Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Physician assisted suicide pro and cons in conclusion
Thesis on medically assisted suicide
Thesis on medically assisted suicide
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
What states have law allowing assisted suicide?
How will you find your own belief and opinion about assisted suicide?
What is the history of assisted suicide?
What are the pros and cons of assisted suicide?
History
Advocacy for physician assistance in dying when faced with a terminal illness has a long history, and recently we've seen some great strides forward:
Oregon: In 1994 voters passed this law, and after a series of challenges went into effect in 1997. Legal challenges continued even after Oregon's law went into effect culminating in the 2006 US Supreme Court decision in 2006's Gonzales vs. Oregon.
Washington: In 2008, Washington voters passed their Death with Dignity Act, and effect in 2009.
Montana: In December 2009, Montana's Supreme
…show more content…
Court ruled nothing in the state law prohibited a physician from honoring a terminally ill, mentally competent patient's request by prescribing medication to hasten the patient's death. In 2013, a bill was introduced to the Montana legislature regarding Death with Dignity. Modeled on the existing Death with Dignity laws, it would've codified the Supreme Court ruling and outlined the circumstances when the physician could prescribe the medication. The bill was tabled by the Senate Judiciary Committee, a procedural move to prevent the bill from moving forward. While a standard of care for physician assisted death still needs to be developed, the Senate committee listened to the will of the people and honored individuals' decisions regarding how to live the rest of his or her life when faced with a terminal illness. Vermont: with Governor Peter Shumlin's signature on May 20, 2013, Vermont became the third state to enact a Death with Dignity law—the first in New England and the first to be passed through legislation. The law went into effect immediately. (Death with Dignity National Center, 2014) Current Research, Information and Statistics Medical experts in the United States remain divided in their opinion of whether physician-assisted suicide should be legal, a new poll suggests, indicating that the way in which patients die and the role of palliative care will remain issues of much debate. In the poll conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) among the journal's readers, who are primarily health-care providers, people from 74 countries cast 2,356 votes, including 1,712 votes from U.S. readers. Overall, about 65 percent of votes were against the idea of permitting physician-assisted suicide.
The rate among U.S. voters was similar, with about 67 percent voting against physician-assisted suicide. (Bahar Gholipour, 2013)
The PEW research group did a large study that got statistic data to support or refute assisted suicide. There were many studies and polls performed to look at the different views on assisted suicide.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/11/21/views-on-end-of-life-medical-treatments/
Pros and Cons
Autonomy (independence and the right of self-determination) is certainly valued in modern society and patients do, and should, have the right to accept or reject medical treatment. However, those who favor assisted suicide claim that autonomy extends to the right of a patient to decide when, where, how and why to die
Elimination of suffering: The second pillar of assisted-suicide advocacy is elimination of suffering. During each and every attempt to permit euthanasia and assisted suicide, its advocates stress that ending suffering justifies legalization of the practices. (Marker, 2013)
There are Cons but most of the Cons found relate back to religion and sin vs. non sin, and heaven vs. hell.
But just like everything else, everyone has their own opinion and this is one subject where there will be several
…show more content…
opinions. Varying points of view Although public opinion in the US on physician-assisted suicide is evenly divided, about half of states have either defeated bills to legalize assisted suicide or have passed laws explicitly banning it and only two states have legalized it. "A Disability Perspective on the Issue of Physician-Assisted Suicide," a special issue of Disability and Health Journal, examines the issues related to assisted suicide and disability, the legal considerations and the Oregon and Washington experiences. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091223074701.htm "For people to argue against this choice for sick people really seems evil to me. They are try to mix it up with suicide and that's really unfair, because there's not a single part of me that wants to die. But I am dying.“ -Brittany Maynard, 2014 There are committees who argue the ethics of such decisions Arguments supporting Suffering; The argument from suffering asserts that it is cruel to force a dying patient whose pain cannot be controlled with medication to continue living. It is undeniable that many terminally ill patients die in terrible pain. Autonomy Although suffering is a prominent justification given for legalizing PAS, it is not only or even primarily physical pain that leads patients to request it. According to the Fifth Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: “... patient requests for lethal medications stemmed from multiple concerns related to autonomy and control at the end of life. The three most commonly mentioned end-of-life concerns during 2002 were: loss of autonomy, a decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable, and losing control of bodily functions.” Arguments against Religious arguments; Historically laws against suicide and mercy killing have developed from religious doctrine, for example, the claim that only God has the right to determine when a person will die, or that committing suicide is a blasphemous rejection of God’s gift of life.
Whatever the force of such arguments for believers, these arguments do not justify restricting the liberty of individuals in a secular society.
