Citlali Pizarro
Mrs. Haedtler
AP Lang Period 6
28 January 2015
Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Matter of Life and Death
The United States of America is a country whose very foundation is built on the principle of the rights of the individual. As stated in the U.S. Constitution, American citizens have various “natural rights,” arguably the most important of which is the right to life. When a certain policy infringes upon any of these natural rights, it is considered unjust and therefore should not be legal. This idea is critical to an analysis of the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide, commonly known as PAS, is defined as the practice of doctors administering lethal drugs to ill patients with consent to aid
…show more content…
Palliative care is a type of expert medical care designed to improve all aspects of a patient’s life and address all of said patient’s medical, physical, emotional and social needs, among others. It is typically used to help terminally ill and disabled patients, those often more prone to consider PAS. It is specialized to each patient and the kind of specific treatment his or her illness requires, and is designed to help patients live as long as possible and improve their quality of life. David Jeffrey, author of Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Palliative Care Perspective, states, “Over 90% of doctors working within palliative care oppose euthanasia and PAS” (Jeffrey 6). Palliative care doctors are those most exposed to PAS, and who have the most experience in dealing with it. The most informed experts on PAS oppose it, because such an exceptional alternative—palliative care—is available. With recent improvements in palliative care, the legalization of PAS is unnecessary and irrelevant now more than ever. The Annual Summary of The World Health Organization Expert Committee states, “With the development of modern methods of palliative care, legalization of euthanasia is unnecessary. Now that a practical alternative to death in pain exists, there should be concentrated efforts to implement programs of palliative care, rather than yielding to pressure for legal …show more content…
In 1997, the US Supreme Court, “recognized no federal constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide” (Northwestern University). Patients do not have the right to PAS because, as outlined above, it infringes upon the rights of the disabled, doctors, and citizens. PAS threatens the lives of the disabled, and encourages the view that people with terminal illnesses and disabilities should be devalued, because their quality of life is different than that of an abled person. It puts doctors in jeopardy of violating the Hippocratic Oath and compromises their integrity as physicians. Lastly, it threatens trust between patients and doctors, and allows for corruption of health care systems. PAS does far more harm to more groups of people than it does good for any. Furthermore, PAS is not a constitutional
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.
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.
gotten to the point where they feel as if there is no point in living.
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
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.
In current society, legalizing physician assisted suicide is a prevalent argument. In 1997, the Supreme Court recognized no federal constitutional right to physician assisted suicide (Harned 1) , which defines suicide as one receiving help from a physician by means of a lethal dosage (Pearson 1), leaving it up to state legislatures to legalize such practice if desired. Only Oregon and Washington have since legalized physician assisted suicide. People seeking assisted suicide often experience slanted judgments and are generally not mentally healthy. Legalization of this practice would enable people to fall victim to coercion by friends and family to commit suicide. Also, asking for death is unfair to a doctor’s personal dogma. Some argue that society should honor the freedom of one’s choice to take his own life with the assistance of a physician; however, given the reasoning provided, it is in society’s best interest that physician assisted suicide remain illegal. Physician assisted suicide should not be legalized because suicidal people experience distorted judgments resulting in not being mentally equipped to make such a decision, people who feel they are a burden to their family may choose death as a result, and physicians should not have to go against their personal doctrines and promises.
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.
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.
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.
This is the main basis for the ethical and moral questions revolved around Euthanasia and PAS. 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 my belief that all of the arguments say that the need or the right for assistance with death is not and never was a right at all. I also believe the fact that a physician would be making money and profit off of this trade of PAS is kind of sickening.
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.
People with terminal illnesses should have the right to Doctor assisted suicide. Some of the
Thesis Statement: Physician assisted suicide or euthanasia may offer an accelerated and pain relieved alternative to end someone’s suffering, therefore people should not be denied the right to die especially when faced with terminal illnesses.