The right to die has raised many legal and ethical issues in the United States. We as a society rely on doctors in time of agony and discomfort because we believe in their healing capabilities. So when doctors deviate from the preservation of life and promote death, it creates an imbalance between what is ethical and what is best for the patient. The general rule of palliative care is to treat and care for patients, but when those patients are in a considerable amount of pain, should they not have the right to a choose their course of treatment? In this great nation, the greatest liberty that we have as humans is to live and die in our own right in accordance with our personal beliefs and free will. Euthanasia is the direct act of the doctor …show more content…
These patients view life as a burden, and are within their rights to ask their physician to assist in dying. However, the ethical issues surrounding physician-assisted suicide are that it completely contradicts what doctors are trained to do, which is to preserve and uphold life. Doctors pledge to first do no harm, which comes from the Hippocratic oath that many medical schools still use today in a more modernized form. “It is understandable, though tragic, that some patients in extreme duress-such as those suffering from a terminal, painful, debilitating illness-may come to decide that death is preferable to life. However, allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide would cause more harm than good. Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks (Opinion 2.211 - Physician-Assisted Suicide 1996).” In 1997, President Bill Clinton passed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act that prohibits the use of federal funds such as Medicare, Medicaid, military and government employee health plans, to assist in any form of suicide or mercy killings and legal assistance for advocacy of suicide. In his statement on signing this act, President Clinton states, “Over the years, I have clearly expressed my
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.
There are many legal and ethical issues when discussing the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The legal issues are those regarding numerous court cases over the past few decades, the debate over how the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution comes into play, and the legalization vs. illegalization of this practice. The 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). PAS in the past has been upheld as illegal due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution, but in recent years this same 14th amendment is also part of the reasoning for legalizing PAS, “nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). The ethical issues surrounding this topic include a patient’s autonomy and dignity and if PAS should be legalized everywhere. This paper is an analysis of the PAS debate and explores these different issues using a specific case that went to the supreme courts called Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al.
The ongoing controversy about Physician assisted suicides is an ongoing battle among physicians, patients and court systems. The question of whether or not individuals have the “right” to choose death over suffering in their final days or hours of life continues to be contested. On one side you have the physicians and the Hippocratic Oath they took to save lives; on the other you have the patients’ right to make life choices, even if that means to choose death to end suffering. The ultimate question “is it ethical for a physician to agree to assisted suicides and is it ethical for a patient to request assisted suicide?
In the medical field, there has always been the question raised, “What is ethical?” There is a growing conflict between two important principles: autonomy and death being considered a medical treatment. Physician assisted suicide is defined as help from a medical professional,
In her paper entitled "Euthanasia," Phillipa Foot notes that euthanasia should be thought of as "inducing or otherwise opting for death for the sake of the one who is to die" (MI, 8). In Moral Matters, Jan Narveson argues, successfully I think, that given moral grounds for suicide, voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable (at least, in principle). Daniel Callahan, on the other hand, in his "When Self-Determination Runs Amok," counters that the traditional pro-(active) euthanasia arguments concerning self-determination, the distinction between killing and allowing to die, and the skepticism about harmful consequences for society, are flawed. I do not think Callahan's reasoning establishes that euthanasia is indeed morally wrong and legally impossible, and I will attempt to show that.
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.
The 1990s and 2000s boomed back and forth with the act as some states such as lost their Right to Die Acts, some kept them and Oregon in 1994 became the first state for physician-assisted suicide, which increased the present law and now known as the Death with Dignity Act. Dr. Jack Kevorkian was a physician in Michigan that was known for assisting patients of terminal and chronical illness end their lives, it has been estimated that he assisted 139 patients end their life from 1990-1998 (The Gale Group INC,. 2005). While he was insistent that he was helping and not harming the patients his medical license was suspended and was jailed multiple times for continuing to assist patients. In 1999 Dr. Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder
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
Diane: A Case of Physician Assisted Suicide. Diane was a patient of Dr. Timothy Quill, who was diagnosed with acute myelomonocytic leukemia. Diane overcame alcoholism and had vaginal cancer in her youth. She had been under his care for a period of 8 years, during which an intimate doctor-patient bond had been established.
Gary Seay (2001) argues that the long held belief that physicians have a duty to only conserve life is unfounded, and in many instances this ideology of conserving life at all costs conflicts with showing a patient compassion in the last days of life. He believes that since modern medicine is now able to alleviate suffering, physician have a duty to this end. In the past, this was secondary because there was not much that the doctor could do for the pain. He concludes his argument by pointing out that physicians have a monopoly on prescription narcotics used in relieving pain, so physicians have a special duty to relieve patients' pain. ?Where no further palliative measures are available to relieve the pain of the dying, where the patient will die soon in any case and desires to make a quick end of it to avoid further suffering, then (providing the patient?s competence is not in question and his condition really is as hopeless as he beli...
In the article “Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted Suicide, and Other Medical Practices Involving the End of Life in the Netherlands, 1990–1995” written by Paul J. van der Maas, M.D., Ph.D., et al in The New England Journal of Medicine, all the research toward assisted suicide and Euthanasia is made known. The purpose of this paper was to have shown the changes in both statistics and percentiles of Euthanasia, and also in physician assisted suicide between the years 1990-1995. Not only does this document include the patients that independently make their own decisions, but also the patients who are unable to make sensible independent decisions due to their illness. The study consisted of about a year’s worth of interviews, about 410 took place in this jurisdiction. In this study, criteria were involved to be eligible. The criteria is to be a working MD in this facility for more than a year. The conclusion of this study, presented that Physician assisted suicide grew between 1990-1995 weather the patient used the prescribed
A one hundred year old man is in a hospital suffering from excruciating pain, that is undeniable to live with. Should he have the right to attain a doctor to end his misery by just a click of a button? As a widening topic of discussion across the world, assisted suicide has been around for ages. Assisted suicide is a popular subject, that can be depicted on multiple types of television network shows. It is a controversial medical and ethical issue mainly based on the question of whether, medical practitioners should be authorized to help patients determine the time and the environment of their death. This practice is usually physician-assisted suicide. The term physician assisted suicide, describes any case,
Issue: Should Physician assisted suicide (PAS) or euthanasia be legalized for patients who suffer from terminal illnesses?
There are many people in this world who feel they have a justifiable reason to end their lives but are not able to do it by themselves for physical, mental, or religious reason. However, there is a procedure called Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) where a doctor prescribes a lethal dose of a medication that kills the patient in the most humane way possible. This procedure differs from others, such as euthanasia —the act if deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering —, because it is the patient who decides when to take the medication and end his life. There are many controversial debates on whether assisted suicide is right or wrong and consequently whether it should be legal. Opponents of this medical procedure, especially those with strong religious believes, maintain that regardless of one’s health condition people should never decide when to end their lives. But this controversy raises a question: who is the owner of an individual’s life? Is it the government? Is it god? Or is it the person who is struggling and therefore it should be this person’s legal right to decide when and how to give up its life? There is many views on this question based ethics, religion ---
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