More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments against physician-assisted suicide
Arguments against physician-assisted suicide
Arguments against physician-assisted suicide
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Arguments against physician-assisted suicide
Thousands of people nationwide suffer with a terminal disease that inevitably will end their life. Many live day by day in unremitting pain with fear, aware that because of their illness they soon will take their last breathe. A sum of these people/patients ask for the choice to avoid death from their disease and instead choose when to go on their own terms and in peace with the help of their physicians before the disease takes them.This choice is called assisted suicide, it is a form of euthanasia, a procedure by which a physician provides the means for death, most often with a prescription or through lethal medication. It is a very controversial topic and many issues arise with it, some including ethical debates, as many who don’t agree …show more content…
It's is a century old debate on a person’s “right to die,” and death with dignity.
Ethics: Nearly in any situation involving a human life and deciding their death, there will be competing ethical ideas about how or if that decision should be made. For example, the view or idea of vitalism, which argues that human life is an absolute value and that it should be maintained whenever possible, no matter the circumstances (Croft 2009). Another thing would be the “Sanctity of Life,” which is largely focused and founded on religious views but that has been interpreted in many modern societies and is believed that a person should never intentionally end their life or that no person should ever intentionally end the life of another person, that is a doctor or physician should not, by request, be able to end the life of a patient (Ahsan 1996). Many who oppose Euthanasia or physician assisted suicide largely argue that “there is no life that is not worth living” and that respect for life is a foundational value of all societies, and having dignity requires that we do not intentionally kill another human being or
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....
Although physician assisted suicide may result in the fulfillment of another’s choice, be considered a compassionate mean to end suffering, or even be considered a right, I believe it is not morally acceptable. In the act of physician assisted suicide, a patient voluntarily requests his or her doctor to assist in providing the means needed for self killing. In most cases of physician assisted suicide, patients who request this type of assistance are terminally ill and mentally competent (i.e. have sufficient understanding of an individual’s own situation and purpose and consequences of any action). Those who have committed the action of physician assisted suicide or condone the act may believe that one has the right to end their own life, the right of autonomy (the right or condition of self governing), the right to a dignified death, believe that others have a duty to minimize suffering, or believe it (physician assisted suicide) to be a compassionate act, or a combination of these things. However, since this act violates the intrinsic value of human life, it is not morally acceptable.
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.
Assisted suicide is a very controversial topic. Some people believe it is morally wrong to end someone’s life, while others think that if someone is terminally ill and suffering, they should be given the option to die on their own terms. The Death with Dignity Act is a non-profit organization that was founded in 1997 in Oregon; soon Washington and Vermont followed after, and now California has passed this law but it still has not went into effect. This is a movement that offers patients the right to die with dignity rather than allowing the illness to kill them slowly, and painfully. More specifically it gives them the freedom to an option. It can be from either physician assisted suicide or euthanasia. Although both words are used interchangeably
The ethical debate regarding euthanasia dates back to ancient Greece and Rome. It was the Hippocratic School (c. 400B.C.) that eliminated the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide from medical practice. Euthanasia in itself raises many ethical dilemmas – such as, is it ethical for a doctor to assist a terminally ill patient in ending his life? Under what circumstances, if any, is euthanasia considered ethically appropriate for a doctor? More so, euthanasia raises the argument of the different ideas that people have about the value of the human experience.
The ethical issues of physician-assisted suicide are both emotional and controversial, as it struggles with the issue of life and death. If you take a moment and imagine how you would choose to live your last day, it is almost guaranteed that it wouldn’t be a day spent lying in a hospital bed, suffering in pain, continuously being pumped with medicine, and living in a strangers’ body. Today we live in a culture that denies the terminally ill the right to maintain control over when and how to end their lives. Physicians-assisted suicide “is the voluntary termination of one's own life by the administration of a lethal substance with the direct or indirect assistance of a physician” (Medical Definition of Physician-Assisted Suicide, 2017). Physician-assisted
“It’s Over, Debbie” an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, written by an anonymous person, sparks a heated debate concerning the nature of euthanasia. The article is written from the perspective of gynecology resident’s. After analyzing the patient’s condition, he gives her a twenty milligram dose of morphine sulfate. This amount of dose is not concerned lethal; however, given the patient’s underweight body and medical condition was enough to kill her. The problem arises in determining whether this was active or passive euthanasia. Due to the ambiguous wording of the article, the answer can vary from reader to reader. For example, the anonymous author describes how the nurse gave the resident hurried details,
I am writing to you today with both the interests of the public, and my own interests, on the topic of Euthanasia becoming legalized in British Columbia. In a 2013 poll conducted by Life Canada the findings were that in British Columbia 63% of Canadians believed that Assisted Suicide be brought into place, and 55% believed that Euthanasia should take action, although some hesitated because of the numbers of non-consensual Euthanasia deaths in Belgium. Having Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide legalized would not only be able to help the terminally ill and physically disabled decide how they wish for their life to end, but the legalization would also save a lot of time, money, and resources in hospitals and palliative care facilities. Although some laws such as section 241 of the Criminal Code would need to be reviewed, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide could potentially end some people’s suffering, and save money and resources for the province.
