More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on physician assisted suicide
Physician assisted suicide introduction to essay
Physician assisted suicide essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Barbara Huttman’s, “A Crime of Compassion” follows Mac, a man with terminal lung cancer, and the choice of Barbara, a nurse, to end the suffering and answer the plea of Mac by not calling in the team to revive him. This controversial choice comes with relentless scrutiny and ridicule by many, but she knew she made the right choice. After reading the piece and many scholarly articles, it can be concluded that people with terminal illnesses do have the right to refuse further treatment or life-saving measures in order to end their suffering. Since a person has the right to live their life as they choose, they should also have the right the right to decline treatment if their terminal illness is deteriorating their quality of life and only prolonging …show more content…
their suffering. A terminally ill person deserves the right to make the decision about ending or sustaining their own life. Some states’ legislature specifically states that having a terminal illness is a requirement to receive assisted suicide. This is due to the fact that a terminal illness does signify that the person will die within a certain period of time. Therefore, the physician would be ending any physical or mental suffering of the patient and their family. It has been proven in court that a person does have a right to die, which does not necessarily legalize physician-assisted suicide. An article in the Harvard Law Review reaffirms this by stating that, “. . . current right-to-die case law establishes a legal right of self- determination for patients that can be interpreted to protect patients' interests in receiving suicide assistance from their physicians” (Harvard Law Review 2024).
This further supports the idea that although court cases have not approved of physician assisted suicide, the right to die is a person’s right. Furthermore, the article continues to explain that the right-to-die law is not the same as physician assisted suicide. The right to die is when a person refuses more life sustaining treatment, while PAS is when a physician is giving the patient a lethal substance in order to end their life. This piece, “A Crime of Compassion” is not a story about Physician Assisted Suicide because there is not lethal injection being administered to the patient. Barbara Huttmann writes, “. . . I kept one finger on the button without pressing it, as a waxen pallor slowly transformed his face from person to empty shell” (Huttman 2). The nurse did not initiate the life saving measures because of Mac’s request to die. Rather, the piece is about a person’s right-to-die and the patient making the decision, although not officially, to refuse life sustaining treatment and the nurse’s compliance with his …show more content…
request. A right to die case has real clout when thought of in terms of pathos and the emotional toll a terminal illness takes.
Terminal illnesses as described in Huttman’s piece not only take the obvious physical toll on the patient, but it absolutely has detrimental effects the mental and emotional strength of the patient and their family. The patient in the story, Mac, continually pleaded with the nurse to let him die as did his wife Maura because of the complete agony and pain that consumed him. The physical description of Mac after being in the hospital with lung cancer is sickening and inhumane to many people. Especially after fifty-two times of being revived, Mac’s emotional state was at the point where he begged every day for death because it would relieve his suffering. There was no cure for Mac’s illness and the treatments he was undergoing were only sustaining his life, not improving the quality of it. It is critical that a person’s emotional along with their physical state play a large role in the decision of a right to die case. This is because living with a terminal illness can greatly deteriorate a person’s mental health. Therefore, Barbara, after hearing Mac’s many pleas for death, decided to not have him resuscitated after he stopped breathing. This choice was reaffirmed by Maura’s statement, “No…don’t let them do this (revive him) to him…for God’s sake…please, no more” (Huttman 2). The right-to-die gave Mac the relief he was desperately looking
for. Many people argue that terminal illness does not constitute the right to die because there is no definite time of death. Since the person does not have an exact time they will die for, many believe that ending a person’s life prematurely, even with a terminal illness, is unethical and unjust. Furthermore, Christians argue that the shortening of any human is morally equal to killing a person. Since Christianity respects and values every human life, the shortening of a life is very much against their beliefs, even for those with a terminal illness. Since Jesus Christ suffered on the cross in his death, then suffering is believed to be part of a Christian’s life. “Those who suffer can find courage in the Cross of Christ and his glorious resurrection, which is the pledge of eternal life for those who believe in him” (Howard 1223). According to this statement, ending the suffering of a patient with the right to die would be un-Christian like because of the suffering Jesus endured. Also, it is saying that by suffering like Jesus did, a person will be granted eternal life in Heaven. Another argument is that “you shall not kill” (Ex 20:13) is the fifth commandment so Physician Assisted Suicide and the right to die would be breaking that commandment. Although the arguments on the basis of Christianity carry some weight, to non-Christians the counter arguments are insubstantial. It is fair to say that suffering is seen as a necessary part of the life of devout Christian since Jesus had the same fate. Also, Christianity is centered around the life of Jesus and trying to live as he did. Therefore, to suffer as Jesus did can be made as a valid claim to why every human life is full of pain of suffering, though it may not be physical. Although the fifth commandment does say that one should not kill and that eternal damnation is the price for it. The opposing argument is still weak because there are many exceptions to the fifth commandment. The technical question for the fifth commandment would be if the lack of life sustaining measures, used in the right to die cases, would also constitute killings someone. A person should not have to endure prolonged suffering just because Jesus did. The suffering of a patient with a terminal illness is too great to describe and the strain, emotional and physical, on the patient and their family is certainly far from Jesus Christ’s intentions. It can be concluded that a “right to die” case allows a person’s immense and drawn out suffering to finally be put to an end and it is not actively killing a person. Therefore, letting a person die by not administering more treatment of life saving measures is not a cruel murder, but rather a beneficial choice for many patients. Barbara Huttman’s piece, “A Crime of Compassion” is not about the senseless killing by a nurse out of pity, but it is the fulfillment of a man’s right to die due to terminal illness and extreme suffering.
