A Dying Right: When Moral Becomes the Dilemma
Fred is a medical practitioner in Oregon, where physician assisted suicide (PAS) also known as voluntary passive euthanasia is legal, Bertha, a terminally ill patient (who has exhausted all other options) walks into Fred’s office and asks him to help her end her life. There is no doubt in Fred’s mind that Bertha is in excruciating pain as she sits in his office explaining the events leading up to her arrival. Does Fred help Bertha?
When it comes to determining whether physician assisted suicide (PAS) is morally veracious, one must deliberate and subjugate any and all ethical dilemmas set forth. In this essay, monistic deontology, virtue, and ethical altruism (teleological) have been evaluated.
…show more content…
Although, bound by an oath, each physician has different moral perspectives. A doctor of medicine who chooses not to partake in PAS may have religious moral values which he/she may abide by, or he/she may even decipher the Hippocratic Oath an entirely different way. One medical doctor may take the Hippocratic Oath literally, and the other may use it as a guideline. Nevertheless, PAS will continuously be a controversial topic. Fred and other medical practitioners that choose to participate in PAS are definitely not thinking of themselves, they are indeed thinking of the patient and their immediate family. More than likely, these are the practitioners using the oath as a guideline. These physicians are in no way trying to play “GOD” but rather, sympathize and act out of compassion for the terminally ill. Some physicians would say that prescribing lethal amounts of barbiturates to gravely ill patients to facilitate their chosen life ending process is not the same as helping a person commit suicide. They are simply justifying the patient’s right to die with dignity. After all, it is difficult to watch a fatally ill person in great distress suffer and do nothing about …show more content…
Doctors of medicine who willingly participate in PAS are playing with a double edged sword. If they help the deadly ill by prescribing lethal doses of barbiturates, then society may see them as sinners or even murderers. On the other side of that sword, if they do not aid the sick, then they may be seen as not fulfilling their oath and or lack compassion. In regards to PAS, physicians help to bring humans into the world, and aid them throughout their entire lives; it would only seem right that the medical doctor be included in the final stages of one’s life to aid them in the dying
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,
Once physician- assisted suicide (PAS) is legalized, the Oath doctors take would be infringed upon. Allen states “Physician-assisted suicide is viewed as the most controversial types of euthanasia because it violates the Hippocratic Oath” (15). The oath consists of the doctors promising to keep the patients’ health and well-being first and try their best to keep their patients’ lives long and healthy until it is naturally their time to leave the world. (Allen 15). It is obviously a violation of the oath when doctors aid in the death of their patients. They do not help the patients pr...
Braddock, Clarence, and Mark Tonelli. "Physician Aid-in-Dying: Ethical Topic in Medicine." Ethics in Medicine. University of Washington, 2009. Web. 3 March 2015.
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 of 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.
Intro: The Hippocratic Oath clearly states, “I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked [for it], nor will I suggest the way to such counsel.”Steven Miles, a professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School published an article, “The Hippocratic Oath,” expressing that doctors must uphold the standards of the Hippocratic Oath to modern relevance. Euthanasia continues as a controversial policy issue. Providing resourceful information allows us to recognize what is in the best interest for patients and doctors alike. Today, I will convince you that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal. The United States must implement a policy stopping the usage of euthanasia for the terminally ill. I will provide knowledge of
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,
With the growing debate on the legality of physician assisted suicide happening in the United States,it is important for everyone to know the position that are being advocated. Having a full sense of knowledge on the conversation taking place gives people who are interested on this topic the necessary tool to draw their own conclusion on how they should feel on this particular issue. Even if someone is not interested in this topic on a cultural level, they should in a personal sense because it might affect their family or themselves one day. In a way this issue and debate affects everyone because there might be a possibility that we acquire a terminal illness, and when this happen we are either denied the option of PAS or granted that option, depending the status of it.
“Do Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide Violate the Hippocratic Oath?” ProCon.org. Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, 2001. Web. 21 March 2014.
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.
Physicians Assisted suicide is a topic many people are not fully informed about. Physician assisted suicide, or PAS for short is when a physician can legally prescribe medicine for a patient to take in order to medically kill themselves. I believe that PAS should be talked more about in order for more people to understand how bad or grave it can be to a family and to our world.
Physician -assisted suicide has been a conflict in the medical field since pre- Christian eras, and is an issue that has resurfaced in the twentieth century. People today are not aware of what the term physician assisted suicide means, and are opposed to listening to advocates’ perspectives. Individuals need to understand that problems do not go away by not choosing to face them. This paper’s perspective of assisted suicide is that it is an option to respect the dignity of patients, and only those with deathly illness are justified for this method.
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.
People believe physicians should be able to aid in this process because they have valuable knowledge on how the body works, “… knowledge that can be used to kill or to cure” (Callahan 74). This argument contradicts the moral meaning of medicine. Indeed, the word "medical" comes from the Latin word “mederi,” which means "to heal." Medicine is understood to heal, cure, or comfort people, not kill. As a matter of fact, in the International Medical Code of Ethics and the American Nurses Association’s Code of Ethics fully states that the act of euthanasia violates their role and shall not be performed. Just because of the mere fact that physicians have the knowledge and medical equipment to kill does not indicate a physician should be permitted to perform euthanasia. Dan Brock states, “… permitting physicians to perform euthanasia, it is said, would be incompatible with their fundamental moral and professional commitment as healers to care for patients and to protect life” (77). Dan Brock also raises the question, if euthanasia became a common practice that was performed by physicians, would we eventually fear or lose trust in our physicians?