Merriam-Webster defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” As a globally issues, euthanasia is always in controversial. Swanton,D argued that euthanasia protects the rights of individuals and the freedom of religious expression. Additionally, Sydeny,D outlines europe’s increasing acceptance of euthanasia which may mean that euthanasia is a preferable choice for people. Conversely, Fagerlin, A PhD from University of Michigan Medical School and Carl E. Schneider, JD from University of Michigan Law School suggest the great distortion of living wills if euthanasia is allowed. What is
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
Any discussion that pertains to the topic of euthanasia must first include a clear definition of the key terms and issues. With this in mind, it should be noted that euthanasia includes both what has been called physician-assisted "suicide" and voluntary active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide involves providing lethal medication(s) available to the patient to be used at a time of the patient’s own choosing (Boudreau, p.2, 2014). Indifferently, voluntary active euthanasia involves the physician taking an active role in carrying out the patient’s request, and usually involves intravenous delivery of a lethal substance. Physician-assisted suicide is felt to be easier psychologically for the physician and patient than euthanasia because
Throughout the course of history, death and suffering have been a prominent topic of discussion among people everywhere. Scientists are constantly looking for ways to alleviate and/or cure the pain that comes with the process of dying. Treatments typically focus on pain management and quality of life, and include medication and various types of therapy. When traditional treatments are not able to eliminate pain and suffering or the promise of healing, patients will often consider euthanasia or assisted suicide. Assisted suicide occurs when a person is terminally ill and believes that their life is not worth living anymore. As a result of these thoughts and feelings, a physician or other person is enlisted to “assist” the patient in committing suicide. Typically this is done by administering a lethal overdose of a narcotic, antidepressant or sedative, or by combining drugs to create an adverse reaction and hasten the death of the sick patient. Though many people believe that assisted suicide is a quick and honorable way to end the sufferings of a person with a severe illness, it is, in fact, morally wrong. Assisted suicide is unethical because it takes away the value of a human life, it is murder, and it opens the door for coercion of the elderly and terminally ill to seek an untimely and premature death. Despite the common people’s beliefs, assisted suicide is wrong and shouldn’t be legalized.
People die every twelve seconds, and are born every eight. As human beings, we believe that we should have a say over what happens to us. But when we give ourselves the power over others we can easily start to dictate their lives,and that human flaw starts many debates. Right now, someone is being diagnosed or dying of a terminal illness young people, old people, and even children, however, with today's technology and advancements, patients are given a choice. In some states, hospitals offer assisted suicide, a doctor prescribed type if suicide. But with such drastic and permanent effects the act of assisted suicide is widely and ruthlessly debated. I believe that a person should be allowed to make their own decision
Assisted suicide brings up one of the biggest moral debates currently circulating in America. Physician assisted suicide allows a patient to be informed, including counseling about and prescribing lethal doses of drugs, and allowed to decide, with the help of a doctor, to commit suicide. There are so many questions about assisted suicide and no clear answers. Should assisted suicide be allowed only for the terminally ill, or for everyone? What does it actually mean to assist in a suicide? What will the consequences of legalizing assisted suicide be? What protection will there be to protect innocent people? Is it (morally) right or wrong? Those who are considered “pro-death”, believe that being able to choose how one dies is one’s own right.
As we all know, medical treatment can help save lives. But is there a medical treatment that would actually help end life? Although it's often debated upon, the procedure is still used to help the aid of a patient's death. Usually dubbed as mercy killing, euthanasia is the "practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering" (Encarta). My argument over this topic is that euthanasia should have strict criteria over the use of it. There are different cases of euthanasia that should be looked at and different point of views that should be considered. I will be looking into VE (Voluntary Euthanasia), which involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. These different procedures are as follows: passive or negative euthanasia, which involves not doing something to prevent death or allowing someone to die and active or positive euthanasia which involves taking deliberate action to cause a death. I have reasons to believe that passive or negative euthanasia can be a humane way of end suffering, while active or positive euthanasia is not.