Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Problems with euthanasia and assisted suicide
Should euthanasia or physician- assisted suicide be legal
Physician assisted suicide ethical dilemma
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Problems with euthanasia and assisted suicide
A long, ongoing battle in the institutional review boards, ethics committee and in the United states federal court is Physician assisted suicide (PAS) and euthanasia. PAS refers to “a third part action informed by the intended objective (at the very least) to furnish a potential suicide with the lethal means necessary to end his or her bodily life” (Parteson 11). There are victims suffering in silence because of this issue and it calls for immediate action with a federal regulated law. The victims are cancer patients who want to end suffering from their illness and impending death, patients that are brain dead or on life support, and patients that have diseases that cause excruciating pain that ultimately deteriorate the quality of life until it is gone. The other victims are the families that watch their loved ones suffer, or care for the ones on life support for years without being able to aid them in their wish to die. There are also those potential victims that have a chance to fight and live, though in certain cases this fight has been taken away. There is a concern for innocent deaths such as the Jack Kevorkian case, “out of Kevorkian’s first 93 victims, only 27 were determined by autopsy to be terminal, that is, to have less than six months to live” (Olevich 21), that is why strict regulations is critical. The United States Supreme Court has left the decision to legalize and regulate assisted suicide to the states. Washington and Oregon are among the first to take the lead. Although they have taken the initiative, they are lacking fine detail and have left a few holes in the law that could create potential unnecessary deaths. Science is rapidly advancing pushing the boundaries past the national ethics committee, it is time ... ... middle of paper ... ...something people often do not have “Functionally independent persons were unlikely to have a living will (5.5%)” (Hanson, Rodgman) Works Cited Fraser, Sharon I. and Walters, James W. “Death: Whose Decision? Euthanasia and the Terminally Ill.” Journal of Medical Ethics 26.2 Apr. (2000):121-125 Web. 1 May 2012 Hanson, LC and Rodgman E. “The use of living wills at the end of life. A national study.” Archive of Internal Medicine 156.9 May (1996): 1018-22. Web. 6 May 2012 Hudson, Janice. Trauma Junkie: Memoirs of an Emergency Flight Nurse. Firefly Books. New York. 2001, 2010. Print Olevitch, Barbara A. Protecting Psychiatric Patients from the Assisted-Suicide Movement : Insights and Strategies. Greenwood Press. August 2002. Print. Paterson, Craig. Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia : A Natural Law Ethics Approach. Ashgate Publishing Group. May 2008. Print.
The discussion of physician-assisted suicide is frequently focused around the ethical implications. The confusion commonly surfaces from the simple question, what is physician-assisted suicide? Physician-assisted suicide can be defined as a circumstance in which a medical physician provides a lethal dose of medication to a patient with a fatal illness. In this case, the patient has given consent, as well as direction, to the physician to ethically aid in their death (Introduction to Physician-Assisted Suicide: At Issue,
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
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.
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....
Even when regulations are present, they are not always followed. The Oregon Department of Human Services’ Death with Dignity Act (2007) requires a patient be referred to a psychiatrist or psychologist for treatment ...
Imagine, if you can, having altzheimers disease. Sometimes you are completely aware of everything around you, but at other times you can not even remember the names of your spouse or children. One morning, you wake up, and being completely aware, you go to the store, only to find when you get there that you can't remember how to get home. The disease you have will continue to grow worse, and your condition will deteriorate until your mental faculties are so diminished that you will not even be able to remember how to put on your shoes. At this point, with all your abilities either gone or dwindling, you will have lost your independence and be forced to rely completely on others to live your life. Imagine, again, suffering a traumatic accident that has rendered you paralyzed from the chin down and dependent on a respirator to breathe for you. Suddenly, life as you knew it is gone. You can not do anything for yourself, not even so much as breathe for yourself and keep yourself alive. Any and all of your daily maintenance is preformed by someone else. You have no abilities, no...
My claim: I argue in favor of the right to die. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness that is: 1) causing them great pain – the pain they are suffering outweighs their will to live (clarification below) 2) wants to commit suicide, and is of sound mind such that their wanting is reasonable. In this context, “sound mind” means the ability to logically reason and not act on impulses or emotions. 3) the pain cannot be reduced to the level where they no longer want to commit suicide, then they should have the right to commit suicide. It should not be considered wrong for someone to give that person the tools needed to commit suicide.
Newman, E. (1996). Making the final choice: Should physician-assisted suicide be legalized? San Diego, CA: Truth Seeker Co., Inc.
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
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.
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
Kuhse, Helga. “Euthanasia.” A Companion to Ethics. Ed. Peter Singer. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1991. 294-302. Print.
Robert Matz; Daniel P. Sudmasy; Edward D. Pallegrino. "Euthanasia: Morals and Ethics." Archives of Internal Medicine 1999: p1815 Aug. 9, 1999 .
McManaman, Doug. A. “Active Euthanasia Is Never Morally Justified.” Assisted Suicide. Ed. Nol Merino.
Echlin, Echlin. “Doctors and Nurses Should Never Take Part in Euthanasia.” Medical Ethics. Ed. Noel Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Current Controversies. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 18 Feb. 2011.