The boundaries of right to die with dignity are hard to determine. Keeping the terminal patient comfortable is the purpose of comfort care, however there could be a very thin line between what we consider terminal sedation and euthanasia. In theory, comfort care is quite different from euthanasia. Keeping the patient comfortable and letting the nature take its course is at the core of comfort measures (Gamliel, 2012). Yet, the line between keeping comfortable and facilitating death is often blurry. Euthanasia refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering (Gamliel, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to highlight the ethical issue of keeping comfortable vs. hastening death, and the ethical principles involved. Facilitating or hastening death is considered unethical or even illegal.
The controversial act known as the physician aid-in-dying (PAD) challenges us to question our ethical, religious, and cultural values or beliefs. Although it is tragic and perceived as morally inappropriate, suicide is sometimes the only answer. In certain cases this act is a way to end excruciating pain and suffering. The state of Oregon passed a law known as the Death with Dignity Act in 1994. PAD is defined as “a practice in which a physician provides a competent, terminally ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication, upon the patient's request, which the patient intends to use to end his or their own life” (Braddock, and Tonelli). PAD also raises the question, is it a constitutionally guaranteed right for people to have the power and the medicine to take their own life? PAD, if operating under careful supervision, is an alternative to patients who may have to endure physical, mental, and financial struggles. Doctor Peter Goodwin, a physician from Portland, Oregon campaigned for the Death with Dignity Act, which he called his greatest legacy. Goodwin became a terminally ill patient towards the end of his life. Doctor Goodwin was 83 years old when he took the very medicine that he campaigned so long for. Goodwin was diagnosed with a rare brain disorder, which he had been battling for 6 years prior to PAD.
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
In March of 1998, a woman suffering with cancer became the first person known to die under the law on physician-assisted suicide in the state of Oregon when she took a lethal dose of drugs. This law does not include people who have been on a life support system, nor does it include those who have not voluntarily asked physicians to help them commit suicide. Many people worry that legalizing doctor-assisted suicide is irrational and violates the life-saving tradition of medicine, and it has been argued that the reason why some terminally ill patients yearn to commit suicide is nothing more than depression. Physician Assisted Suicide would lessen the human life or end the suffering and pain of those on the verge of dying; Physician Assisted Suicide needs to be figured out for those in dire need of it or for those fighting against it. The main purpose of this paper is to bring light on the advantages and disadvantages of physician-assisted suicide and to show what principled and moral reasoning there is behind each point.
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
Terminally ill patients deserve the right to have a dignified death. These patients should not be forced to suffer and be in agony their lasting days. The terminally ill should have this choice, because it is the only way to end their excruciating pain. These patients don’t have
My article, “Assisted Suicide: A Right or Wrong” by Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez, discusses the importance of making assisted suicide something to consider when the patient is in pain and does not want to deal with the pain anymore. This article tells the very personal, detailed story of Matthew Donnelly and his time spent before he died. This article was written to open the eyes of people who are against assisted suicide to show them a case where the writers believe it would be acceptable to grant Donnelly’s wish and assisted him in ending his life. The purpose of this text is to be able to persuade the readers to see their point of view and hopefully get them to be for assisted suicide. The authors hope to achieve the well-assisted
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
In today's society, one of the most controversial health-care-related ethical issues is assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. Assisted suicide is not to be confused with ethically justified end-of-life decisions and actions. Nurses have a responsibility to deliver comprehensive and benevol...
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
The approach of physician-assisted suicide respects an individual’s need for personal dignity. It does not force the terminally ill patient to linger hopelessly, and helplessly, often at great cost to their psyche. It drive’s people mad knowing they are going to die in a short period of time, suffering while they wait in a hospital bed.
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.
Anyone can be diagnosed with a terminal illness. It doesn’t matter how healthy you are, who you are, or what you do. Some terminal illnesses you can prevent by avoiding unhealthy habits, eating healthily, exercising regularly and keeping up with vaccinations. However some terminally ill people cannot be helped, their diseases cannot be cured and the only thing possible to help them, besides providing pain relieving medication, is to make them as comfortable as possible while enduring their condition. Many times the pharmaceuticals do not provide the desired pain escape, and cause patients to seek immediate relief in methods such as euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of deliberately ending a life in order to alleviate pain and suffering, but is deemed controversial because many various religions believe that their creators are the only ones that should decide when their life’s journey should reach its end. Euthanasia is performed by medical doctors or physicians and is the administration of a fatal dose of a suitable drug to the patient on his or her express request. Although the majority of American states oppose euthanasia, the practice would result in more good as opposed to harm. The patient who is receiving the euthanizing medication would be able to proactively choose their pursuit of happiness, alleviate themselves from all of the built up pain and suffering, relieve the burden they may feel they are upon their family, and die with dignity, which is the most ethical option for vegetative state and terminally ill patients. Euthanasia should remain an alternative to living a slow and painful life for those who are terminally ill, in a vegetative state or would like to end their life with dignity. In addition, t...
Bob Dent, a terminally ill man from Australia, felt that he deserved to choose when and where he was going to die and wished to die on his own terms. Dent suffered from prostate cancer, and had undergone numerous surgeries throughout his five years of sickness. In 1996, Dent decided it was finally his time to go (Fraser & Walters, 2006, p. 10). Dent asked physician Dr. Philip Nitskche for his assistance. He also wrote a letter to his wife describing why he was making this choice. Bob’s existence was completely dependent upon his wife. He was extremely discontent with his situation, and his wife was suffering due to his constant need of care. Dent had to deal with a recurring hernia, and one of his lungs was partially collapsed. He was bed-ridden from his constant pain. Dent was ready to end the suffering. He plead that this “most compassionate legislation in the world be respected” (p. 7). He wished to end his life the way he wanted: with his dignity intact. Recorded by Fraser and Walters, Bob Dent made the statement (2006):