Physicians as healers; Many physicians regard PAS as violating a fundamental tenet of medicine: to heal and not to harm. Dr Kenneth Stevens, chairman of the department of radiation oncology at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, and an opponent of the Oregon law, says, “I went into medicine to help people. I didn’t go into medicine to give people a prescription for them to die.” (Steinbock, 2005)
Strategies to deal with the issue
There is no real way with dealing with the issue. It is what it is. Rather you agree with it or not it exists and will continue to
exist. The public will continue to have their own opinion without looking at it from the patients point of view and the doctors view. There are other subjects such as abortion that has so many other view points that many doesn’t see. If they was to work in the health care field or be directly related in this patients care their view may change. There is no strategy directly related to this beside putting the criticism to the side and your personal beliefs to the test. What it means to me Nurses in these areas have to work under those doctors that prescribe those medications. We as nurses need to find what WE, ourselves believe about the issue before we agree to be a part of that society. Of course we aren’t the ones writing the prescription but we are the ones that work under the doctors and we are just involved in the patients care. And sometimes nurses are the ones to dispense the drugs to those patients. This subject is almost as close to the subject of abortion. The nurses should find their place and decide what they believe from there. Many nurses think differently than others, but most nurses look at a patients life with quality VS quantity in this type of situation. Conclusion This is a subject that is a very hot topic at this time. There are many pros and cons that most humans will not look at in the patients point of view. This is a personal opinion of belief Assisted suicide in our opinion is personal option in life. No one walks a day in that patient’s life to suffer the pain and hurt that they go through on a daily basis and until then I believe no one should judge this law until they personally have to deal with something like this
Gonzales v. Oregon is a Supreme Court case that took place in 2005, with the verdict and dissenting opinions stated in January of 2006. The case is about the General Attorney’s ruling of a medical practice to be illegal. The Attorney General at the time was John Ashcroft, appointed under President George Bush Jr., who authorized that the usage of lethal doses of medicine on terminally-ill patients to be illegal under the Controlled Substance Act in 1970. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 is a federal United States drug policy which limits the usage of certain medications in a variety of ways. (Oyez, n.d.).
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.
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.
There are many convincing and compelling arguments for and against Physician Assisted Suicide. There are numerous different aspects of this issue including religious, legal and ethical issues. However, for the purpose of this paper, I will examine the ethical concerns on both sides. There are strong pro and con arguments regarding this and I will make a case for both. It is definitely an issue that has been debated for years and will continue to be debated in years to come.
PCCEF. (2001, November 8). Physicians for Compassionate Care Friend of the Court Brief on Oregon v. Ashcroft et al. Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation. Retrieved October 9, 2011, from http://www.pccef.org/articles/
distant cousin of euthanasia, in which a person wishes to commit suicide. feels unable to perform the act alone because of a physical disability or lack of knowledge about the most effective means. An individual who assists a suicide victim in accomplishing that goal may or may not be held responsible for. the death, depending on local laws. There is a distinct difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide. This paper targets euthanasia; pros and cons. not to be assisted in suicide. & nbsp; Thesis Argument That Euthanasia Should Be Accepted & nbsp;
There is great debate in this country and worldwide over whether or not terminally ill patients who are experiencing great suffering should have the right to choose death. A deep divide amongst the American public exists on the issue. It is extremely important to reach an ethical decision on whether or not terminally ill patients have this right to choose death, since many may be needlessly suffering, if an ethical solution exists.
In the end, morals are the only argument surrounding the subject of assisted suicide. There is no real way of determining what is right and what is wrong. It all comes down to your own morals and beliefs regarding human life. Each of us is given our own life and throughout it, we all make our own decisions regarding our wellbeing. We can choose to smoke cigarettes, consume alcohol, speed in cars, and put our lives in danger every day. This is our right as human beings. We chose to live our lives the way we want to live them, why should we not be able to choose how we die?
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.
40 percent of Americans say they would consider committing suicide if they were in severe pain, suffering from an incurable disease. 40 percent of Americans also say they would help a family member, in the same situation, kill them selves. But only 12 percent say they thought of killing them selves. In 1950, fewer than four in ten Americans supported physician-assisted suicide. Today seven in ten support it.
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.
According to West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, between 1990 and 1999, a well-known advocate for physician assisted suicide, Jack Kevorkian helped 130 patients end their lives. He began the debate on assisted suicide by assisting a man with committing suicide on national television. According to Dr. Kevorkian, “The voluntary self-elimination of individual and mortally diseased or crippled lives taken collectively can only enhance the preservation of public health and welfare” (Kevorkian). In other words, Kevor...
"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."
"Assisted Suicide: Finding Common Ground." Lois Snyder, JD; and Authur L. Caplan, PhD. Annals of Internal Medicine. March 21, 2000. v.132, n.6
Should a patient have the right to ask for a physician’s help to end his or her life? This question has raised great controversy for many years. The legalization of physician assisted suicide or active euthanasia is a complex issue and both sides have strong arguments. Supporters of active euthanasia often argue that active euthanasia is a good death, painless, quick, and ultimately is the patient’s choice. While it is understandable, though heart-rending, why a patient that is in severe pain and suffering that is incurable would choose euthanasia, it still does not outweigh the potential negative effects that the legalization of euthanasia may have. Active euthanasia should not be legalized because